Image 01 Image 03

Indiana U. Medical School Defends Calling Females ‘People With Cervices’ in Linguistic Guide

Indiana U. Medical School Defends Calling Females ‘People With Cervices’ in Linguistic Guide

“People with cervices need to undergo yearly cervical cancer screening”

It’s absolutely insane that we have allowed wokeism to infiltrate the study of medicine.

The Daily Mail reports:

Indiana University’s medical school DEFENDS decision to erase women from linguistic guide and instead refer to them as ‘people with cervices’

The Indiana University School of Medicine is still touting a mandatory first-year ‘Human Structure’ course that instructs students to use gender-inclusive language and avoid words like male and female.

The lessons, also offered last schoolyear, were first laid bare this past March – via a series of controversial, leaked slides from instructors Dr. Jessica Byram and Dr. Valerie O’Loughlin.

Documents obtained this month by conservative website The College Fix show how the same class – with a virtually identical lesson plan – is still being taught, despite a storm of backlash seen during the previous school year.

This year’s lesson, like the last, preaches that sex and gender are both ‘non-binary’, and are instead constructs to be interpreted.

In one slide, aspiring medical professionals are urged to not use words that associate organs with a person’s sex – even the word ‘woman.’

Instead, med students are told to issue directives like ‘People with cervices need to undergo yearly cervical cancer screening,’ as opposed to more traditional instructions that would use the word ‘women’.

Other slides reportedly obtained by Do No Harm and then shared to The Fix show more of the same, with a line from that slide also telling students to instead use ‘inclusive terminology’.

Instead of ‘first-person’ terms that ‘[place] the person before a trait [or] condition’, students are told to use accepted words [focus] on the organs, tissues, and structures themselves… and not as ‘typical’ person of any one sex assigned at birth,’

Another example word mentioned by Byram and O’Loughlin that could be deemed offensive is the word ‘male’ – even when it’s offered in a scientific context.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Charles Martel | November 7, 2023 at 10:48 am

The linguistic gymnastics are amazing.

My proposal –

XX chromosomes (vagina) = Female
XY chromosomes (penis) = Male
(Notice I didn’t say anything about the very small population of people born with intersex genetics.

Use boy, girl, man, woman, non-binary, etc for social gender identity. e.g. a person could be a male woman.

Male & Female for medical reference and the others for social identity.

But let’s stop twisting the genetic and physical reality to match our changing social constructs.

Males (woman or man) need prostate exams
Females (woman or man) need cervical exams (but not if they’ve had it surgically removed)

    What about the (extremely small number of) people who have XY chromosomes but are anatomically female? If chromosomes define sex, rather than merely determining it, then such people would have to be classified as male, which is counterintuitive.

    We must conclude that it is anatomy and only anatomy that defines sex. Genetics merely determine the anatomy, and sometimes that process goes wrong.

Should be illegal. Like encouraging mentally ill person they can fly, giving them paper wings, and pushing them off roof.

Its junk science that can’t be supported, like lobotomies.

The annoying part is having to walk out to the school lobby every evening to chase the cervix workers off their street corner.

Do they believe true Lysenkoism hasn’t been done properly, or view the disastrous results of Lysenkoism as a goal?

Under the circumstances, I approve. There was a push a few years ago for boys to have to take the HPV vaccine. There was no medical reason for them to do so, it’s a disease of the cervical area, but there were various excuses, mainly “equity”. “If girls have to take this shot, boys should have to also.”

At least here, it’s clear. Only get a screening/get a shot/whatever for cervical diseases if you have a cervix. When people stop twisting up the language, perhaps we can go back to the old way.

    Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | November 7, 2023 at 11:27 pm

    My understanding is that men get the virus, it just doesn’t usually cause them cancer. But if they get it they can transmit it to women, who can get cancer from it, so it makes sense that they should be vaccinated.

    Also, it’s not as if the virus doesn’t affect men; in addition to causing undesirable warts, it increases their chance of getting penile cancer (and, depending on their sexual practices, anal and throat cancer). Again, this means it makes sense for them to be vaccinated.

    But what they do not need is cervical screening. Only women have cervices, so only women need that.

      artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | November 8, 2023 at 12:25 am

      The HPV vax was associated with some very clear and bad side effects, documented. It was a real question whether women should get it let alone men. The right way to protect women would be for men to have an HPV test, not necessarily just that vax.

      To clarify my prior comment, I meant that in medical communication, clarity is more important than any kind of style points.

      diver64 in reply to Milhouse. | November 8, 2023 at 4:17 pm

      There are over 150 types of HPV so it should be made clear what people are talking about. In men, some forms can cause penis and anal cancer. Ok, that’s kinda horrifying but it seems men clear most types with no problem which is interesting since one study for a form of HPV in 50% of men tested.
      From what I remember of research as a biology student in college it’s not a pressing problem on men and one of the lesser problems facing sexually active females with proper precautions such as abstaining from promiscuous unprotected sex with multiple partners. The vaccine, however, has little reported side effects so get it if you want.

caseoftheblues | November 7, 2023 at 7:38 pm

Well since it’s all about the feelz now… I feel that those insisting I be referred to in that way are trying to erase me… have no respect for my personhood… are trying to dilute my lived experience, are taking away my identity, are bigots, consider me as less than, make me feel unsafe and are committing violence against me….

Did I forget anything…

    artichoke in reply to caseoftheblues. | November 8, 2023 at 12:27 am

    How dare you culturally appropriate their language?

      caseoftheblues in reply to artichoke. | November 9, 2023 at 5:34 am

      How dare you deny my womanhood and define what my lived experience is, limit it and tell me what expression of it should or shouldn’t be……how very misogynistic colonizing of you…😏( I knew I could get that in somehow)

The too oft used phrase “sex assigned at birth” makes me wonder if the Indiana University Medical school has a class on just how to assign sex at birth. I would be fascinated to know if there is something more than merely observing and recording. If there is not, it seems that this is a potential area for deep research with lots of potential for published papers.

I would also be fascinated to know if the Zoological department and the Veterinarian school have applied the descriptive formula “… with cervices” for mammals instead of using female – after all we would want to be consistent with all mammals. Students who take classes in related disciplines and are taught different terminology for the same classification (e.g. male, female) must suffer tremendous cognitive dissonance – which can’t be good for their mental health or learning. In Zoology if they are taught that all mammals are sexually dimorphic and then attend a medical class where they learn that humans (one of the mammals) actually have 57 varieties of sexes, there must be some nagging feeling that something is not quite right.

    smooth in reply to Arnoldn. | November 9, 2023 at 9:28 am

    Be careful about introducing new ideas. Queers are dressing up in animal costumes. Google search “furry sex”.

    caseoftheblues in reply to Arnoldn. | November 9, 2023 at 4:18 pm

    Assigning sex ….if it went like the whole hat thing from Harry Potter then they wouldn’t believe it was wrong or you could change it