but that was the point that the poster was making.
obviously because male reproductive parts are so visible they get named.
but a small girl, why would she be aware of, or need to be, of an internal organ.
do you also name urethra, and carefully distinguish it from ureter, and then go on to aorta, descending colon, islets of langerhans etc for your toddlers. and test them on the same.
@alexdgr8
That's nonsense and hopefully you know it.
If you sincerely believe that letting little girls know something of their reproductive organs is best avoided, then I am truly horrified.
Small girls are aware of their internal organs as far as they know of them. Tummy or stomach, heart, bones, brain, for instance. When they are aware of poo and ask where it comes from, you can tell them about the intestines, rectum and anus, and the fact that food goes into their mouth, down the esophagus to the stomach, and basically on through the intestines, coming out as poo through the anus, located between their legs, toward the back. No need for the scenic detour to the islets of langerhans, or the bile duct.
As soon as they see a penis and ask why they don't have one, that's the cue to tell them what they have instead, namely vulva, clitoris, vagina, and uterus. There's no need for the full on fallopian tubes, endometrium, and cervix spiel unless you have a particularly attentive child. Girls of 3 and 4 are curious. They ask questions about where babies come from, and they ask about their bodies and the bodies of others. (And yes, to respond to a comment from a PP - they do play with their genitalia, just as little boys do.)
What is so wrong about telling girls the truth?
What is so wrong about calling their body parts parts what they are actually called?
Why are you (and others here) so invested in hiding terminology and even hiding the fact of the existence of certain internal organs from their owners?