Image 01 Image 03

Lancet Journal Apologizes After Referring to Women as ‘Bodies With Vaginas’ in Latest Edition

Lancet Journal Apologizes After Referring to Women as ‘Bodies With Vaginas’ in Latest Edition

“Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected,” the Lancet Journal wrote in a piece on how “the silence, shame, and stigma surrounding menstruation are increasingly being challenged from various cultural domains.”

The left’s war on women continues apace, seemingly with no end in sight. Transgender rights cases keep winding their way through the U.S. court system, school boards force gender identity/pronoun ideology on students and parents alike, and men who identify as women being increasingly welcomed into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, sports leagues, etc.

While it may seem that all hope is lost for those who oppose the movement to rewrite women’s rights as we know them to the point of eradication in the name of “inclusiveness,” they should not despair. Three recent outcries and the responses to them provide small but strategic victories to build upon.

First up is the prestigious British medical journal Lancet, which landed itself in some hot water this week after an article on “the cultural movement against menstrual shame” in their most recent edition referred to women as “bodies with vaginas”:

The silence, shame, and stigma surrounding menstruation are increasingly being challenged from various cultural domains.
Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of endometriosis and the way women’s pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria.

The term also appeared on the cover:

Two of the better responses to Lancet’s description of women included one from a body with a penis:

The backlash was so swift across the pond and here at home that Lancet editor-in-chief Richard Horton issued an apology of sorts in a statement on the controversy. Horton tripped over himself in trying to appear both woke and sensitive to the objections of women to being dehumanized:

The Lancet strives for maximum inclusivity of all people in its vision for advancing health. In this instance, we have conveyed the impression that we have dehumanised and marginalised women. Those who read The Lancet regularly will understand that this would never have been our intention. I apologise to our readers who were offended by the cover quote and the use of those same words in the review. At the same time, I want to emphasise that transgender health is an important dimension of modern health care, but one that remains neglected.

While it was more an “apology” for offending people than an apology for the use of the term itself, it’s a start.

In another case where a “woke” organization found themselves the targets of a fierce backlash, the ACLU was forced to issue their regrets but fell short of an outright apology after running a quote from the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the first anniversary of her death that removed all references to women:

This is the unaltered version of what Ginsburg said during her 1993 Supreme Court confirmation hearings:

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”

Whether or not one believes abortion should be legal, those were her words. The more significant issue was that someone removed women from her quote, which was ironic on so many levels, especially considering the subject matter was directly related to women and that for “feminists,” Ginsburg has long been regarded as a women’s rights icon.

In response to the outcry, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero told the New York Times that he regretted what happened, noting that in the future, “we won’t be altering people’s quotes. It was a mistake among the digital team. Changing quotes is not something we ever did.”

Lastly, we move back to the UK, where the Labour party committed a comedy of errors last week on the “gender identity” front. The male leader of the party, Sir Keir Starmer, scolded MP Rosie Duffield for having the nerve to defend herself after being accused of being “transphobe” for liking a tweet posted by Piers Morgan, who disputed CNN’s characterization of women as “individuals with a cervix.” Here was the tweet in question (which resurfaced last week) and Duffield’s reply. Starmer’s response follows:

When Starmer was asked during a BBC interview if it was “transphobic” to say only women had a cervix, he responded by sticking his foot into his mouth:

“Well, it is something that shouldn’t be said. It is not right. We need to have a mature, respectful debate about trans rights and we need to… bear in mind that the trans community are amongst the most marginalised and abused communities.”

That we have the powerful male leader of a major political party in the UK mansplaining to a rank and file female member of his party as to whether it’s acceptable for her to agree with the statement that only women have a cervix should not be lost on anyone.

Compounding the theater of the absurd was when fellow Labour MP and Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves was questioned on the “transphobic” row. Reeves at first attempted to dodge the discussion, calling it “unhelpful” but LBC host Nick Ferrari would not let her off the hook. Watch as Reeves stammered through the back and forth exchange, with Ferrari continuing to press her for a straight answer.

At a couple of points, she appears visibly agitated at discussing the issue, suggesting that talking about lady parts made her uncomfortable. Eventually, she came around to admitting the inconvenient fact that it was not transphobic to say only women have a cervix. It was, I must admit, one of the most unintentionally hilarious two-minute videos I’ve ever watched:

It seems strange, but these “wokesters” are doing themselves more harm than good with their self-owns, which is good news for those who oppose their movement. Remember, these groups/institutions wouldn’t be reacting like this if the criticisms directed at them were only coming from conservatives. The “progressive” side is pushing back more aggressively on these issues now, too, to a certain extent which is something even a year ago was almost unheard of.

They are accidentally doing women a favor by demonstrating the absolute absurdity of removing references to women, effectively erasing them from view. These should not be considered inconsequential victories. They are strong signals that the tide is changing ever so slowly, which is likely to give those opposed to the radical agendas of “gender identity” fanatics the inspiration to keep on fighting.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


That’s was just a first shot at moving the Overton Window. The left will keep at it tell they get it moved.

In both cases mentioned, the intent was to avoid pointing out that women are different from men.

Avoidance of the truth always involves twisted language and tortured logic.

    Ben Kent in reply to irv. | September 29, 2021 at 5:01 pm

    Progressives believe a MAN’S RIGHT to be a female,
    Is infinitely MORE IMPORTANT than
    A WOMEN’S RIGHT to be a woman.

    I think its time to start calling “progressives” what they are = regressives.

