Why we need to talk about women's genitalia: some of the content undercuts the author's article

[EmbarrassingHadrosaurus]

In March 2021, a group of gynaecologists and epidemiologists published the results of a study that involved giving surveys to patients in outpatient waiting rooms of a UK hospital. Participants were asked to label the different parts of the vulva in their own words (“peehole” and “bumhole” were accepted for the urethra and anus respectively). Just 46% identified that there are three “holes”, while almost half left the labelling section blank. Only 9% correctly labelled all seven structures.
…
As Stephanie Shoop-Worrall, an epidemiologist at the University of Manchester who was involved in the study says, full consent relies on “being able to have a conversation about exactly what is wrong and what is going to happen to you”. If someone has been “bandied around the system for months and is then handed over to a specialist, they may just agree to whatever that specialist suggests,” she says.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/16/viva-la-vulva-why-we-need-to-talk-about-women-genitalia

I understand that interviewees may well be talking with an eye to avoiding controversy but some of the phrase used by them and the author jarr.

When I posted a tweet asking about people’s knowledge of their vulvas

“People can become quite disconnected from their vulvas and vaginas…"

Many people who are in pain or experiencing difficulties with their vulvas and vaginas…

“It wasn’t until I became a midwife that I was comfortable using ‘vagina’ and ‘vulva’ with birthing people.”

I'll give Dh a mirror to see if he can find his

I thought it started well & then I got “birthing people” and do they really not connect the dots ffs????

Just 46% identified that there are three “holes”, while almost half left the labelling section blank.

It would be interesting to know the sex of the respondents surely.

It carefully uses "patients" all the way through to refer to gyne patients who only belong to one sex. But, conversely says,

"For men, structure and purpose are kind of overlapping.”

Which wouldn't be annoying if it wasn't inconsistent and didn't use "birthing people" and carefully tiptoe around using the word women for patients needing gynecological surgery.

This is an important issue, I have had to go through women's health physiotherapy for a hypertonic pelvic floor and it needs to be talked about more. In my experience women's health physiotherapists are no nonsense and really down to earth lovely women who do an extremely important job. It's so strange that your pelvic floor stores up stress and from personal experience, you can be unaware it is doing this until it is released, which can be brutal.

I did not consent to be part of this ridiculous social experiment and I want to get off.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Just 46% identified that there are three “holes”, while almost half left the labelling section blank.

It would be interesting to know the sex of the respondents surely.

Yes, it would have been helpful if the Guardian author had mentioned it or at least linked to the survey/study.

For anyone who is interested, the paper is Open Access.

El-Hamamsy, D., Parmar, C., Shoop-Worrall, S. et al. Public understanding of female genital anatomy and pelvic organ prolapse (POP); a questionnaire-based pilot study. Int Urogynecol J (2021). doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04727-9

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00192-021-04727-9

This was interesting:

Women can have poor understanding of PFD despite high health literacy scores [17]. Women are also less likely to understand the actual condition of POP than the possible treatments available [12]. It has been suggested that this is because more time is spent, by healthcare professionals, discussing the treatment rather than the condition itself [12] or due to patients’ struggle to grasp certain diagnostic terms [18]. However, it may also be due to poor background understanding of female genital anatomy among the public in general.

In this study we aimed to examine the general public’s knowledge of normal external female genital anatomy and their understanding of pelvic organ prolapse in comparison to their understanding of other general medical or gynaecological conditions. We hypothesised that males may understand less about these topics and thus included them in our study.

Not many men completed/returned the survey.

This is nothing new though is it. So many factors. Eg

Female genitala (Victorians? Before?) have long been seen as more... Vulgar? Crude? Not polite to reference.
When I was growing up down below etc were still used.
On here often threads looking for a 'friendly' name for kids. Often posters using terms like flower etc.

No universal words like willy, balls.

Sometimes suggestions like fanny, even pussy I've seen... I think maybe any words in general circulation get sexualised pretty fast?

There has been way less medical etc research into our bodies around our genitals etc. full stop which doesn't help.

I also think overall there's a strong overlay with sex, porn etc. That prob has effect but not sure how!

Also we are often fobbed off/ expected to get on with it when things aren't right.

The piece talks about ignorance with women around prolapse, not understanding procedures properly.

I suspect they have been told vague info by docs. And with childbirth aftermath there's a very strong get on with it vibe. Info about issues to look out for and how they present might be useful?

I don't think putting it all on women being ignorant is the full picture.

I learned something new. I have seen several posters on MN admit that they thought they urinated from the vagina but I'd no idea at all that anyone thought she urinated from the clitoris.

My school covered conception and that was it. I didn’t even realise I urinated from my urethra; I thought it came from the clitoris.”

For me, this provides some explanation as to why the misinformation about the clitoris and penis being similar structures and having some similar functions has taken such a hold in some schools and is going unchallenged.

I thought it started well & then I got “birthing people” and do they really not connect the dots ffs????

To be honest that might be the Guardian, they've changed wording before to make it "inclusive" when the person's paper referred to women.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I thought it started well & then I got “birthing people” and do they really not connect the dots ffs????

To be honest that might be the Guardian, they've changed wording before to make it "inclusive" when the person's paper referred to women.

"birthing people" is presented as a direct quotation from the midwife. I've seen several egregious edits and sins of omission from the Guardian recently but I'd hope this isn't one of their edit's of a contributor's words (as much as I disagree with the contributor's use of this phrase).

so, women don't know what their genitals are. Yet, we are complicating the language of the parts many of us don't understand by making up new terms like mentsturators?

I read this - it refers to "people" and "they" throughout. I don't think there's one reference to women or she .

I wondered whether the editors had changed it tbh.

I skimmed this article yesterday. Thought it a bit odd that it said the vagina was always talked about in relation to reproduction and never pleasure. I actually think the opposite is true - it's all sexyfun and no childbirth injury, endo, prolapse, etc.