We are now being called bodies with vaginas by one of the top medical journals in the land

[JustcameoutGC]

YANBU the word is woman
YABU shut up VAGINA haver

This will probably get shunted back to the naughty corner. But this is something women need to know. Coming soon to a GP surgery near you. As a vagina haver you may be invited for a cervical smear.

This is what the erasure of women looks like. Splayed on the front cover of the journal read by every medic in the land.

They are trying to be inclusive of women who are trapped in men's bodies, and men who are trapped in women's bodies

You don't really believe that do you?

@MiddlesexGirl

It's fine to not know what gender you fit in if you believe in the concept of gender. But everyone knows what sex they are.

This.

@Maybebaby8
I think it's absolutely bonkers, women are women and men are men. It's a scientific and biological fact. You can't just erase that because there are a percentage of men and women who want to identify as a different sex

Bloody right! 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

@FusionChefGeoff

I wish everyone would go with 'women and transwomen' and 'men and transmen'

Accurate, reality, inclusive

Exactly. What's so wrong with this?

It’s othering apparently. Transwomen are women, they are not a subset of women whereas us pesky vagina havers are either ‘cis’ or just referred to by our bodily functions or orifices.

So, according to medical professionals I am just an orifice? And a body? This speaks volumes to me about the medical profession. I can remember, as a young woman, having to consult my GP, and he seemed very keen to examine my boobs despite the fact that my illness had nothing to do with my boobs. Just more of the same here then?

Anyone thinking it's ok to not use the word 'women' when talking about actual women should ask themselves why??

Who is it that is getting offended or excluded by WOMEN??

Why not ‘women and transgendered people with vaginas’. I think it’s important to be inclusive but removing words like woman is weird.

I want to point here I am very trans positive, I don’t identify particularly as female and were I born in a different generation would like identify as queer and non binary but I feel frustrated at some of the things that are happening currently.

For those that are claiming this isn't the erasure of women in healthcare services, just look at how men are referred to in these settings. They are referred to as men or males, not "people with penises".

This is incredibly unpleasant. It makes me want to puke. Why can’t we just be women? I don’t want to be a faceless body with a vagina, or any of the other nonsense. If it’s about inclusivity fine, women, trans men and non binary. When it comes to our health and support then surely women is what we are.

It’s just all absolutely bonkers. It’s like someone walking down the street with their cat but the owner insisting it’s a dog. You would agree with him, so not to offend, but really you’re like …….. and you’d continue to use the word cat!

People cab try to erase the word woman but people will continue to use it forever more

@Lokdok

Great. If it helps encourage someone to have a smear test, maybe a young person grappling with their gender identity or a trans man, then that's a good thing. I don't mind being called a vagina haver, if that will literally save someone else's life. It's disgusting that this bothers you, and Mumsnet is fast becoming a transphobic cess pool.

Good, I'm glad that people like you consider it a "transphobic cess pool".

I'm proud to be considered a "transphobe" by fools like you.

And guess what, it's my right (enshrined in law) to not have to subscribe to the misguided belief that humans can change sex, any more than I have to subscribe to the belief there's an all seeing God...

They could have just written VAGINAS on the front cover

@WatchWait

Shit, that's it, isn't it *@naunet*?!

If transwomen must be referred to as women, then it needs to be clear that the women being referred to in the article are....well what exactly?
Otherwise transwomen (henceforth to be known as women) might think they need to get cervical screening.

So women-that-are-not-transwomen need to be called something else. Hence the descriptors of their bodies.

Otherwise you get women and c*s women, because transpeople don't like the trans descriptor.

Is that right? Crikey!

The nhs tell trans women in the screening booklet that they do not need a smear.

What type of person who was a man and becomes a woman needs to be told that they don't need cervical screening.

If they really insist, I suppose they'll be given one on their non existent cervix.

FFS!

I buy Tena Ladies and I've just noticed the Ladies has been dropped and it is now just Tena.

