Page 2 | Pronoun declarers: is "bodies with vaginas" OK, too far, just right?

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 2021-09-25T09:37:02+00:00

^The Lancet^ has chosen to replace the word for the sex class of ^women^ with *bodies with vaginas* but still refers to ^men^ rather than ^bodies with penises^ . Do you see this as: – a much needed progression; – something you wholeheartedly support in its entirety; – something that makes you a bit uncomfortable; – in need to correction so that men are scrotum-havers or bodies with penises; – something you facilitated but didn't intend; – an unrelated issue to your choice to use pronouns in your email sigs etc. [[https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4357954-The-lancet-on-periods-bodies-with-vaginas]]

Mascia · 25/09/2021 13:02

„That’s right, it’s totes inclusive of all animals with vaginas which is of course excellent for the progression of human rights #catslivesmatter“

That’s a good point actually - what about the non-human bodies with vaginas?

Mascia · 25/09/2021 12:54

@MarshmallowSwede

A body ..So a corpse? A body with a vagina… a dead woman?

We don’t refer to living people as bodies. The word is woman.

Yes this is dehumanizing and too far. It’s not progression, it’s regressive. If we can’t even say the word woman who is this helping? It’s not helping women at all.

I fully agree with you re: using the word „body“ in this context. I‘ve also been seeing it more and more in reference to People of Colour as „Black and brown bodies“ and I personally find it so awkward and unsuitable - it‘s people we‘re referring to here surely, not bodies?

yourhairiswinterfire · 25/09/2021 12:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Thelnebriati · 25/09/2021 12:46

A themed chat board is not in itself an echo chamber; but its not difficult to see how someone who struggles with definitions can't understand that.

Congressdingo · 25/09/2021 12:45

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

I keep mine in my handbag, although I dont actually have a handbag!

Briefcase?

Id say pocket but as we all know women dont get pockets in their oh so carefully designed clothing.

rosy71 · 25/09/2021 12:45

Referring to "bodies" generally means dead bodies.
People have bodies rather than just being a body.
Referring to "bodies with vaginas" is offensive and dehumanising.

RufustheBadgeringReindeer · 25/09/2021 12:41

@Beamur

I will accept this if and only if, men get the same treatment.

Exactly

Still think its stupid but if ots the new way then so be it

Except its not happening with men so its not fucking inclusive at all!

Its the lying that pisses me off

RufustheBadgeringReindeer · 25/09/2021 12:39

@purplejungle

I know this board is meant to be an echo chamber where we all leave you to your views... but since you asked explicitly, no it doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are so many more issues that are worth actually worrying about.

No it isnt

Where did you get that idea from?

No one wants to be in an echo chamber

nauticant · 25/09/2021 12:38

We don’t refer to living people as bodies

It depends if you're sensible or have lost your senses:

twitter.com/NPWF/status/1308889564681887744

RoastChicory · 25/09/2021 12:34

‘Bodies with vaginas’ is the same as c**ts.

I cannot understand the mindset of any woman who thinks this is OK. Is this really acceptable to describe your daughter or your mum in this way?

Windywuss · 25/09/2021 12:33

I don't understand why some sections of the population are telling us what language we have to call them but don't want others to have the same agency.

SnarkWeek · 25/09/2021 12:32

I hate this, but given the context it is unforgivable. Historically, medicine has treated women as small men with uteruses. There was no investigation into how our complex hormonal system affected our organs and how our differences in physiology affect drug treatments. Female animals were not used for experiments because their hormones would interfere with the results. This leads to adverse healthcare outcomes for women. We are not just ‘bodies with vaginas’, our bodies are different from men and that difference is within every cell, not just the genitals.

This article is apparently about the lack of rigorous investigation into women’s health and yet using this terminology is compounding the problem. I’d have thought it was being used ironically if I didn’t know better

MarshmallowSwede · 25/09/2021 12:29

A few other terms we can use for men:

Salami slapper
Wanker
Sperm producer
Prostate haver

Passmeamenuatthetottenham · 25/09/2021 12:27

@purplejungle

I know this board is meant to be an echo chamber where we all leave you to your views... but since you asked explicitly, no it doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are so many more issues that are worth actually worrying about.

