Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Emailing a medical website re: "pregnant people"

55 replies

Bezalelle · 14/08/2019 08:53

I'm TTC at the moment, and if there's anything that brings female biology into sharp, glittering focus, it's that.

I've been reading a lot online, and came across an article on a medical website about conception and pregnancy, which referred throughout to "people" instead of women. I decided to leave a comment:

Is there any reason why the author of this article has neglected to use the crucial word "woman", instead referring to "people" or "person"? As far as I'm aware, it is only women who can ovulate and become pregnant.

A few weeks later, I had a reply from the website's editor:

The reason we use people/person is because some people who are pregnant do not identify as a woman, they may identify as being gender-fluid, non-binary, or another label entirely, therefore we deem this to be more inclusive language.

To which I reply:

*Thanks for getting back to me.

The problem with your explanation is that such terminology is not, in fact, inclusive. It negates biological reality. Only an individual of the female sex can become pregnant, no matter how they "identify".

Obfuscating language like this quite frankly makes a mockery of the medical profession. It may be seen as "woke" and politically correct, but the vast majority of women see it as offensive and unnecessary.*

To which he replies:

*Thanks for your reply, I will certainly pass on your feedback.

I really disagree that it "makes a mockery of the medical profession". Our content is geared toward humans of all walks of life, and this piece is a well-researched, well-sourced, and easily accessible read. We're writing on a forum that reaches all types of people from all walks of life, and as times change, language also evolves.

I would also dispute your claim that "the vast majority of women see it as offensive and unnecessary". While also anecdotal, our office is more than 70% female, including our Managing Editor and the Copy Edit & Production Manager who oversees our style guidelines regarding language, and not one person had any issue with this change when it was made.*

Hmm My response:

*Thanks again for your reply.

I'd just like to point out that elsewhere on your site you seem to have no issue with differentiating male and female. With just a brief glance, I can see articles about men's health and women's health. I therefore wonder why it is difficult for you to write about women when discussing possibly the most female-centric condition - pregnancy.*

No reply.

It might not be ethical to reproduce his emails verbatim here, but I don't care anymore. I plan to challenge this sort of thing more and more when I see it.

OP posts:
OhHolyJesus · 14/08/2019 09:41

This sort of stuff really lifts me. We have to keep calling out this BS and keep pushing and pushing. Well done OP. Women will not be erased.

NotBadConsidering · 14/08/2019 09:41

What’s the medical website? I’ll bet a squillion pounds their section on prostate health/cancer etc doesn’t say “people with prostates”.

truthisarevolutionaryact · 14/08/2019 09:38

Well done Bezalelle
Keep calling this out. And as you spotted - these fools never have any problem in talking about men's health issues.

Bezalelle · 14/08/2019 09:13

True. If matey replies I will raise that.

OP posts:
ArnoldWhatshisknickers · 14/08/2019 09:07

If I were you I'd concentrate less on the choice of language being offensive (which it is) and more on it being exclusionary.

Such postmodernist drivel may be understood by the university educated upper and middle classes but is confusing to vulnerable people.

I would suggest they need their website to use language that is inclusive of learning disabled women, women who have literacy problems, women for whom English is not their first language including refugees.

They are being exclusive and that is the point I would personally stress.

Swipe left for the next trending thread