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 few other terms we can use for men:

Salami slapper
Wanker
Sperm producer
Prostate haver

I hate this, but given the context it is unforgivable. Historically, medicine has treated women as small men with uteruses. There was no investigation into how our complex hormonal system affected our organs and how our differences in physiology affect drug treatments. Female animals were not used for experiments because their hormones would interfere with the results. This leads to adverse healthcare outcomes for women. We are not just ‘bodies with vaginas’, our bodies are different from men and that difference is within every cell, not just the genitals.

This article is apparently about the lack of rigorous investigation into women’s health and yet using this terminology is compounding the problem. I’d have thought it was being used ironically if I didn’t know better

I don't understand why some sections of the population are telling us what language we have to call them but don't want others to have the same agency.

‘Bodies with vaginas’ is the same as c**ts.

I cannot understand the mindset of any woman who thinks this is OK. Is this really acceptable to describe your daughter or your mum in this way?

We don’t refer to living people as bodies

It depends if you're sensible or have lost your senses:

twitter.com/NPWF/status/1308889564681887744

@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.

No it isnt

Where did you get that idea from?

No one wants to be in an echo chamber

@Beamur

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

Exactly

Still think its stupid but if ots the new way then so be it

Except its not happening with men so its not fucking inclusive at all!

Its the lying that pisses me off

Referring to "bodies" generally means dead bodies.
People have bodies rather than just being a body.
Referring to "bodies with vaginas" is offensive and dehumanising.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

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

Briefcase?

Id say pocket but as we all know women dont get pockets in their oh so carefully designed clothing.

A themed chat board is not in itself an echo chamber; but its not difficult to see how someone who struggles with definitions can't understand that.

@MarshmallowSwede

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.

I fully agree with you re: using the word „body“ in this context. I‘ve also been seeing it more and more in reference to People of Colour as „Black and brown bodies“ and I personally find it so awkward and unsuitable - it‘s people we‘re referring to here surely, not bodies?

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

That’s a good point actually - what about the non-human bodies with vaginas?

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.

@purplejungle you are so right. I'm much more worried about bodies with vaginas being denied an education or the right to work in Afghanistan, and young bodies with vaginas being kidnapped, raped and genitally mutilated in West Africa, and bodies with vaginas being murdered along with their children in the UK, and all the other terrible things that happen to bodies with vaginas around the world. Bodies with vaginas should be much more concerned about all these bad things happening, which seem to be as a result of the objectification of the biological female body.

Why was I deleted for saying rapists and male paedophiles are respected enough to be called women but we're not?

It's the truth, there's a thread full of proof on this very board

Bodies with vaginas should be much more concerned about all these bad things happening, which seem to be as a result of the objectification of the biological female body.

Are bodies with vaginas in the scope of those covered by human rights?

So why don’t toilet doors also say “Bodies with vaginas” instead of “Women”?
Oh yeah - that would specifically exclude transwomen.
So it’s heads they win, tails we lose.
Dehumanising, demeaning language for us, inclusive language for them.

In that case, will TWAW be replaced with TWAren't bodies with vaginas?

And will men henceforth be know as bodies with penises?

Reduce us all to one specific body part that we either have or don't. Great idea!

We seem to be down to men, boys and Voldemorts. The unspeakables, the ones that others fear to name. I am not participating in a society busy teaching girls that theirs words are shameful and must not be spoken for fear of them distressing..... non voldemorts.... with the fact of their existence.

All I can see at the moment in relation to this issue is Evelyn Judson in her role as Glinda in the Wizard of Oz, brightly inquiring "Are you a good c*t body with a vagina or a bad c*t body with a vagina?"

[quote nauticant]We don’t refer to living people as bodies

It depends if you're sensible or have lost your senses:

twitter.com/NPWF/status/1308889564681887744[/quote]
There's almost no point in trying to explain what is wrong with "black birthing bodies" (although thanks to those who did) as anyone who thought it was ok to use it in the first place is obviously far too stupid or arrogant to understand the explanation.

@zafferana

In that case, will TWAW be replaced with TWAren't bodies with vaginas?

And will men henceforth be know as bodies with penises?

Reduce us all to one specific body part that we either have or don't. Great idea!

I saw a clinician on one thread criticising this but defending the notion that there are women with penises and men with vaginas. I'd have thought he'd be delighted at such reductionism to a body part but, no, it's not sufficiently inclusive.

I'm past caring what he considers the appropriate phrasing to be.

Really disappointed that no one has ever referred to bodies with lancets. Considering how many little pricks feel free to give women such demeaning names. Oh well.

Reduce us all to one specific body part that we either have or don't. Great idea!

I'm quite happy to be called a twat or a cunt if we can call all men knobs, dicks or cocks. I think it's very clear which sex everyone is then.

@Babdoc

So why don’t toilet doors also say “Bodies with vaginas” instead of “Women”? Oh yeah - that would specifically exclude transwomen. So it’s heads they win, tails we lose. Dehumanising, demeaning language for us, inclusive language for them.

Good point. There's no win for women in this assault on language.