Renaming anatomical structures
There was a push from a group of doctors to rename parts of women’s anatomy in Australia. The movement to end the use of eponyms was reported starting in 2020. Eponyms refer to parts of the body named after the anatomists who described them. Dr. Kristin Small commented it was best for medical students to stop using these terms. Science constantly changes and anatomy is no different. More is being learned about the human body and biomedical science. The issue here is that the movement to rename is based around some misguided fourth wave feminist ideology or for the sake of political correctness. Sadly, science is not even safe from the culture war. Evolution was a primary target and now its spreading to other scientific fields. Just because a body part is named after a man does not make it sexist . The irony about this debate is such parts were named after women no dispute would exist. Making anatomy gender neutral does not work simply on the basis of sexual dimorphism and sex differences. The wonderful aspect about science is it is true whether it agrees with your ideology or not. Alternative names do exist, male anatomists should not be vilified, and language is not going to fix issues with the study of anatomy.
The complaint is that the majority of eponyms are named after men. The reason for this is that throughout history it was mostly men who were active in anatomy. Women were not given an opportunities for medical careers. Discrimination based on sex obviously is misogynistic, but lack of representation in names is not. A total of 700 eponyms exist and women do not have representation in classification. If there was such a concern, what about the number of female doctors, surgeons, and nurses that are working ? The number of women in the workforce seems to be a more pressing matter than anatomical terms. Alternative names are used for anatomical structures . The Adam’s apple is actually the laryngeal prominence. Clara cells are bronchiolar exocrine cells. The Achilles tendon’s other name calcaneal tendon. The uterine tubes (Fallopian tubes) and rectouterine pouch (pouch of Douglass) are other terms that appear in textbooks. Greater vestibular glands( Bartholin’s glands) , pharygotympaic tube (Eustachian tube ) , The cerebral aqueduct ( aqueduct of Sylvius) and renal fascia (Gerota’s fascia) are terms used by doctors.
The renaming of anatomical structures advocates claim is because terms are dated or have anti-woman overtones.
What can be noted is that naming a part after men somewhat makes it sexist. Going on that logic women naming parts on a man would be misandry. The only justification for renaming the medical procedure of hysterectomy is because it has basis in pseudoscience and actual sex bias. Hysteria was a term used for a condition that afflicted women in mental distress. Hysteria was not real, rather these women were most likely suffering from anxiety, depression, or intense stress. Medical professionals erroneously believed that removing the uterus would cure their mental health conditions. No organ in woman’s body is called hysteria, so uterectomy is the scientifically correct term for the operation. The objection to naming body parts after men, mythological characters, or kings just is misplaced. Dr. Small speaks of decolonizing language, but the fact her very residence in Australia is an egregious legacy of imperialism. This is more about an agenda to either erase male anatomists for the sake of being more inclusive to women . Names of the planets in the Solar System would have to be renamed to fit modern sensibilities . At some stage, this becomes more comedic than serious academic debate.
Educational instruction might also be a culprit here. The reason some of the terminology might not fall out of use relates to the general public’s understanding of anatomy. Children get exposure to the subject either through biology or life sciences courses. Specific classes related to the topic are not given until they reach their tertiary education. Then anatomy is regulated to those studying medicine or surgery. The layman has an easier time using the eponym than the scientific term. What that shows is more in the medical profession need to publish works for the general public. Carl Sagan popularized astronomy for the general public and there is no reason this cannot be done with the anatomical sciences. The need for scientific literacy becomes more essential with rapid technological advancements. Knowing the human body is essential to maintaining good health.
Few People might be able to name all the structures of the brain. Laryngeal prominence is not commonly used in the lexicon
Most people who are not in the medical profession would probably struggle to name various organs and what they do. The human body contains up to 78 organs and 11 organ systems. Trying to police language related to terminology will not help. Producing popular science books related to anatomy, teaching it in schools, and public promotion of the scientific field will help. Relevant to women, there needs to be a greater understanding about women’s anatomy. Often myths and old wives tales constitute the average person’s understanding of the female body.
