New Scientist magazine and 'pregnant people'

They should have been factual. Only women can get pregnant, if you are pregnant then you are a women. I'm sorry if you think your another gender or no gender, but it's just not correct, and to change it from pregnant women to pregnant people to 'not offend' 3% is ridiculous. They don't care not to offend the 97% of pregnant women that cannot be called thier actual sex.

I think you just need to accept that this is where society is at the moment.

No, I think you'd just like to think that this is where society is at the moment. Most of society doesn't agree with this crap at all.

@Holly60

What about transgender men who are pregnant? They presumably would rather not be referred to as a woman.

I guess it's also including non-binary people who are female sexed and therefore able to be pregnant, but who don't identify as a woman

I am soooo fed up with this.
Being a woman is not an option.

It is not an identity, it is a reality.

And it goes both ways - you cannot become a woman, and you cannot stop being one.

What @TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross said.

But only women can get pregnant.

Actually Holly60's argument would apply equally to the tras. So, let's see 'em try it out with the pampers.

@TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross put it perfectly.

👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼

all of this!

@Holly60 If you think that historically cultural and societal shifts have left people disenfranchised and angry, can you give examples? Although I think screwing over half the population (women) isn't a good idea, for obvious reasons.

but I think you just need to accept that this is where society is at the moment.

Scientifically illiterate you mean? Lol.

I think you need to accept that not everyone has such low standards as you Hols. 😉

Oh bless your little heart. I can just imagine you at different stages of history, passively accepting the status quo - marital rape is legal? I think we just need to accept that this is where society is at the moment. I’m sorry if it leaves women feeling disenfranchised.

Not able to get a mortgage without a male guarantor? I think we just need to accept that this is where society is at the moment. I’m sorry if it leaves women feeling disenfranchised.

Not allowed to vote? I think we just need to accept that this is where society is at the moment. I’m sorry if it leaves women feeling disenfranchised.

All those women not comfortable with so many aspects of the patriarchy throughout history - sad for them but they should have realised that their opinion didn’t have any more weight than anyone else’s.

The tone of your post, Holly60 - I’ve read some patronising rubbish in my time but that really trumps it all. Off you go and do a bit of critical thinking and come back when you’ve made some progress, there’s a love. See, two can play the patronising game.

"What about transgender men who are pregnant? They presumably would rather not be referred to as a woman."

Please someone explain why a trans man would get offended being lumped in with women when they are in fact pregnant, the most female exclusive thing they could possibly do. I have a headache.

How many transmen even get pregnant? We're told constantly that they "are men", so why the hell are they wanting to be pregnant and birth children?

I've not yet seen a satisfactory explanation of why a very small part of the population should have the right to change the definition of half of the human race just because it wants to.
This, and this again!

No other reason necessary.

I agree the original paper used silly ‘pregnant people’ language too, throughout. But it did at least, just the once, state that they were all female!

It matters a lot because the push to replace sex with gender is going to make so much research worthless.

And it was such a massive breakthrough, quite recently, when the scientific and medical establishment started noticing how much research ignored women. Serious work in important areas such as differences in drug effects, car safety design etc. This was started to be recognised and tackled. Now it’s all getting muddied by genderwoo.

You’d almost think the genderists disliked women and didn’t want our health needs researched….

Ahhhh! Lovely Beetle.

I was at the Women's and Children Department of my local hospital for a scan the other day.

Now I'm not a poet but I wrote the following whilst I waited to be called in

Pregnant People

Sat there in the waiting room, waiting for a scan
Everyone a woman, though a few had brought their man

You could tell which ones were pregnant and definitely not a man
It was the women with the bellies on the way in for their scan.

Boiled x

I associate those telling us all it is all for our own good to accept this dehumanisation, to be on par with the critical thinking ability of those who come back with ‘you all have gender nuetral toilets in your houses’.

For the most part, it seems like a regurgitation of the trope some prominent self appointed influencers have been saying on social media. It sounds wonderful and clever until someone tries it on people who actually think their own thoughts and do some research beyond the superficial. Then it sounds just like another mantra.

It's not possibly for a man to become pregnant.

This is basic human biology.

All 'pregnant people' are women.

Amazing how many of those who talk about the right side of history have no understanding of contextualising history, no understanding of safeguarding or basic biology.

Given the abstract used similar language to the NS article, it sounds like they'd approve tbh.

GertrudeKerfuffle

I think anyone arguing they are on the right side history may have a limited understanding of history and just what ends up abiding and what changes with the ebbs and flows when rights conflict.

And absolutely there is a lack of rational arguments. Which is why they resort to ‘right side of history’ and an emotional manipulation. Because who wants to be seen as on the ‘wrong side of history’! Right?

The authors of the original paper must be annoyed. The New Scientist report makes it look as if they've done shoddy research by including transwomen in the control group for a study of vaccine effects on pregnant women. But the original paper clearly states Study participants were pregnant and non-pregnant females aged 15–49 years. Yes, females. Not just people who identified as women.

@Helleofabore this whole concept of 'the right side of history' seems irrelevant to me. We can only put our views across and argue for the rights of women, here and now. I think you need a lot of hubris to claim you're on the right side of history. And, perhaps, a lack of rational arguments to back up your claims.

Have worked for this magazine & it's not certainly like a bunch of scientists sitting around a magazine

Sorry to hear a scientific magazine has gone to the cisdogs

There are a lot of people who get upset at being in the obese category, there are also loads of people in complete denial that their child is overweight.

Therefore, all scientific articles about weight should dismiss what people actually are and instead what they think they would like to be. We'll see such a drop in obesity rates, we can call it a win (who cares about diabetes or heart disease)?

Or we can stick with the age old tradition of printing the truth, so it actually means something. If someone thinks it's all about them, they can seek help.