The Lancet calls us “Bodies With Vaginas”

[42SrauvP]

On behalf of all women and girls, I am f*cking livid.

twitter.com/thelancet/status/1441372277786951681?s=21

Be in no doubt, when society removes the words we use to define ourselves they remove the means for us to gather, to push back, to protect ourselves, to fight for our rights, to roar. It’s slow and almost imperceptible and then, BOOM…you have the likes of Ed Davey proclaiming on prime time radio that we can’t exclude men.

I am NOT a Body with a Vagina, I am WOMAN hear me roar.

At this point would women and girls be allowed to hold a vote for one new term to be used for women and girls, sorry bodies with vaginas, all over the world?

It will need to be something that is agreed by the new Ministry for Language for Non Men. So that limits us. But still things are increasingly confusing and I think it would be good if we were allowed.

Some that might be approved that I can think of are-

Cunts
Gash
Dick-holes
Holes
Pussy

Any more suggestions?

@shouldistop

I'd go so far as to say calling women a body with a vagina is hate speech

Completely

[quote shouldistop]@Whatiswrongwithmyknee what contact details did you use? I had a look on their website and couldn't see how to make a complaint. [/quote]
On pqge 1 or 2 of this thread someone helpfully shared the editors email. I think his inbox may be v. Full now!

Me email has bounced back saying connection refused.
Is that due to full inbox or wrong address? I copied the one from earlier in the thread.

Could it possibly be to do with the fact that some people have vaginas but don’t identify with either gender? For example, I don’t identify with either gender but biologically I have a vagina.

Not trying to be sarcastic, I’m genuinely asking.

@discombobulatedonion

Could it possibly be to do with the fact that some people have vaginas but don’t identify with either gender? For example, I don’t identify with either gender but biologically I have a vagina.

Not trying to be sarcastic, I’m genuinely asking.

@discombobulatedonion

Though I think “people with vaginas” would be better than “bodies with vaginas”, for multiple reasons.

discombobulatedonion

And why not women, transmen and female non-binary people?

Why do we ever have to accept being described by body parts or functions?

@Helleofabore

Well firstly, “female non-binary” is hugely contradictive in itself. “People with vaginas” is more inclusive because it includes trans people who do not identify as female but are yet to undergo surgery, for example. Of course I don’t speak for the whole trans community, but that is how I see it and how I feel.

People with vaginas is still dehumanising though, reducing women to sexual function.

@Itsinthetreesitscoming

What would you suggest then?

Thing is the actual article the quote is from is pretty good.

I'm not even sure 'bodies with vaginas' was used to jump through hoops of inclusivity. I think it was making a point about the totally normal physical function of menstruation.

because it includes trans people who do not identify as female but are yet to undergo surgery, for example.

We have been told constantly that trans people are no longer denying the sex class they belong to. They are identifying their gender.

It is rather harmful to not acknowledge your sex, particularly for medical reasons. And surgery does not change someone’s sex.

Are you conflating sex and gender? Or do you believe trans people are denying their sex and the lobby groups representing them are misinformed?

Either way, a solution can be to simply state women, transmen and non-binary people.

Because mentioning ‘people with a vagina’ will also confuse those males with neo-vaginas for which this information is not needed.

[quote discombobulatedonion]@Itsinthetreesitscoming

What would you suggest then?[/quote]
Women.

@discombobulatedonion

Could it possibly be to do with the fact that some people have vaginas but don’t identify with either gender? For example, I don’t identify with either gender but biologically I have a vagina.

Not trying to be sarcastic, I’m genuinely asking.

I suppose so. However, the word woman is not a gender.

@LorenzoVonMatterhorn

Me email has bounced back saying connection refused. Is that due to full inbox or wrong address? I copied the one from earlier in the thread.

Same here

Only women have vaginas, irrespective of gender.

@discombobulatedonion

Could it possibly be to do with the fact that some people have vaginas but don’t identify with either gender? For example, I don’t identify with either gender but biologically I have a vagina.

Not trying to be sarcastic, I’m genuinely asking.

Surely, if for some reason they don't want to use woman, biological female covers that.

It's not a value judgement on you (or anyone) who doesn't identify as a woman. It's a statement of fact.

Women, trans men and born female non binary people ARE all biologically female.

Men, trans women and born male non binary people ARE all biologically male.

Recognising that doesn't stop you identifying how you please. Using the names and pronouns that feel comfortable for you and presenting however the hell you like. Does it?

Women don't need to be boiled down to a collection of body parts and functions so that other people can play pretend. It's just not necessary.

My email bounced back too; I have resent. I'll see what happens.

@discombobulatedonion

Could it possibly be to do with the fact that some people have vaginas but don’t identify with either gender? For example, I don’t identify with either gender but biologically I have a vagina.

Not trying to be sarcastic, I’m genuinely asking.

Then you’re a woman. That is your sex. Your gender is….up to you, I suppose. I would call it a personality. I am not trying to be sarcastic either.

The madness is complete now though. Keir Stammer on Marr this morning said that it was transphobic to say that only women have a cervix and that “it shouldn’t be said”. Clearly Labour have no interest in votes from people in possession of both a cervix and a spine.

Could it possibly be to do with the fact that some people have vaginas but don’t identify with either gender? For example, I don’t identify with either gender but biologically I have a vagina

Do you know what, I don't want to be rude, but I am done with giving even the tiniest fuck about what gender someone identifies with. I literally don't care. I don't care if you don't 'identify with either gender', what the hell has that got to do with me? I don't care what fucking pronouns someone uses, I don't care about being an 'ally' or making sure that I am toeing the line of right-think.

I will not be dehumanised and referred to as a 'body with a vagina' to appease other people's identity.

I just got the bounce back too and checked the website - it’s [email protected], rather then ‘thelancet.com’

I just don't know how this ideology is slipping through. I could identify as a sausage. It still makes me a biological female. It's the same with religion. You believe it. Excellent. Is it ok to force people to agree with you and appease you? No.

It is ok for women to be outraged at this. We are losing language, safety etc which has been hard won and does matter. Not to mention the erasure of gay identities as that's transphobic too.

Biology is not something that can can changed. I feel so sad for people who think it is or wish it was. It isn't. We need to move away from TWAW. TW are TW. Not biological females. Women.

Yes, Passmeamenuatthetottenham, I absolutely agree. Whatever the people with vagina's 'gender identity' is, their sex is female and the noun for humans of the female sex is WOMAN. If people with vagina's who have a 'gender identity' have a problem with that, they need to take it up with their psychiatrist.

Rogue apostrophe