Pregnant people?! It's 'women'

No, just the opposite. Posters here are saying they want to leave out transmen as they don't believe they exist. I don't want anyone to be left out and am wondering how to be inclusive without causing detriment to others and within the law.

Well the reply from @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet gives the impression MNHQ don't care.

Poor show.

I hope the answer is "to piss off Daily Mail and The Sun readers and GB News viewers" as it's worth it just for that alone, frankly.

Not really. You seem ill informed. Not everyone who thinks this language is bullshit and erases women is "right wing". That's just silly, and reflects your own prejudices and biases.

Sorry if anyone was offended by the use of the word "people" there.

Very snarky. I had been offended by a survey's use of "birthing partner" and "chest feeding partner". I suggest that you also might feel uncomfortable with this wording but I could be wrong.

It's the Equality Act, and I imagine most of us know why it exists.

I hope the answer is "to piss off Daily Mail and The Sun readers and GB News viewers" as it's worth it just for that alone, frankly.

I'm wondering why you think the Equalities Act exists

It's the Equality Act, and I imagine most of us know why it exists.

Do you object to the use of additive language - ie “pregnant women and birthing people” and “mothers and birthing parents”? I understand that it sounds quite clunky and unwieldy, but in terms of not erasing ‘women’ and ‘mother’ from maternity discourse, are those terms better?

I roll my eyes at it, because it's nonsense, but yes it is somewhat better.

I'm wondering, also, why you think the desires of such a small community should override the actualities of the vast, vast majority of people

I'm wondering why you think the Equalities Act exists. It protects many minorities- ethnic minorities, disabled people, and also on the grounds of sex - not necessarily a minority but often something which causes prejudice.

Life isn't all about what the majority say goes, and bugger the minority. As much as some people would like it to be.

Please see this example of inclusive language from NICE which manages easily to acknowlege the preferences of gender minority groups while not ignoring the preferences of the majority.

www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng194

"The guideline uses the terms 'woman' or 'mother' throughout. These should be taken to include people who do not identify as women but are pregnant or have given birth."

Be NICE. Don't erase women.

Odd how Freddie who makes a career out of having given birth does have a GRC so they are legally male. However part of being granted a GRC is a promise to live as a person of the opposite sex to the one you were born as

And yet Freddie went off and did the most female thing it’s possible to do, indeed a thing only women can do

and yet still they hold their GRC. It’s almost as if creating the legal fiction that one can become the opposite sex is a pile of bollocks

How is the word "women" inclusive of someone who has changed sex legally to male?

It's not actually possible to change sex, it's a legal fiction that you can have a certificate that proclaims your "gender" is the opposite sex and allows you to have a birth certificate pretending you were actually the opposite sex from birth. However it won't change your legal status entirely, as there are exceptions to both the GRA and EA for single sex protections where they exist.

Worth mentioning that you only change sex in law with a gender recognition certificate and in the process for that you have to state your intention to live as the opposite sex forever. There is zero part of “living as a man” that involves being pregnant and giving birth.

did you know that pregnancy and maternity leave were originally protected in law as an extension of sex discrimination- ie: because only women experience them. So if we start pretending this is someone men do too, we jeopardise the legal basis of important protections for women.

May I ask a question of the posters objecting to the use of “pregnant people”?

Do you object to the use of additive language - ie “pregnant women and birthing people” and “mothers and birthing parents”? I understand that it sounds quite clunky and unwieldy, but in terms of not erasing ‘women’ and ‘mother’ from maternity discourse, are those terms better?

The same way that they can only be called MOTHER on the birth certificate. Reality. No one is entitled to compel anyone else's language. They're women.

We need to stop pretending; no one changes sex. If a person has a uterus and the other female organs she is female.She can call herself what she wants but that changes nothing. And when registering the birth she is still registered as the mother.

I've no idea, I'm not a transman or a non-binary female bodied person. I'd love to hear from people who are, on this thread.

Sorry if anyone was offended by the use of the word "people" there.

Agreed. It's highly offensive

What language is used in order to be inclusive is debatable. That pregnant transmen or non binary people should be included in the provision of pregnancy services is not up for debate AFAIC.

This is right, they should be included. We should be able to come up with a way that includes them without changing language for all women, and then calling women transphobes recruited by porn soaked etc etc like a drive-by face slap.

And transmen call themselves male as a legal fiction. No one can change their sex.

But if they are men legally they are entitled to be called men or male. How do you deal with that in printed/online materials so as not to break the law?

Agree with the OP. This is awful.

I want to hear more about changing sex, @actualpuffins especially in the context of maternity (personternity?). How does that work?

No-one changes sex @actualpuffins

Because regardless of what they wish they were, they are adult human females - WOMEN. So they are indeed already included.