I'm so glad that the vaccine is being tested on....

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

"Children and pregnant people".

According to Sky News presenter who was also a people.

Have woken up on the wrong side of the bed and this was the first thing I heard when I checked the news this morning.

It might seem petty in the grand scheme of things and context, but now I just want to go back to bed and try and sleep my way out of this dystopian nightmare.

I hope that the next time they report on cancer they mention "people with prostate cancer".

But I bet they won't.

Sorry. Just increasingly irritated, as a person of 52 who has been pregnant and is utterly fed up of the brainwashing.

[Cailleach1]

They could as easily say 'pregnant mammals'. It wouldn't be untrue as women are also mammals. Indeed, at least some of the other groups under the term mammal can also get pregnant. Other female mammals.

When you say pregnant people, you know the only other group of people besides the relevant sexually mature women (i.e. human males) included in that term cannot become pregnant and it is moot.

[Twistered]

They should have said pregnant women or expectant mothers

Pregnant people is a complete insult.

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

It did cross my mind that at least we've been promoted to personhood I suppose

[GCAcademic]

I hope that the next time they report on cancer they mention "people with prostate cancer".

I doubt it, the current TV advert raising awareness for prostate cancer uses the word "man" liberally.

[Barracker]

Wondering how long before we become 'gestating animals'.

Much more neutral and still perfectly accurate.
If desexing us is the right thing to do, there's probably a case for dehumanising us right around the corner.

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

Not sure if I'm going to express myself particularly well here, but I'm grappling with something.

As a teen I obviously became aware that being female / a girl / a woman came with a particular set of pitfalls which were dismissive, reductive, and high risk. I resented that even if I was trying to have a perfectly rational conversation if it took a turn that the other participant objected to, my sex and hormonal state could be weaponised against me. Everything became moot because I was a woman, and less than.

So it's tempting, isn't it, to reject the term for its cumulative and historically negative associations.

But now I see it's a clever bait and switch. Change the term, but we don't change the entrenched sexism in society. It's a sop. Which makes me want to run into the street shouting "I'm a woman - what ya gonna do about it?"

And now I can't even do that because I'm also supposed to kindly allow sharp elbowed people to modify my language to protect their feelings, after mine have been hurt for years.

Oh boy, (ha ha) I'm not just peaking, I'm a whole mountain range right now.

[TheRabbitOfCaerbannog]

"Children and pregnant people".

According to Sky News presenter who was also a people.

I wonder how many pregnant trans men it's being tested on? Changing the language women use to describe themselves for a vanishingly small minority is a travesty. And, as has been asked many times, how is it that trans men are not triggered by the very female act of becoming pregnant and giving birth, but are somehow by the language used to describe the people who do it? It's not really about trans men at all is it.

[BuntingEllacott]

This, my dears is ultimately about surrogacy. You didn't think the great capitalists would miss an opportunity, did you?

Sure, the removal of female spaces and rights is eye catching with the right framework, but it's only really a problem if you're a woman or you care about women, and the profit possibilities are limited in the short term.

How do you capitalize on these things? The income from life long medication regimes and surgery is lucrative, sure, but imagine the profit possibilities in commercial surrogacy. But it's vital that you decouple the notion of pregnancy from women's rights, or even women entirely, because all those annoying restrictions in law rely on language like mother and woman. Once you do that, mix in some heartstring tugging set pieces, a transactional understanding of female bodies (which is also really useful for the prostitution industry- win!) and you're away.

Pregnant women. Mothers. These words matter, because by them, we can not only talk about our reality, we can hold back those who would commodify us.

[WarriorN]

@GCAcademic

I hope that the next time they report on cancer they mention "people with prostate cancer".

I doubt it, the current TV advert raising awareness for prostate cancer uses the word "man" liberally.

I was eyeing a prostate cancer donation box. So uninclusive; covered in loads of male toilet door symbol people and none of them wearing skirts.

[WarriorN]

@MistressoftheDarkSide yes op it's hiding women. Being ashamed of women. As always.

[SquishySquirmy]

I was giving some serious consideration to volunteering for the UK vaccine challenge trial.

The form to register interest asks for your weight, age, height etc... and gender!
Not sex.
To sign up to such a trial (which involves being deliberately exposed to a dose of covid) requires a certain level of trust in the methodology of the trial as well as in the vaccine itself.
It gave me some pause for thought to learn that biological sex is considered irrelevant to vaccine efficacy whilst what gender you feel is considered relevant. Definitely makes me feel less sure about volunteering.

[Branleuse]

It does need to be tested on people who identify as children

[Barracker]

If unpregnant-woman is apparently an identity, then why not pregnant-woman? I don't see why pregnant can't be an identity type too.

What are the rules again about things that can be identities and things that can't?

[Branleuse]

I hope youre not REDUCING PREGNANCY to being the state of gestating a child. Theres a spectrum here.