Talk:The Lancet

Expand history section?

This was touched upon by PamD six years ago on this talk page on the need of a history section. While one has been added, it is very brief at only four short sentences, especially compared to the much lengthier sections on speciality journals, political controversies, and scientific controversies. Given that plenty of information on several landmark papers and historical details from peer-reviewed sources are available in TWL, IMO overall it would be due to expand the history section. Therefore, I have added a expand section tag. However, if anyone objects to my tag please discuss here. VickKiang (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Bodies with vaginas"

@Mlejmle: your edit to the "Bodies with vaginas" controversy section does not reflect the wording used by the sources, which say that "bodies with vaginas" was intended to refer to women:

• The Telegraph: The Lancet medical journal has been accused of sexism after describing women as “bodies with vaginas” on the cover of its latest edition.
• The Sydney Morning Herald: It’s difficult to imagine The Bee Gees would have scored a hit by declaring the object of their collective affection was “more than a body with a vagina to me”. But that’s how the esteemed British medical journal The Lancet chose to describe women on the cover of its latest issue – and it’s gone down like a tonne of bricks. and It is clear that in Davis’ formulation, “bodies with vaginas” is a substitute for “women”, and in the context of an essay in a medical journal it doesn’t seem especially problematic.
• The New York Times: Last year, the editor of The Lancet, a British medical journal, apologized for a cover that referred to “bodies with vaginas” rather than women.
• Frontiers in Global Women's Health: On 24 September 2021, The Lancet medical journal highlighted an article on its cover with a single sentence in large text; “Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected.” This statement, in which the word “women” was replaced with the phrase “bodies with vaginas,” is part of a trend to remove sexed terms such as “women” and “mothers” from discussions of female reproduction.
• UCL: The Lancet described women's bodies as “bodies with vaginas” on the front page of its latest issue, which caused outrage as an “absolutely inexcusable language to refer to women and girls,” says Professor David Curtis (UCL Biosciences).

I have reverted your edit, but feel free to present other sources that you feel support your wording. Astaire (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Astaire. I modified the wording here to reflect that these sources identify the intent behind the review's choice of language to be transgender inclusion, which suggests that the intended referent of the phrase includes people not always considered women.

The New York Times: "Driven by allies and activists for transgender people, medical, government and progressive organizations have adopted gender-neutral language that draws few distinctions between women and transgender men, as well as those who reject those identities altogether."

The Sydney Morning Herald: "The phrasing chosen by The Lancet was likely intended to encompass trans men too – those assigned female at birth." (It was from this that I took directly the claim that the phrase referred also to transgender men).

Although it is not included as a citation to this section (perhaps it should be), the most direct evidence is in an author's reply to the controversy: "[The phrase] also allowed space for the Vagina Museum's central focus not to be exclusively on women, since other people, including some trans and non-binary people, also have vaginas." Mlejmle (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mlejmle - thanks for your reply, I had overlooked that sentence from the SMH article.

Since the SMH quote involves speculation ("likely"), I don't think it's enough to justify writing "women and transgender men" in wikivoice. However I think we could add a sentence like "According to the SMH, the phrasing was likely intended to encompass trans men too" which would help add context. Good find with the author's reply as well, I agree it should be included. Let me know if you plan to make these changes, or I can add them as well. Astaire (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I added the Sydney Morning Herald info, @Astaire, @Mlejmle. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)