New Scientist magazine and 'pregnant people'

It would be a miracle

If they found any pregnant male people it certainly would be a miracle!

Though for for a study of this kind, losing a few pregnant self-identified men and gaining a few male self-identified women probably wouldn't make a significant difference. Probably.

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.

Because even the most passionate proponents realise it is a small group demanding that they ‘want’ it.

And eventually it sinks in that there are many trans people who don’t wish to be referred to by their biological functions or reminded that they have body parts they hate. And that it is an even smaller group insisting on the changes and that the passionate allies are harming other trans people.

No, they are all female sexed

Yes, which is what being a woman means, regardless of the fact that some people wish to change that definition.

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.

The comparison group for pregnant women should be all (or very nearly all) female. If they are not then we should be told.

Absolutely we should be told right across the world!! It would be a miracle and a marvel and much research necessary.

I'm sorry you feel very strongly that this is wrong- that must be very frustrating.

You don't understand science do you? Trying to explain science can be frustrating, especially when a science magazine gets it wrong, but I teach for a living so here goes.

When you are comparing health outcomes there's a big difference between "individuals" who might equally be male or female and "individuals" who are only female. The comparison group for pregnant women should be all (or very nearly all) female. If they are not then we should be told. Some medical studies are only done on men but claim the results are universal. Comparing pregnant women to just men or to a group equally made up of women and men would not be valid. I expect that the scientist - who is not afraid to use the word "women" when it matters - did compare outcomes with non-pregnant women and this is just the journalist or perhaps a sub-editor not understanding that it makes a difference. Which is a crappy for a science magazine.

@GertrudeKerfuffle 👏🏻😂 brilliantly put!

This publication has used this wording because they are willing to accept that female people identify in different ways. I'm sorry you feel very strongly that this is wrong- that must be very frustrating.

But does the publication and are those with the same mindset as Holly66, willing to accept that if you repurpose the word woman to refer to an identity, then you no longer have a word to describe female humans? Why are they not bothered but the loss of essential words?

It what sex is every ‘pregnant person’. It doesn’t matter what you wish to be called. If you are bothered by the word then how will you find the whole process of being pregnant and giving birth?

Seriously though, do you think it's reasonable to be spoken to like this, Holly60? And then wonder why you get people's backs up?

Remember though… Holly is on the right side of history! Knowing that history can be very long and that what may be the ‘right side’ in five years, may be the total opposite and view with mockery in twenty, or two hundred is important to consider.

@WandaWomblesaurus omg yes what complete and utter mumbo jumbo. Someone who is born one sex, but wants to live as another, is not going to keel over just because they see their real sex written down. They just aren’t. They will recognise it is their sex. Even if they are living as another. It’s not offensive just because someone says it is. It’s not a mental health trigger just because someone says it is.

For me that is the heart of it. Trans is overstepping an important line. If we have to change words belonging to one group of society ie women, because a subset of men or women decide it is offensive to them, without considering those who are women, we become a stupid playground 🛝 of word salad. At some point we will stop to function. If we can’t communicate without constant reordering to ever increasing nonsense.

• a turkey marching for Christmas.

Articles are not rigorously researched or peer reviewed. Articles about subjects I am an expert in are pretty poor.

"No, they are all . Some of them will identify as transgender men, non-binary etc." and? Why does that mean we have to remove the word women?

"Sex is biological fact. The rest of it is open to interpretation. I accept that you aren't comfortable with it, but that doesn't give your opinion any more weight than anyone else's." So why do we have to change our language because some women don't want to be women?

"This publication has used this wording because they are willing to accept that female people identify in different ways. I'm sorry you feel very strongly that this is wrong- that must be very frustrating." I don't give a shit how anyone identifies - don't erase the word women in order to identify as a bloke.

"There may be a sea change again where society moves away from this but I think you just need to accept that this is where society is at the moment." Why can't you accept that many women think this is bullshit?

"Historically, all big societal and cultural shifts would have left sections of society feeling disenfranchised and angry." By sections do you mean women?

Honestly what patronising rot.

Eurgh as a scientist I absolutely hate this. It’s not accurate and it’s offensive to me as a woman.

For me it is the cult of woke labelling gone absolutely bonkers. It demeans really important word changes as in racist or sexist language. These people or cervix owners or whatever word changes as based on ideological preferences, and often completely silly. They do not reflect woman’s wishes, only trans and allies wishes. So it is not a consensus. The word woman is not up for grabs by men or trans people. It is for women to decide. We say no.

I grew up in a world in which the word woman was rarely ever used. It was the Bible which referred to the default group as men.

I'm now living in a world in which the word woman should not be used at all.
The word most accepted is people. Now it's science which can't call us women.

Barely 50 years of being able to see the word woman written down in print.

Woman is not a dirty word.

I like the little snippets about weird animals and that kind of thing. But I've just found the articles where they go on about pregnant people (and, with reference to the word count discussion, waste a whole paragraph explaining/excusing their use of the term) ridiculous. I just can't trust the content of the other articles so much when I see the capitulation to the ideology on display. What other things that are being written in there are ideologically driven?

I'll be cancelling my sub. A shame, I really enjoy the NS, even if it is junk science. And yes, the crossword is good!

I've never understood why, if you think you're actually a man, you would deliberately get pregnant/breastfeed?

Oooh, I know one of these.

Bills himself as a ‘master practitioner of neural linguistic programming’ but comes across a massive wanker.

’pregnant people’ is fine for a WhatsApp group chat on queering one’s pregnancy but it’s useless for science where a grouping made up of ‘pregnant people’ is likely to need a grouping of ‘almost the same only not pregnant people’ to compare to, and ‘non pregnant women’ and ‘non pregnant people’ aren’t going to produce the same comparison group.

Yes I think it would be the same one.

I'm sorry you feel it's a mistaking in engaging with this thread, how frustrating for you.

It must be so difficult when a thread calls to you and you don't get the replies you'd like. It must make you feel so disenfranchised and angry.

I hope you thoroughly enjoy your G&T. Please pop back to the echo chamber whenever you're ready 😊

Seriously though, do you think it's reasonable to be spoken to like this, @Holly60? And then wonder why you get people's backs up?

Yes, can you imagine this for any other minority activism?

White people being told they must refer to themselves as non blacks

Heterosexual people being told they are to be referred to as non homosexual etc. ( I know people use the word straight but that's usually used in context where someone's sexuality is relevant not what you can call yourself generally)

Christians being told they are no longer Christians but non Jews etc

You get the point...

From Elaine's excellent article:

If you don’t recognise yourself as a “cervix haver” you are unlikely to attend your smear test. Cervix is an uncommon word describing a hidden body part so unless “woman” is used to invite women to screening those with learning disabilities, dyslexia, English as a second language or lower education attainment are excluded. Some of them might then die of cervical cancer. I don’t think that is ok.

A recent international paper examined cases where gendered language caused harm or confusion, and it makes for grim reading. It is hard to understand why adding barriers to healthcare for those already marginalised is championed as inclusion.
I was so cross about all this that my birth injury became my muse. My episiotomy scar is a zig zag shape and I read somewhere that lightning bolt scars can be powerful…so, if need be, I will gather crowd of women, march to Holyrood and whip out our scarred pudendas and bellies, prolapses and piles, mastitis infested breasts and our fierce capacity to love and demonstrate that we earned the word “mother” and we won’t give it up without debate.

thecritic.co.uk/women-wont-wheesht

Seams like the perfect time to drop this brilliant paper about using sex based language and why it is important

Thanks for this! I believe it's the one Elaine Miller referenced in an article posted (to discredit her) on the thread about her.