Leading British medical journal ripped for calling women ‘bodies with vaginas’

So your "The Lancet has sacrificed science and objectivity in its rush to pander to the trans rights lobby, crudely reducing women to lumps of meat with a sex organ."... is untrue. Since you know agree that it's not the Lancet who sacrificed science and objectivity,... but the researchers themselves. And it's not because of a trans right lobby. It's because of their own ignorance to see women just as umps of meat with a sex organ.

It just went clear over your head. It probably still is. lol

do I dispute this?

 

Well, they were including both transgendered men that have vaginas and transgendered women with their surgically created vaginas, along with the regular women.

 

And also biological women, right? As in ACTUAL women, the only women in existence!

 

No, it's true.

"Since you KNOW agree." And you accuse ME of not understanding English!

Anyway, it IS The Lancet! I'm saying that it WAS the researchers who The Lancet was talking about who were
ignoring women! The Lancet is saying that the researchers have ignored women, or in their words, "bodies with vaginas!"

Which researchers? Researchers from The Lancet?

Yeah and I suppose you also think that calling vaginas "front holes" also had nothing to do with pandering to the trans rights lobby!

Your claim that they are just ignorant is ridiculous! Why the hell do you think misogynistic men from the past weren't calling
women "bodies with vaginas", in a society where women weren't even allowed to vote and had virtually no status?

 

Are we FINALLY done? You missed: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-with-vaginas’.592657/page-4#post-1073018389

 

It is, since you previously answered the question "Well, who the hell do you think did the neglecting, if it wasn't the researchers" with... "It WAS the researchers"

You now show you got no clue what The Lancet is and does.
It's just goes clear over your head and got no clue. lol

 

Yes, it WAS the researchers who The Lancet was talking about who were ignoring women! The Lancet is saying that the researchers have ignored women, or in their words, "bodies with vaginas!"

 

I always thought they were wombed men.

 

I guess that would work for the left too!

 

There you go.
Your idea's that it was the lancet who reduced women to something else, was just you not understanding that the Lancet was accusing the researchers for doing just that.

This took you 1 months to grasp.
No worries... I assume you find a way to attempt to wiggle out of this.
If so, then you show you still do not understand what I wrote in the above.

 

Are you stupid? It was the LANCET'S TWEET! They referred to women as "bodies with vaginas!" Simple!

 

The intent was not to demean women but to describe the subject needing more attention and research. This is more of a socially inappropriate nerd moment, but only because the nerd is too busy studying things that matter rather than others idiotic sensitivities. Persons with vaginas I guess would be better unless we’re talking autopsies, ha.

Describing them that way in this context does not imply they lack something else like intelligence. It’s about ANATOMY FFS! Do we really need to say: Persons who are or could be amazing scientists, artists, mothers, lovers, soldiers, or whatever they want to be, aka cis women, but not to imply others lack these traits. Is that what they need to do? So ****ing stupid

 

And what do you think the 'subject' is?

What "nerd?"

I have no idea what you're talking about, but this seems to be some sort of an attempt at a joke.

What the hell are you talking about? Why the hell would they need to mention any of that? All they needed to say was: Historically, the anatomy and physiology of women have been neglected.

 

But, whether you agree with trans or not, that's a more general term than intended. It isn't meant for those born with androgen insensitivity syndrome who look and identify as a woman, or those born as men who had a surgery and identify as women. So it could have been worded it as "persons born with a vagina" or "those whose organ inventory includes a vagina" or "cis women and trans men before surgery". Anyway, acknowledging the existence of those with gender dysphoria in this way does not need to be interpreted as a slap against women, particularly in the context of talking about anatomy. Referring to somebody's vagina in talking about anatomy is not offensive because it's the subject. If we're talking about something where the vagina isn't relevant, like work performance, then it would rightfully be viewed as sexist.

 

Why not simply: women?

 

I'd just like to point out that the Lancet was a shitty, dishonest publication groveling at the feet of favored political interest groups and causes long before this story came along:

The Lancet retracts large study on hydroxychloroquine (nbcnews.com)

Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines (nih.gov)

Major Flaws With The Lancet Reports On Iraqi Deaths, Part II

 

Weird. We both previously agreed the referral was aimed at the researchers.

 

You happen to post the only a handful charlatans that were able to fool the Lancet listed on wikipedia .... since 1823, while they publish findings every week. And they corrected the wrong even. And because of that, you label it "shitty and dishonest" while a norm by some people is to double down on their wrongs. If you call this shitty and dishonest,... then what label do people get that claim that Donald won the last election?... talking about people who favor political interest groups.

While I fail to see how the Lancet favor some kind of political interest group when they published work of researchers that are just frauds,.. and retracts it. That MMR study from Wakefield ended up to be Wakefield being a total fraud. He deliberately fooled the Lancet to push his fake narrative. Just weird you blame the Lancet, while everybody else points at Wakefield, who lost his medical license over it.

 

It WAS, but how does that mean that the researchers TWEETED it?

 

no buts.

 

It's VERY simple! The researchers did NOT tweet it! The Lancet did!

 

There is no tweet. The reference is there on the cover of the magazine. Even you get it.

 

It's VERY simple! The researchers did NOT write it! The Lancet did!

 

It doesn't change the reference.

 

What reference?