It doesn't bother you that women are referred to as 'bodies with vaginas' in articles about periods and men are referred to as 'men' in articles about prostate cancer?

You are completely fine with that?

Could you expand on that a little please?

Original poster

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 25/09/2021 12:27

I keep mine in my handbag, although I dont actually have a handbag!

Briefcase?

OP posts:

Original poster

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 25/09/2021 12:26

@Beamur

I will accept this if and only if, men get the same treatment.

Medical and science journals have been instructed to include plain language summaries of their articles that are suitable for a lay audience when it is research that is funded by public money. It's past time that they did this for all of their publications. If they were to, what sort of approach is this to meeting the health literacy of the general population of adults?

Medical and science journals are mostly signatories to SAGER guidelines (Sex and Gender Equality in Research) and its obligations. I fail to see how this is an appropriate contribution.

It's almost as if virtue-signalling and strutting misogyny are more important that communicating with the consumers of healthcare.

OP posts:

KimikosNightmare · 25/09/2021 12:23

@purplejungle

I know this board is meant to be an echo chamber where we all leave you to your views... but since you asked explicitly, no it doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are so many more issues that are worth actually worrying about.

This board is often in danger of being an echo chamber.

However I cannot fathom the mindset of anyone who thinks it's ok for the leading medical journal to describe:-

the category of human beings with XY chromosomes who have the likelihood of experiencing prostate cancer as "men" ; and

the category of human beings with XX chromosomes who have the likelihood of suffering menstruation problems as "bodies with vaginas"

Honestly, I'm intrigued- what on earth is going on in your head?

Congressdingo · 25/09/2021 12:22

@purplejungle

I know this board is meant to be an echo chamber where we all leave you to your views... but since you asked explicitly, no it doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are so many more issues that are worth actually worrying about.

And yet was it some famous transwoman who told us not to centre our female biology by wearing pussy hats? Something like that, I forget the actual words, but here we are being "celebrated" for our body parts. Sigh, even when we get it right we are wrong.

Beamur · 25/09/2021 12:17

I will accept this if and only if, men get the same treatment.

Congressdingo · 25/09/2021 12:17

@Jaysmith71

At least it isn't 'people with vaginas' which could be anatomists with a collection in glass jars.

I keep mine in my handbag, although I dont actually have a handbag!

Original poster

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 25/09/2021 12:15

@TheBurmundseyIndustrialEstate

It has a slightly creepy feel to it and I can’t believe that the Lancet saw fit to publish this.

Are only trans women allowed to be called women?

It seems so - as so many FWR posters anticipated, the cuckoo is being valorised for pushing fledgling bodies out of the nest.

OP posts:

Original poster

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 25/09/2021 12:13

This 'Bring your whole self to work,' announce and display various items in your email signature business.

I've been thinking about the sort of information that I'd actually find helpful in my interactions with them.

Is somebody someone who purchases sex services from a trafficked person? A pornhub/[porn site of preference]/sex work on Only Fans user?

Is somebody a person who engages in intimate partner violence or domestic abuse? A known creep to or harasser of colleagues?

Is my correspondent somebody who finds it impossible to control their misogyny/internalised misogyny/misanthropy? Is somebody a bully.

OP posts:

TheBurmundseyIndustrialEstate · 25/09/2021 12:11

It has a slightly creepy feel to it and I can’t believe that the Lancet saw fit to publish this.

Are only trans women allowed to be called women?

334bu · 25/09/2021 11:46

purplejungle
I know this board is meant to be an echo chamber where we all leave you to your views... but since you asked explicitly, no it doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are so many more issues that are worth actually worrying about.

Not wishing to be in an echo chamber here, so can you explain why being described as a body part doesn't bother you?

Original poster

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 25/09/2021 11:34

An enquiry on another thread reminded me of Reacher Gilt - I wonder if 'inclusion' would be an apt replacement for 'synergistically' here.

“You had to admire the way perfectly innocent words were mugged, ravished, stripped of all true meaning and decency, and then sent to walk the gutter for Reacher Gilt, although “synergistically” had probably been a whore from the start.”

― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

OP posts: