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.

I don't even get the point of it being about Bodies. If it's a medical journal then just make it about vaginas.

@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.

YABU mainly for describing The Lancet as being ‘the top medical journal in the land’. I don’t think anyone actually practising medicine reads it!

@TintinIsBack

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)

Don’t be daft, that would impact men, and we can’t have that.

@amijustparanoidorjuststoned

Here we go with the trans bashing again.

Nobody is trying to erase women. They are trying to be inclusive of women who are trapped in men's bodies, and men who are trapped in women's bodies. It is also fine to not know which gender you fit in to and to be non-binary.

There, fixed it for you.

So why haven’t they called men bodies with penises ?

Surely bodies with vaginas include all kinds of mammals, how do we know it means women and not pandas or horses?

@TintinIsBack

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)

There was a fad for a while where activists were saying "black bodies" all the time. I've wondered if this usage for women hasn't in part been influenced by that.

I'm not seeing it as much recently, I don't know if people objected or it just started to sound passe.

@MaxNormal

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

That is a belief system, and should not be conflated with medical reality.

This.

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.

To me, it seems thoughtless to assume that someone with gender dysphoria or otherwise struggling with their gender would be more likely to read an article that focuses on a sexed body part which may be causing them distress. Think of something that really upsets you - would you read an article with that it in the headline?

I cannot imagine when my dysphoria is bad that I wouldn't run a mile from something with this language. I would far rather be put into "female phenotype" (if we're using biology/medical language) which at least covers the whole of me than be labelled by a parts of my body that I can get really insecure and distressed about other people judging me on. My anxious brain reads that as "this is the only part of me that matters to that person". Might as well call me a body with narrow shoulders, really rub in those pain points.

Now, as a pp mentioned, the article has nothing to do with encouraging anyone with a female phenotype to get a smear and it's not meant to save anyone's life. It's discussing an exhibition which goes into the history around the medical and cultural views around menstruation. It's more like you wrote a memoir, and the publisher titled it with an out of context line that gives a warped impression and splashed that all over while the other ones have sensible titles (like the one about men's health needs after COVID).

My dog had her vagina removed- yes her vagina, it was a rare procedure- does that mean she is no longer a bitch?

@MegaGengar

That is a wonderful e mail.

Progressing from the Lancet’s reasoning, for a “body with a vagina” who has reached the menopause and is no longer “reproductively useful” do they become “a hag with a vag”?

@SprayedWithDettol

My dog had her vagina removed- yes her vagina, it was a rare procedure- does that mean she is no longer a bitch?

Im guessing once the vagina has been removed, there is literally no point to a vagina haver existing, so they’re probably not even worthy of acknowledging. I think that’s how “inclusion” works now.

@FusionChefGeoff

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

Accurate, reality, inclusive

Exactly this. I will accept a trans woman as a woman, in the sense that I will call her she / her and view her as a woman going forward. However, I will not regard her as a biological female simply because she isn’t one. She has transitioned from a male to be one. Otherwise, she wouldn’t be transitioning, would she? Not sure which part of this certain trans activists seem to have difficulty with. I’m open-minded enough to date of marry a trans person, if I were single. I resent the accusation that I’m a narrow-minded TERF for my understanding that biological women need smears and trans women do not because they do not have inner female biology.

[quote MegaGengar]@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.”[/quote]
Thank you so much @MegaGengar.

Much better than Pillock, which is all I could think of writing!

BiBabbles thank you for your insight , it has always struck me as illogical to use female body parts as descriptors of the female person as they would surely be a trigger for a trans person.

334bu You're welcome. I'm not sure how body-part based descriptors gained popularity, it's a bit confusing to me. While I've seen some promote it online, I see it far more from "allies" and I don't know any trans or otherwise dysphoric people like me who use this around me.

Nobody is trying to erase women. They are trying to be inclusive of women who are trapped in men's bodies, and men who are trapped in women's bodies. It is also fine to not know which gender you fit in to and to be non-binary.

Here is the paragraph the quote used on the cover comes from:

Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of endometriosis and the way women's pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria. This exhibition and the Vagina Museum as a whole aim to redress this lack of attention.

Does that sound like it's trying to be inclusive of trans people, or does it sound like it's purposefully connecting 'bodies with...' as part of medical neglect and the dehumanization of women? I'm reading the latter, especially as she never uses that phrase elsewhere in the piece, though I have my biases there in already seeing it as a negative.

Really, if the Lancet had marketed this better with the tweet around it having given more context, it would have been less of a drama to use that quote on the cover (which may have been the editor's point) - but no, now we have people trying to claim this language is inclusive and medical terminology across various social media sites.

YANBU

I’m a woman, and I have enough of this misogynistic bullshit



Did that work? I can't see it, but then I often see people saying that and double posting 😄.

Anyway, this is unbelievable, and from the bloody Lancet too.

The irony involved in “Historically the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas has been neglected” is so much that I can’t even manage to make a coherent sentence about it.

Ooooh - yes I can.

“Maybe that’s because you don’t see women as people!”

I totally respect transwomen and trans men and agree why can't we say women and transwomen, etc. Why does showing respect, quite rightly for one group, have to lead to the disrespect of another i.e. women. Surely the whole point is that we are all equal and recognised and should all be treated with the same respect. But I guess I'm just stupid. I would never wish to offend or make anyone feel less.

Why does showing respect, quite rightly for one group, have to lead to the disrespect of another i.e. women.

A constantly asked question. And a good one.

Because women’s need for respect comes always after men’s needs for basically anything.

Why does showing respect, quite rightly for one group, have to lead to the disrespect of another i.e. women

Because they don’t want to share womanhood with us, they want it to be theirs to own.

It's disgusting isn't it? Reducing us to a nothing, really. Just a body. With a vagina.