How many pregnant “people” are we talking about?

Women and girls still aren't accorded 'personhood' in all sorts of places all over the world.

Even in the UK we are still seen too often in terms of 2D 'types' and not whole complex people. We are labelled and judged.

Milf
Jailbait
Ball breaker
Etc

Men get to be seen as whole people much much more.

I don't think calling women 'people who menstruate' for example will do anything for us. The reverse.

I think most men will know they have a penis. We have established through research that approx. 44% of women don't know they have a cervix. There is the added confusion that there is also such thing as a cervical spine (commonly known as the neck), that both men and women have.

With that information available, Macmillan was contacted many months ago to ask why they don't use the words 'women' or 'female' AT ALL in their entry for Cervical Cancer. In contrast, they use the word 'men' several times in relation to Penile Cancer (remember all men have already got a heads up here).

Their response was that the entries relating to men's cancers are 'scheduled for review in the coming months'. In a moment of utter fubizarrity (so bizarre I have to make up a word), they mentioned 'men's gynaecological cancers' (I have no words).

So, on checking the website again tonight - there is no change. It is a slightly odd idea that they are updating female only related stuff first and then addressing the pages relating to male only cancers. Generally, if you are updating a website you would look to make a specific style or language change across the whole site so I'm not buying their excuse.

Not good enough Macmillan. Has anyone got a more senior email contact in the organisation than the basic Feedback address? I think this needs escalating but there seems to be no one to speak to. PM me if you have anything please.

www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/cervical-cancer

www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/penile-cancer

What an odd comment. It never for 1 nanosecond occurred to me that "I'd fallen out of the human race" when I was pregnant.

Men = men though.

Not ejaculators.

People with 2 legs can try this exercise.
Some people don't have 2 legs.
Etc

Idle thought.

Women = menstruators
Men = ejaculators
People = urinators?

After all, this whole thing is seriously pissing me off...

And the main point is

The words man woman boy girl are well understood.
The meaning has been changed but very very few people know that.
The changes have been made without any kind of widescale visibility.
The language being pushed is imprecise, confusing. And changes as well.
And it's only happening with things related to LGBT+ things, or things relating to female sexual and reproductive biology.

The fact it's not even handed between men and women, that we are yet again referred to in terms of our genitals, reproductive potential is grotesque.

While girls around the world still miss out on education due to periods, for example, the idea that should be referred to as menstruators is just grim. Being referred to not as a person but by the bodily function that is the whole issue.

we generally prefer precision in language

Indeed. "More inclusive" means vaguer, less precise, non-specific.

Clarity requires preciseness and concision.

This is the total opposite of that.

The other issue around eg people with a cervix is that lots of people the message is aimed at won't understand.

The current approach is to leave people guessing based on context which is just not good enough. It's not straightforward and demands a good vocab etc.

Eg the conception stat on the NHS, the reader is expected to glean from the context that the 8/10 people refers to females.

The preceding text talks about having a vagina and so the idea is well obviously they're talking about women. But the word woman is not allowed.

It's just cobblers tbh.

And where is the stuff aimed at ejaculators?

Hereward absolutely. And while that signalling is busily going on, those indulging themselves are abandoning touch with the realities of the massive majority of the client group they are supposed to be serving, particularly the most vulnerable ones.

It's champagne socialism in the last drunken gasp.

Probably do you see the words woman girl man boy as purely identities?

I'd be interested to know why you feel that and your views on the words changing meaning over the last few years, while most of the public don't know that has happened. So people read stuff about men for example and understand it to mean sex.

Genuinely interested I promise!

On the other part, phrases like women, trans men etc are not acceptable. Not on the table. I'd be aok with adding but that isn't what is being pushed for or done.

The TW tweeted that "The name should be changed because I am a woman and I don't use this service"

Which is completely ridiculous. There are lots of women's services I've never needed to use as a natural born woman. It doesn't mean they shouldn't exist, or should change the name just because I personally haven't used them. Wouldn't that be rather egotistical of me!

