James O’Brien on now ‘pregnant people’

[quote oklets]@anothersmahedmug Really? You strongly object to being referred to as a person? Think the replies here have answered my question! [/quote]
I didn't say I strongly object when it's the right level of abstraction

I do object when its the wrong level of abstraction because then harm follows

You call a chair the chair not the furniture if you want someone you sit down for clarity

Have a seat , have a chair not have the furniture

But carry on being exclusive and harming the female sex if it makes you feel better

JOB hates all women, not just GC ones.

Yes, I have one of his books somewhere. I think it’s in a box in the loft so I can’t check it now, but IIRC he wrote that it didn’t cost him anything to be kind to trans people, so therefore only an arsehole wouldn’t be kind. Something like that.

I don’t know why a woman’s sense of smell changes during pregnancy, but I’d guess it’s linked to hormonal changes. I do know that women have a stronger sense of smell than men, especially in the fertile period close to ovulation.

No one is none binary sex

The word refers to the sex of the person

You can have whatever gender you like but it's pretty irrelevant to the pregnancy process

And by using gender not sex you exclude anyone without a gender

Perhaps you don't care about them ?

I can't bear James OB. This does not surprise me in the least.

Sometimes exclusion is necessary

We exclude adults from competing with children

We exclude white people from programmes designed to improve the lives of people from BAME backgrounds

Women are not included in programmes to screen for prostate cancer

The erasure of the word woman when it relates to something that only women can do in favour of people is not being inclusive at all, it’s just erasing women for no helpful reason at all

JoB is afraid of being cancelled by those he perceives to be the cool crowd. He’s so desperate to be considered a voice for today but really, he’s rather loathesome.

I used to be a fan until he did a trans in sport debate and was a right arse, he ignored or talked over all those making the case for women (including Hayden).

I have not listened to him since and will not, he can fuck right off.

@anothersmahedmug Really? You strongly object to being referred to as a person? Think the replies here have answered my question!

If there is a disease, for example, which affects both men and women (defined by their sex) but women are disproportionately affected, then reporting on 'people' obscures the effect of the disease, and interventions to tackle the disease, on women. And this has started to happen in medical journals who wish to be 'inclusive'. And that starts to have real world affects on our ability to tackle issues that affects women due to their sex.

Which, given as we have only just started to recognise how illnesses and treatments can affect men and women differently, is a massively retrograde step in creating a society that genuinely treats women equally.

People get cross because the ignoring of the differences between the sexes causes real harm. Like no safety gear for women

People get cross because pretending there is no difference between the sexes means that the female ones get shat on. You can't show the fact that women don't get safety gear that works if you can't show the fit of kit based on sex. So you don't know why half the population can't use the safety gear so you can't fix it

@Intheopinionofourexpert Well my point was is your objection based on you denying the existence of trans/non binary people. And your reply indicates that yes, it is.

Inclusive

Why say people ? Why not animals or mammals? Why not just things ?

Thanks @spikesonbuildings, there are some good points in this. I agree some of the language they refer to in this is really clunky and can see some of the issues with that. But 'pregnant person' isn't really difficult to understand. Nor does it seem dehumanising. A lot of the replies on here are nothing to do with these issues and do seem just an angry anti-trans/non binary thing.

What's inclusive about not including the word women? Why not women AND non binary people and transmen?

I fail to see what is inclusive or benign about using language that fudges the issue of which sex gets pregnant - not always through choice - and which sex grows and gives birth to a baby, sometimes at considerable risk to health and life.

I don't see that you slurring of feminists in this way is any different from in the 70s when feminists were called 'man-haters'.

I wouldn't bother. JOBby hates GC women and talks over and patronises them.

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856/full?fbclid=IwAR1GmMyg9yC58i3SargXSSpsw1NgaVoD6raB8cz40YuEgx9VxFTr5A4m4OQ%20OPINION%20article

It’s not ‘inclusive’ to erase the word ‘women’.

No oklets it isn't.

Have a read round. There's 6+years worth of discussion, examples, scientific evidence, law, opinion and much much more on precisely why it isn't.

I am a woman, I have given birth. I have no idea why people get so worked up about the use of inclusive language. Is it simply that you deny the existence of trans/non binary people?

Not a fan of JOB myself

He is firmly in the ‘transwomen are women, women are worrying about nothing’ camp. DH has his latest book and there is a section about it.