I'm emailing the editor of The Lancet. Those of you that have already done so, what have you put in the email? I just want to write Pillock but that probably isn't the right content.

I'll correct my own first line. Of course, they don't become a woman.

AtlasPine
Maybe they are trying to be exclusive of women in men’s bodies?

I don’t like the wording but agree that everyone with a vagina, whatever they identify as, needs to be included in screening programmes

A. You seem to be suggesting there is such a thing as a lady brain? Do you not see how regressive and misogynistic that is? It’s that kind of bullshit that gave men an excuse to not allow us to vote etc.
B. There is no such thing as being born in the wrong body - the “experts”, Mermaids, confirmed this.

@WoozySnoozy

It's a bit off being called a body as well really. But I guess it's a medical thing.

It’s not a ‘medical’ thing. It’s a ‘medical journal editor who is a TRA’ thing.

I can only wonder if they're only talking about humans. Lots of species have vaginas.

@SailYourShips

I'm emailing the editor of The Lancet. Those of you that have already done so, what have you put in the email?

This was my email:

Dear Dr Horton,

I am writing to complain, on the grounds of "discourtesy", about the disgraceful terminology used in the article "Periods on Display".

I especially draw your attention to the following phrase:

"Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected..."

"Bodies with vaginas"? Is that what women have been reduced to now? Just a body with a hole? Not even a person?

Nobody, whether cis or trans, would identify as a "body with a vagina". Your author's clearly failed attempt at inclusivity has alienated and degraded half of the world's population by dehumanising them and reducing them to merely their genitals. This is shameful writing and this piece either needs to be removed, or an apology issued about how demeaning the language is that has been used.

It is deeply ironic that the piece is about menstrual shame, and yet the writer creates new shame in the inability to use the word woman, and instead chooses "menstruators" and "bodies with vaginas".

Nowhere in your journal have I seen men reduced to "bodies with penes", "prostate havers" or "ejaculators". Could you please explain why it is seemingly acceptable to publish a piece with the clear erasure and dehumanisation of women alongside continuing to describe men using the words man/men/male and not merely genital anatomy or function?

I am fully prepared to escalate this issue to the ombudsman if I do not receive a satisfactory response and outcome. The erasure of women is quite simply unacceptable, but in the context of a medical journal is particularly shameful.”

@WatchWait, if we follow you reasoning, then transmen need to be told they don’t need screening for prostate cancer.

However, the Lancet didn’t feel it was necessary to be that careful around the wording because they talked about MEN. Not a word about transmen, who are men right?, who won’t need screening for prostate cancer. And not a word abiut transowmen who will need screening.

So we need a new word yes? Why has the editor of the Lancet not thought appropriate to talk about ‘bodies with a penis’ or better imo ‘bodies with a foreskin’ to talk about men?

Let that sink in.

When we talk about women/female body, it’s about to reduce them to a body. Just a body, not a person or human being.
But if we talk about men/male pay, then saying MEN is ok. They are staying human and encompass transowmen as well ut no transmen, despite the fact they are men….

Can you not see the issue???

If we need a new word to talk about men+ transwomen or women + transmen then let’s invent one. But I refuse to be refuse to a vagina on legs. A bit too close to my liking to the porn view of women = a body with 3 holes….
(Just as btw men are refusing to be reduced to a penis on leg or just a body btw. That why you NEVER see that sort if talk about men!)

MegaGengar

Great letter, thank you for sharing.

It's a bit off being called a body as well really. But I guess it's a medical thing.

So @WoozySnoozy, you are ok if the doctor who is treating you is referring to you as a body rather than a person?
Youve heard that many times when you went to see a HCP. They all referred you as a body?

I don’t think so. It wouod against all guidelines around the respect of the person.

Also if we are now reduced to being a body, shall we talk about black people as bodies with black skin?

So you think that will take?

So 😡😡😡😡 about that

(And yes emailing them today too)