UK submission to UN - "whatabout the pregnant men?"

"when you’re pregnant you are generally more bothered about a healthy baby and what your next snack is and don’t really have the energy to get annoyed about the odd word. Surely?"
Sorry to be a pedant- but no. The expectation should be that pregnant women are perfectly capable of doing whatever they need to do, including being annoyed about words. Otherwise we run the risk of deciding they can't do their jobs properly.

I’m convinced that it’s not transmen who are making a fuss. All two of them. It’s transwomen. The men.

Removing biological descriptions from what it means to be a woman, will benefit transwomen.

That’s why we are cis, not women. Whilst transwomen are women.

They want to swap everything to do with women to be applied to them, whilst we are the outliers. Using transmen for their agenda is just more of the same old shit.

I’d really like to know what the perspectives are of trans men who have been pregnant. Surely they are able to recognise the unique (and possibly almost privileged?) position they’re in to be able to both live as a man and still choose to have a child (I’m not sure it’s possible for trans women? Unless they freeze their sperm?) when you’re pregnant you are generally more bothered about a healthy baby and what your next snack is and don’t really have the energy to get annoyed about the odd word. Surely?

I hate the idea of being a pregnant female or person; it feels like baby factory type talk.

This does raise interesting questions. Surely if you are indeed a man you wouldn't get pregnant in the same way that you wouldn't wear bras. Pregnancy and childbirth I just such a feminine thing that it seems to exclude all masculinity. Certainly if we are talking from a purely gendered perspective pregnancy is about as feminised as things get.

Tbh in an legal document I'm sure all terms will be defined.

Don’t hold your breath. In the c-16 bill gender was never defined. Gender identity, gender expression, yes. Not gender.

All the official definitions I have seen of gender say it is social expectations of behaviour and appearance. And then go on to apply an entirely, unspecified and different meaning to it when it comes to the law.

Sunkisses

There is also a short thread called "Pregnant People". Text of article in there I think.

"So perhaps just a clarification that "woman/women" is being used as a biological category not as an identity."
That goes without saying as it's the meaning of the word.
Tbh in an legal document I'm sure all terms will be defined.
This is madness. Stop the world I want to get off

There was an article in the Sunday Times about this yesterday: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/its-not-women-who-get-pregnant-its-people-w3mmzbgwh
Does anyone have the full text as it is behind the paywall?

Has the Guardian published this story yet? I like having a good laugh at their pro-trans articles!

So perhaps just a clarification that "woman/women" is being used as a biological category not as an identity.

It must be - I would assume girls are included too. Nobody seems bothered that they wouldn't feel included

Exactly.

So perhaps just a clarification that "woman/women" is being used as a biological category not as an identity.

The reason language matters is summed up succinctly by a favourite quote of my late mother's: "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Women's reproductive rights are impaired worldwide not because they are "pregnant persons", but because they are women, and women are treated, to a greater or lesser extent worldwide, as lesser beings. (Anyone in any doubt about this should read this leaked memo on the Trump administration's plans to attack provision of contraception and sex ed - it is not just abortion they oppose, but any attempt by women to take control of their fertility.)

This is why it needs the legislation to say this is a women's issue - because it is a women's issue. By all means have a footnote to say "this legislation encompasses transmen with functioning uteruses", but do not erase women from the story.

If it genuinely was a "person's" issue, there wouldn't be an issue. Pregnant "people" would be able to control their own fertility. (If you are in any doubt about this, think about the knots Christian theologians tie themselves in to justify the concept of a just war. It's not about the foetus's imaginary right to life at all, it's about keeping women in their place as subordinate to men, having to ask men for permission about everything, including whether they're going to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth against their will, often in countries where medical care means rates of maternal mortality are sky high - or conversely, and equally hideously, forced to abort female foetuses against their will - again, the female ones, not "the ones who might later on identify as women.")

So is pregnant woman though. Woman is an adult human female. I don’t know where this idea has come from that woman is a social category. It isn’t, it’s a biological one.

Good point nauticant

Pregnant female. That’s biological fact.

They need to define the word woman. That will suffice.

Pregnant individual?

What if someone identifies as a collective. Maybe "pregnant entity, whether biological or otherwise".

I wonder how many men globally have given birth? Probably no more than 100. Do we really need to cheapen the effects of childbirth on billions of women over thousands of years over this introspective horseshit? If you give birth you are a woman - let's not pretend otherwise.

Pregnant individual?

Sex is a biological definition. Men can't get pregnant, only biological women can.

If it needs clarification, then surely it just needs a note about "pregnant women, regardless of how they personally identify" otherwise you'd have to specify all of the current genders that exist and run the risk of accidentally excluding someone who identifies as a gender that hasn't yet been identified and written down.

In the light if the UNFE, has UNHRO taken a view on this?

As if the Uk isn't enough of a laughing stock at the moment! This is just embarrassing.

Sorry, that was in response to pisacake not the post immediately above.