Why Are We Still Using Men's Names for Gynaecological Anatomy?

Abstract painting by Lisa Nelson

In the realm of medical terminology, the practice of using eponyms—naming body parts after people who discovered or described them—reflects a complex legacy. While it's common across various fields of anatomy, a particularly stark contrast emerges when we examine gynaecological anatomy versus male reproductive anatomy.

The disparity isn't just in the use of male names for female body parts, which in itself could be seen as a historical artefact of a time when only men were permitted to practice medicine. The real crux of the issue is the significantly higher use of eponyms within female anatomy, a practice not mirrored to the same extent in male anatomy. This imbalance underscores a gender bias deeply rooted in medical history and practice.

(Shrosbree et al., 2022)

In women’s bodies, the name 'Graafian follicles', to mention but one of these eponyms, pays homage to Regnier de Graaf and describes part of the ovaries where eggs develop. However, Graaf is renowned for his scientific discoveries in both male and female reproductive function. Yet, his name is notably absent from male anatomy, highlighting a peculiar inconsistency.

What makes this naming practice deeply problematic isn't just the gender disparity but the historical context it represents. For centuries, these and other male doctors not only excluded women from the medical profession but subjected them to unfathomably inhumane treatment–akin to torture–under the guise of scientific exploration and discovery. They ran medical procedures without anaesthesia, restrained women, and held the belief that women were inherently more resilient to pain – a myth that still affects women today.

These eponyms serve as reminders of an era when women's bodies were explored, defined, and named by men without their consent or participation. Yet, today, when we have scientifically accurate and descriptive anatomical terms, the persistence of these eponymous labels, especially within gynaecology, stands as a stark symbol of historical injustices.

It begs the question: why continue to use these names when alternatives exist? Why not use terms that describe the function or location of these body parts, free from the shadows of a painful past? The continued use of male eponyms in female anatomy, especially given the backdrop of their historical context, is a sexist relic that undermines the push towards gender equality in medicine.

The call to action is clear: it's time to re-evaluate the language of anatomy through a lens of gender sensitivity and historical awareness. By choosing to use anatomical names over eponyms, we acknowledge and begin to address the legacy of inequality and abuse. This is not just a matter of updating medical terminology; it's about healing historical wounds and moving towards a more inclusive and respectful medical practice.

The Misconception of the G-spot

The 'G-spot', named after Ernst Gräfenberg, exemplifies the confusion stemming from such eponyms. Recent shifts in understanding have moved away from treating the G-spot as a distinct anatomical entity to recognising it as part of the clitourethrovaginal (CUV) complex—a dynamic, hormone-sensitive network. This realisation challenges the outdated eponymous concept by demonstrating that the so-called 'spot' is, in fact, an integral component of a larger interactive system.

Moving Forward with Anatomical Terminology

While eponyms act as markers of medical history, their continued use in gynaecology perpetuates a harmful bias, cementing outdated and unjust narratives. The issue is not eponyms themselves but their selective application that ties female anatomy to male names, without an equivalent practice for male anatomy, emerging from a history marked by gendered inequality and exploitation.

Acknowledging this bias in anatomical terminology is a crucial step towards achieving gender equality in medicine. The path forward demands descriptive, accurate terminology and freedom from the burdens of historical injustices, truly honouring the bodies described and the individuals they belong to. As our understanding deepens, so too must the language of anatomy evolve, mirroring a commitment to respect all genders and more scientifically accurate work.