    Note: They say roughly 150,000 men who think they are/might be a woman
    are worth more than 165,000,000 women.

    henrybowman in reply to irv. | September 29, 2021 at 10:11 pm

    Nah. The intent was 100% to avoid being pigpiled by wokesters screaming “WHAT ABOUT TRANSES?”
    But this is just a natural corollary of the “never explain, never apologize” rule: wokesters can fabricate a reason to complain about “not-A” just as loudly as “A” if they want to pigpile you.

I think we can drop “prestigious” when referring to The Lancet from this point forward.

In the past 18 months, they’ve published, at minimum:

1. Daszak’s fictional account regarding the origins of CV.
2. A “study” of HCQ when even a cursory review of the authors of the study would’ve revealed it as junk.
3. An article referring to women as “bodies with vaginas” to placate women with mental illness and their enablers.

Science™️, everyone.

Lancet: let’s de-humanize some people as nothing but a body with a vagina.

P0rn0 industry: yes. We know. And it’s made us very rich.


    They’re socially distancing themselves from the facts and consequences in evidence. That said, the nominally “secular” Pro-Choice religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable asset. Wicked.

The Friendly Grizzly | September 29, 2021 at 3:42 pm

ABC announced a new TV series. It’s about a 19th century ob/gyn bringing his specially to women in small towns of the western territories. “The Vaginian”.


The politically congruent (“=”) term is “front hole”. Separately, there is the back hole… black hole…. black whore h/t NAACP. Sometimes it’s a baby… a fetus for social distance… always a diverse (i.e. colorful) clump of cells.

The Lancet needs an I&D itself.

Still trying to figure out what the hell “period poverty” is…a woman who doesn’t bleed enough? Doesn’t have “enough” periods?


    Diversity, inequity, and exclusion of males who identify as females but lack the requisite attributes to emulate the opposite sex. What it feels like for a man who thinks or is led to believe he’s a woman, I guess.

    henrybowman in reply to nordic_prince. | September 29, 2021 at 10:21 pm

    It’s like measuring “food anxiety” instead of “hunger.”
    “Food anxiety” includes obese people who fear they will run out of Rocky Road before the Safeway opens in the morning.

Transgenderphiliacs (i.e. abnormal pride or obsession with individuals who exhibit or express a state or process of divergence from normal gender: physical and mental sex-correlated attributes) are genderphobic and, not coincidentally, often advocates for the wicked solution a.k.a. planned parent/hood a.k.a. selective/one-child or keep women appointed, available, and taxable under a socially liberal religion (i.e. behavioral protocol) — dreams of the feminist and masculinist, too.

It is 100% accurate to refer to the editors of the Lancet as “bodies without brains”.

Katy L. Stamper | September 29, 2021 at 5:49 pm

The rights that “transsexuals” need is the right to good and improving therapy. Many of them have suffered trauma as a child and have alters or multiple personalities.

EMDR therapy I have been told is a real help (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing). But they need more advancements in the treatment of trauma, PTSD, dissociation of personality, etc. We need more advancements in medicine to help these folks.

In the meantime, I don’t want to hear about “transsexuals’ rights.” They don’t have any other rights than anyone else of their biological sex. Period, end of story. Everything else they are seeking is merely an attempt to foist their mental injuries on the rest of us.

I say “injury” and not “illness,” because most of this is caused by specific events which they experienced: abuse, penetration, neglect, violence, you name it.

I’m not going to be rude to the mentally injured, but nor am I going to reconfigure society to humor them in their individual delusions. Good lord, will some people with multiple personalities who have gone through therapy please explain to the rest of the world what this is really all about.

AND NO, they were NOT born this way. Geezeeeeeee.

    Katy L. Stamper in reply to Katy L. Stamper. | September 29, 2021 at 5:59 pm

    Also, I do want to say, no matter how much therapy a transsexual receives, at this stage of medical knowledge, you cannot unfry, fried wires.

    They will probably always have unusual interests which when expressed will appear odd to the rest of us.

    I don’t blame them, but again, reconfiguring society by humoring the clamor of these folks for all manner of cultural and legal changes just damages society and is not acceptable.

How do you seriously call yourself a medical/science journal and deny that men and women are different?

We need to listen to this again!

If they mean vagina by vagina, they’d be safer going with cervix unless they really mean to include surgical man-to-woman transitions. So far they don’t try to add a cervix in that transition. What would be the point.

    That’s true, a hole is a hole is a hole can be carved through medical corruption, but cannot sustain a baby in transition from a single cell to a fully formed human life.

    Philip in reply to rhhardin. | September 30, 2021 at 1:33 pm

    The point would be that the patient could then claim that they now have cervix-like tissue?

I saw “Bodies with Vaginas” when they opened for “Dickless Torsos” at the Roxy in 1981.

I was listening to NPR do a story on the way home this evening, about ‘persons who are pregnant.’

I was like “Didn’t we have a word for that at one time before the world went nuts?”

Note that they don’t give a dam that they have no proof for their claims on transgenderism and that they don’t care what anyone not on the left thinks.

The Lancet Editor and staff should be referred to as “men and women without brains.”

“…Changing quotes is not something we ever did.”

Horse manure.

As an aside:
If I understand this correctly, Olympic Decathlete Jenner wants to be a female so that Jenner can have intimate relations with “men”? Or does Jenner intend to conduct “self” as a lesbian and continue what Jenner has apparently been doing for several decades, only without Jenner’s twig & berries getting in the way?

Alex deWynter | October 2, 2021 at 3:44 pm

Henceforward I demand to be known as a PoC (Person of Cervix).