'Pregnant people' now being used by my local trust's maternity dept.

Also does differentiate between humans and non humans Betty Fucking disgusting

Name and shame them OP

Pregnant transmen are only considered men in law if they have a GRC. Part of getting a GRC is agreeing to live as the sex you wish to be. Being pregnant is not living as a man so the GRC should be revoked

What about ‘people’ who are triggered by the words: pregnant, birth, cervix, Labour, contraction, midwife, epidural, etc etc etc. do we have to use a thousand words when ten will do?

East Lancashire?

elht.nhs.uk/about-us/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance/maternity/lateral-flow

Write a letter of complaint to the Chief Exec. Ours is very proactive and would respond to this. There is a lot of politically correct woke bollocks in the NHS at the moment which needs to be challenged.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/prostate-cancer/

The word men is used throughout with no other descriptor. No 'those with a prostate' or similar. Just men.

Vs.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/cervical-cancer/

The word woman by itself isn't used at any point during the document. The phrase 'anyone with a cervix can get cervical cancer. This includes trans and non-binary people with a cervix' is included. There isn't a similar qualifier given on the prostate cancer page - it doesn't say 'anyone with a prostate.. etc'.

There is a disparity. Why people are parroting 'inclusion' when it doesn't work both ways is just baffling.

What is the issue of referring to the collective as pregnant people and individual people by their preferred pronouns/gender identity?

The preferred identity of 99% if woman and mother if youre concerned about that.

Either this politeness and care goes in both directions, or this is a forcibly applied, unwanted word being used without care. In which case I shall feel able to speak equally plainly and with my own preferred language.

What is the issue of referring to the collective as pregnant people and individual people by their preferred pronouns/gender identity?

The collective is pregnant women.
The minuscule number of those who want to claim to be something other than a woman whilst still using their female biology to get pregnant are still part of the collective and can ask their own personal gp and midwife to call them whatever they want and stop demanding the rest of us alter our own language to accommodate their demands.

The other 99.9999999% still want to the word woman to be used in women's health care.

We all know it's about men wanting to disconnect 'woman' from any reference to female only biological functions though.

I read an article today on msn by Refinery 29 which used
"Women & people with wombs".

I thought that was a good solution actually.

Pregnant people etc... is just offensive & dehumanising to women as it denies their sex.

The people who don't want to be called women still have wombs though or they couldn't be requiring maternity services.

Have there been any examples of NHS changing words to accommodate transwomen in men's heath?

Complain complain complain. Please.

And as has been pointed out countless times on here, it is only language to do with women which is being changed. Men's language remains the same. The only men's health service we have been able to find who use 'inclusive language' is Prostate Cancer UK who include a list of 'those with a prostate' on their website but sensibly, use men on their campaign materials.

For those who have no issue with 'pregnant people' because it is 'inclusive', why do you think men's language remains unchanged? Why is only women's language being changed to be 'inclusive'?

This comment in particular stood out to me - inclusivity isn't about appeasing anyone. It absolutely is. Any organisation or business which dares to use the word woman get a pile on which is why there are such terms as menstruators being used by sanitary protection companies.

Have you seen the same for condoms? Erectile dysfunction medication? Are Numan, who are currently advertising ED pills on TV being told that they should be using 'prostate people' or 'sperm people' instead of men? If not, why not?

Name and shame the trust

It is not 'inclusive' it is very very intentionally exclusive. And massively disrespectful, and gynephobic. We are talking about a tiny percentage of female people who prefer not to be called women or mothers for their own reasons; they can crack on with whatever makes them happy, ask for whatever language they prefer, and leave everyone else alone. This is achieving nothing at all except pushing all this to increasing anger and breaking point which is emphatically not in the best interests of anyone.

a pregnant women is also a pregnant person; that is an undeniable fact.

A square is also a rectangle. It posseses all of the properties of a rectangle. That's an undeniable fact. A square is also a parallelogram. That's an undeniable fact.

Nonetheless, we don't call what everyone can clearly see is a square, a "parallelogram" or "rectangle", because everyone knows what a square is.

If we go around all like "but this square is a parallelogram" people just start to get pissed off.

For males who identify as women it is essential that the word woman is never used in the context of female biology, as they are then excluded from the category of women. If there were any other reason, like inclusion, they would also be campaigning for the erasure of ' man" on anything to do with male health and biology.

Pregnant transmen know they're women, otherwise they wouldn't be pregnant. I wonder if it's really genuine transmen who are pushing for these language changes or just the Stonewall transactivists who seem to want to do anything to deny women their rights to anything. Forcing nurses and midwives to use "he" and "him" when they're trying to bring a child safely into the world seems to be the ultimate narcissism....

“ However, the addition of terms like ‘birthing people’ or ‘breastfeeding parents’ changes the meanings of ‘women’ and ‘mothers’ from sexed terms that include all female people and all female parents, to gendered terms that may be confusing or inappropriately inclusive. For example, what does the phrase ‘women and birthing people’ actually mean? This construction could be interpreted in a literal way as meaning that ‘women’ are not people. Another interpretation occurs if ‘women’ is meant or read in a gendered sense so including males with the gender identity of ‘woman’ who cannot be pregnant or give birth. It is not always clear from the context. The change in meaning of ‘women’ from a sexed term to a gender identity can also mean that those women who do not have a belief in gender identity as a concept do not see themselves reflected in the gendered use of ‘women.’ ”

Ignoring your odd choice to put the word people in quotation marks, a pregnant women is also a pregnant person; that is an undeniable fact. A pregnant non-binary person is not a pregnant woman.

And yet a person with prostate cancer is always a man despite the fact that transwomen and non binary people born male can also have this cancer. Why is there no inclusive language here,? Could it possibly be that the erasure of ' woman" in anything to do with the female body/ reproductive role is necessary ,not to be inclusive of non gender conforming female born people but rather to not exclude males who wish to identify as women? Why else would pink ' pussy' hats have been banned from the Women's Marches in the US and why else would someone like Monroe Bergdof tell women not to discuss female health matters on the London Woman's March. This is not inclusion but rather the Patriarchy telling woman what they can do and what they can call themselves.

Are pregnant women not also pregnant people? What about including transgender men and non binary people do you dislike? Inclusivity isn't about appeasing anyone.

Aren't babies also people? Maybe we should talk about people giving birth to people, and people feeding other people with their bodies.

transgender men ??
Do you mean a male person who identifies as a woman or a female person who identifies as a man.?

On a slightly related note, I've always wondered why a Transman would want to be pregnant or give birth. It's not really "living as a man" to go through possibly the most female experience, I can't think of anything more female than pregnancy and childbirth.

So how come I have never seen anything written about prostates or penises that avoids the word ‘man’ like the plague?

Anyone would think that the word women is a sweary word…