Applying gender neutrality to anatomy does not work. Sexual dimorphism and sex differences have a biological basis. Renaming a part is not going to make sexual dimorphism disappear. Men and women have bodies that are distinguishable from one another. The course of human evolution made the body what it is today. Inevitably, this comes to debates over nature versus nature and the nature sex. Biological sex emerged from evolution and gender is the result of culture. Over recent years debates have questioned fluidity, pronoun use, and sexual identity. The problem is in this quest to state that men and women are the same, backfires. Sameness does not mean equality or an improved status of women.
All organs should be renamed under this reasoning. Names can be changed, but that is not going to make anatomy gender neutral.
Ignoring scientific fact for the sake of inclusivity is just as awful as promoting pseudoscience. Controlling speech and stifle debate. Removing the name from an organ or surgical tool is not fighting patriarchy. It becomes woke spectacle. None of the advocates for name changes would even think of removing a woman’s name from an organ or surgical tool. The counter argument is that men have no right to name parts of women’s bodies, because it implies ownership of them. Naming something after a discoverer should not be considered oppressive. The alternative terminology existed prior to expression of these statements. Dr. Nisha Khot said that one day eponyms will become obsolete in the medical profession. This has happened, because as mentioned before the alternative terminology existed. This is more about a complaint about nothing, rather than a serious issue. If the doctors were so adamant about renaming, students would not be allowed to use eponyms on their exams. Dr. Kristin Small lets her students do this. Gender neutrality is not compatible with science.
Although renaming or abandoning terms might seem ludicrous, there are problems related to the study of female anatomy. Most diagrams and visuals depict male as default. Textbooks have not caught up in terms of representation. Only when the reproductive is mentioned women are shown. A noticeable difference is that rarely does one see a female muscular system chart shown in anatomical textbooks. The argument is that men and women have the same muscles, so providing another image would be unnecessary. The problem is that a person being introduced might think that women do not have muscles at all. The skeleton also requires a female depiction in visuals.
The chart above actually depicts a woman featuring the muscular system. The skeletal system tends to show a male skeleton as default.
Shoulder width , pelvis size , and quadriceps angles differ in the female body. Knowing these differences in musculoskeletal structure are essential to health science and medicine. Body composition also explains outcomes related to such diseases osteoporosis or sarcopenia. What also remains is a large misunderstanding about the female reproductive system. That becomes a major concern regarding gynecology and obstetrics. Matters are even more pressing when it comes to healthcare, reproductive rights, or side effects to certain medications that are sex based. The female body was depicted as physically and biologically inferior in anatomical studies . Illness was thought to be a woman’s natural state. The weaker sex concept did not only apply to women’s bodies; it was extended to the medical treatment. The effects were devastating to women’s health. The female body has been subject to othering. The male body is seen as normal and the female body something bizarre. Othering extends to body types in which women who deviate from what is considered “normal” are seen as biological anomalies. Women who are not in the ectomorphic body type have faced this type of othering.
When women are discussed in anatomy and biology some make it sound like they are different species. Cytology shows women have the same cells ( with sex cells being the exception). Women vary in body types. but most are not accepting of this.
Medical professionals and doctors therefore might put women under extra scrutiny about their weight. This can have a negative impact on treatment, mental health, and body image. Body mass index is still being used, when its accuracy can be disputed. When looking at the issue related to practice and healthcare the anatomical names are the least of the problems regarding women. Limited study on female anatomy can effect women’s health, sports performance, and prenatal care.
The renaming of anatomical structures is not going to stop sexism in scientific fields. The parts of the body already have proper terminology that do not use eponyms. The only reason the general public would use them is because they do not know the anatomical terms. The concern was mostly directed at medical students. The general public should have access to anatomical knowledge as well. The name changes come off as shallow and disingenuous virtue signaling. The more serious and well meaning would want to spread knowledge about female anatomy. An objective should be to get more women in the biomedical sciences. Encourage girls to follow a path to a careers in anatomy, physiology, and biology. Doing this will combat sexism. Most importantly is to get women into leadership positions in hospitals and scientific research. The comedic aspect about this was if the names were after women, no complaints would be made. Few would say that an anatomical structure name after a woman would be deemed misandry. The only name change that makes rational sense hysterectomy. The term is incorrect and does have sexist past. Language does change and so does scientific terminology. The only reason scientific terms should be revised is if information has been updated or to give better descriptions related to the field.
Femuscleblog 