3 ms·

>> "As an extreme example, that front page in the Lancet that referred to woman as "bodies with vaginas"." I haven't read this exact article, but I can near 10

by Kye 5y ago

>> "As an extreme example, that front page in the Lancet that referred to woman as "bodies with vaginas"." I haven't read this exact article, but I can near 100% guarantee they were actually trying to be inclusive of trans men, AFAB nonbinary people, and people who have had bottom surgery to flip their bit (not all are women), not refer to women specifically. There are common medical issues that affect all of them and it does no one any good to pretend like cis women are the only people worth including.

istinetz 5y ago
Pretty much exactly my point, dunno why you're lecturing me. You can say "women". Or you can say the uglier, less clear, less concise "bodies with vaginas", which is more inclusive.
- Kye 5y ago
  I can't understand why you want a medical journal to use imprecise language that excludes a growing number of patients. Even doctors who don't have a problem with trans people don't realize many trans people deal with the same stuff women do and need the same treatments. Too many friends have been turned away from (or laughed out of) doctor's offices because people making arguments like the one you make here keep the practice, and the insurance they have to obey, from being able to think about and change policies to be more inclusive. You picked this example, not me. This is the worst possible example for your point because the lack of precision you argue for gets people killed.
  - istinetz 5y ago
    >lack of precision you argue for gets people killed. Does it? Does it really? Does a single doctor that reads the Lancet not understand what a woman is? One (1) single doctor? How does that work, exactly? Does that hypothetical doctor read the lancet, sees "woman" on the cover, and think to himself, "wow, that sure applies to my patient with a penis and disphoria", and then goes on to prescribe a drug that is deadly to men and not women?

by Kye 5y ago

istinetz 5y ago

Pretty much exactly my point, dunno why you're lecturing me. You can say "women". Or you can say the uglier, less clear, less concise "bodies with vaginas", which is more inclusive.

Kye 5y ago
I can't understand why you want a medical journal to use imprecise language that excludes a growing number of patients. Even doctors who don't have a problem with trans people don't realize many trans people deal with the same stuff women do and need the same treatments. Too many friends have been turned away from (or laughed out of) doctor's offices because people making arguments like the one you make here keep the practice, and the insurance they have to obey, from being able to think about and change policies to be more inclusive. You picked this example, not me. This is the worst possible example for your point because the lack of precision you argue for gets people killed.
- istinetz 5y ago
  >lack of precision you argue for gets people killed. Does it? Does it really? Does a single doctor that reads the Lancet not understand what a woman is? One (1) single doctor? How does that work, exactly? Does that hypothetical doctor read the lancet, sees "woman" on the cover, and think to himself, "wow, that sure applies to my patient with a penis and disphoria", and then goes on to prescribe a drug that is deadly to men and not women?