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

[EmbarrassingAdmissions]

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.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4357954-The-lancet-on-periods-bodies-with-vaginas

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.

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

It's unbelievably crass and stupid. End of. So the word 'men' is still allowed but there's something shameful and bad about the word 'woman' that means it (and us) should be erased from the face of the earth? Yep, that's progression right there. Progression right back to the dark ages. Who are the idiots who come out with this stuff?!

@Jaysmith71

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

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

My right arm feels left out and excluded.

From OhDear2200
Pronoun: bodywitharms

Unbelievable. The double standard is so obvious, why oh why can't they see that? Why can't thet the word woman be used? Is what I am so terrible it cannot be described?
Altogether now, the dictionary definition of a woman is....

@OhDear2200

My right arm feels left out and excluded.

From OhDear2200
Pronoun: bodywitharms

And my left arm feels right out.

(I identify as Groucho Marx today.)

Oh yes, sorry forgot. No one is allowed to say adult human female any more, lest they be accused of hate speech.

@Deliriumoftheendless

I think I might have to identify as a trans woman so I can describe myself as a woman

We don’t refer to living people as bodies.

It seems medical advocates do - black birthing bodies and all.

Black birthing bodies need — and deserve — radical solutions, not just sympathy.

Maternal mortality is desperate and the disparities in outcomes are a scandal. I'm awaiting my education on why dehumanisation is the strategy of choice.

www.refinery29.com/en-us/black-maternal-mortality-solutions

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

@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.

@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!

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

@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.

@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?

@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.

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

Briefcase?

@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?