Vulvalippen: Why the Dutch are adopting new anatomical terms

Why is the term 'vulvalippen' being introduced in the Netherlands?

The introduction of 'vulvalippen' into the Dikke van Dale dictionary serves to provide a neutral, scientifically accurate alternative to the traditional Dutch term 'schaamlippen'. While 'schaamlippen' is the established word for the labia, its literal translation—'shame lips'—is increasingly viewed as loaded with social stigma and outdated moral judgments.

According to Ton den Boon, editor of the dictionary, the inclusion of 'vulvalippen' is a response to the word's growing usage in professional and educational settings. The term is already becoming more prevalent in media outlets, biological textbooks, medical leaflets, and even within the field of veterinary medicine. By formalizing the term, the dictionary acknowledges a shift in how the language is actually being utilized by professionals and the public alike.

Campaigners argue that this change is about more than just vocabulary; it is about how individuals perceive their own bodies. Shari Klein, a founder of the Schaamteloos campaign, emphasizes that language directly shapes self-perception. The campaign specifically targets words containing 'schaam' (shame), arguing that even subconscious associations with shame can impact a person's psychological well-being and comfort with their own anatomy.

The broader impact of linguistic shifts

For feminist groups like Dolle Mina, the adoption of 'vulvalippen' is a step toward 'sex positivity' and a method of reducing body shaming. Esther Van der Valk, a member of the group, suggests that moving toward neutral terminology helps dismantle the shame often associated with female sexuality. The campaign's ultimate goal is to move beyond dictionaries and influence practical applications, such as convincing medical professionals to use the term during patient consultations and in official health leaflets.

How does this reflect wider European trends in anatomical language?

The Dutch movement is part of a larger, multi-national effort to reform how women's bodies and health are discussed across Europe. Similar campaigns have sought to replace terms that carry historical baggage or anatomical inaccuracies with more precise, neutral language.

In Germany, the push for change has been driven by journalists and medical professionals. Gunda Windmüller and Mithu Sanyal initiated a petition to replace 'Schamlippen' with 'Vulvalippen' after observing the discomfort women experienced during gynecological examinations. While 'Vulvalippen' has not yet been officially adopted by German dictionaries, Windmüller notes its increasing presence in school textbooks, women's magazines, and everyday conversation.

Sweden provides another example of successful linguistic reform regarding reproductive anatomy. Following a 2009 campaign by the Association for Sexuality Education (RFSU), the Swedish academic dictionary added the term 'slidkrans' (vaginal corona) to replace 'mödomshinna' (maidenhood skin or virginity membrane). The reform was driven by the need for anatomical accuracy and the desire to dispel myths surrounding the hymen.

• Terminology: Moving from 'maidenhood skin' to 'vaginal corona'.
• Goal: To challenge myths used to control female sexuality.
• Current Status: Widely used by healthcare professionals and youth clinics.

Sonja Ghaderi of the RFSU highlights that while the new term helps combat misinformation, the underlying social constructs and myths regarding virginity and the hymen still require significant work to fully dismantle.

What are the arguments regarding 'medical misogyny' in terminology?

Critics of current medical language argue that certain established terms are rooted in 'medical misogyny,' where anatomical or physiological descriptions are linked to emotional instability or perceived character flaws.

In the United Kingdom, this debate has focused on the term 'hysterectomy'—the surgical removal of the womb. Feminist podcast host Nicola Denson-Elliott has campaigned to replace it with 'uterectomy.' The argument posits that 'hysterectomy' carries an etymological link to 'hysteria,' a historical diagnosis once used to pathologize women's emotional expressions. By advocating for 'uterectomy,' campaigners seek a term that is strictly anatomical and devoid of these historical, judgmental connotations.

The issue extends to how medical professionals describe complications during pregnancy and childbirth. Research conducted by linguist Dr. Beth Malory has highlighted the use of the phrase 'incompetent cervix' to describe a shortening of the cervix that increases risks of early birth. This terminology can lead patients to feel personally blamed for a medical condition that is often beyond their control.

The psychological weight of medical descriptors

Medical professionals themselves have expressed concerns about the impact of judgmental language. Obstetrician Dr. Brooke Vandermolen notes that terms like 'failure to progress'—used when labor does not move as expected—can cause significant distress to patients. Even though these terms appear in standard medical textbooks, many practitioners are actively moving away from them in favor of language that validates the patient's experience.

The Royal College of Midwives in the UK addressed this in 2022 by producing guidance that offers alternative, less judgmental phrases for use in clinical settings. However, the persistence of traditional terms in medical education and practice remains a challenge for those seeking to improve the patient-provider relationship through language.

What do linguists say about the risks of changing medical terms?

While the social benefits of neutral terminology are widely recognized, linguists caution that changing medical vocabulary must be handled with precision to avoid clinical confusion.

Dr. Beth Malory, a linguistics researcher, suggests that any proposed change must be backed by rigorous research to ensure clarity. A primary concern is whether new terms will be immediately understood by both patients and practitioners. For instance, if 'uterectomy' were to replace 'hysterectomy,' it must be certain that the new term does not create ambiguity in a high-stakes medical environment.

Linguists argue that language exists within a complex system. Replacing one word is not an isolated act; it affects how other terms are understood and how information is communicated during emergencies. Therefore, the transition to new anatomical terms requires a holistic approach that considers the entire medical lexicon to prevent errors in communication.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between 'schaamlippen' and 'vulvalippen'?

'Schaamlippen' is the traditional Dutch term for the labia, which translates literally to 'shame lips.' 'Vulvalippen' is the proposed neutral, anatomically correct alternative. The goal of the change is to remove the emotional connotation of 'shame' from the description of female anatomy.

Why is the word 'hysterectomy' criticized?

The term is criticized because of its linguistic connection to 'hysteria,' a historical medical concept used to label women's emotions as a disease. Campaigners argue that 'uterectomy' is a more neutral, anatomically precise term that avoids these misogynistic historical associations.

How does language affect pregnancy outcomes?

Language does not change biological outcomes, but it affects how patients perceive them. Terms like 'incompetent cervix' or 'failure to progress' can make women feel blamed for medical complications, potentially increasing psychological distress during pregnancy and childbirth.

Has the term 'slidkrans' been adopted in Sweden?

Yes, 'slidkrans' (vaginal corona) was added to the Swedish academic dictionary following a 2009 campaign. It replaced the term 'mödomshinna' to provide a more accurate description of the hymen and to move away from the concept of 'virginity membranes.'

Is the change in the Netherlands official?

The change is being formalized through the inclusion of 'vulvalippen' in the upcoming online edition of the Dikke van Dale dictionary. While it is a significant step for linguistic recognition, campaigners are still working to ensure its adoption in medical consultations.