If anybody pushing this kind of language really believed that men can get pregnant, they would just say 'pregnant men and women'

However, they know this would be utterly ridiculed by 99% of people, and they don't really believe it anyway.

The point of this language, for a lot of people, is to signal that you are a member of, or aligned with, an elite intellectual and social class who are currently indulging themselves en masse in the luxury make-believe that sex doesn't exist or somehow doesn't matter.

Using this language says that your obedience to this make-believe, and to the social group, is so complete that you are prepared to suspend reason and override the obvious interests of marginalised groups like women in favour of the pretence. Even to the point of making women literally unmentionable in the context of something like pregnancy.

None of this is about helping people with gender dysphoria. This is basically a thought experiment of elites which has got out of control because it taps very effectively into a few very powerful and deep-seated cultural and behavioural norms. Very unfortunately, it has now got embedded into elite institutions which have real power to enforce it.

I don’t agree that only women get pregnant. A trans man could. I think it’s right to be inclusive. I’d hate for a pregnant trans man to not feel included, although I’m interested to find out how many there actually are.

But I do not think that to do that, we have to erase the word women. We should either be adding “pregnant women and pregnant people” or “pregnant women, pregnant trans men........”.

I find this a very difficult topic. It’s not always straightforward, or with one easy solution. But we should be adding to what we currently have, not erasing words for the sake of a small number of people. Add words to become more inclusive, not remove a term describing the majority.

The point about using a term like "pregnant women" is that we generally prefer precision in language. It's why, when we talk about children with measles, we use the term "children with measles", not "people with measles", even though we know some adults catch measles too.

It's the same reason we refer to "men with prostate cancer" not "people with prostate cancer", even though "people" would be more inclusive - after all, trans women are also susceptible to prostate cancer, right? In fact, there are far more trans women who are susceptible to prostate cancer, I would hazard, than trans men who are likely to get pregnant, because most older trans people are male-to-female: it's only amongst teenagers that female-to-males outnumber males-to-females.

The last thing I'm going to do is link it here seeing as we're so monitored, it'll only get bombarded by TRA determined to erase the word woman.

I'm saddened by the "vaginismus" page but not surprised.

Unfortunately vaginismus is a porn theme.

manatsu

Echoing other posters that I wouldn't mine so much but it is NEARLY ALWAYS just 'men' when it's 'people with a cervix', 'menstruators', 'bleeders', 'vagina owners', 'pregnant people'. I would really like someone on the other side to justify and explain that.

20:21 MandalaYogaTapestry
I may have an answer to this.

I once come across a tween where a TW questioning why some women's health project was called exactly that. The TW tweeted that "The name should be changed because I am a woman and I don't use this service"

So it may not be about including TMs, but rather making sure that TWs don't feel excluded.

Yes I've come across this.
I'm not directing my comment at you directly only at the general subject of erasing the word woman, but because we're always told by gender ideologists

"Not all women menstruate so that's why we shouldn't use the word woman on menstrual products"

"Not all women can get pregnant"

"Not all women can breastfeed"

All this seemingly justifies calling male people "women" and consequentially erasing the word entirely.

It's pretty much gaslighting on an industrial level

All it comes down to really is the desire of some bepenised people to own the one word relating to female people for themselves.

The push to refer to us in terms of our body parts. Same old same old.

Legs on that
Gash
The one with the tits
Person with a vagina
Menstruator
...

Nothing new. Very regressive.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

No that's not what it is.

I just meant you could argue men conceive when they impregnate a woman. So it could be genuinely 8/10.

Yes of course it's about TW.

Not TM at all.

The link between the words woman/ girl and increasingly female to our sexual/ reproductive biology pisses them off.

The idea that women's marches focusing on abortion etc are 'gynocentric' and exclusionary.

The idea that FGM should be renamed and that campaigners should not use the words girl or woman.

Etc etc

The push to refer to us in terms of our body parts. Same old same old.

Legs on that
Gash
The one with the tits
Person with a vagina
Menstruator
...

Nothing new. Very regressive.