Line managing someone who talks about "pregnant people" - how to gently tell her to use "woman"?

Any cognitive dissonance at all here? Keeping a project about pregnancy gender neutral…
The employee only wants to keep the project politically correct and gender impartial

And those friends probably don’t subscribe to all the ideas in that faith that you find problematic. There is a common assumption that Christians, for example, all have an identical (right wing, fundamentalist) worldview, and I know many who are left of centre, and/or who value science. The degree to which religious people take their sacred texts literally, and the degree to which they subscribe to a particular theological position, varies enormously. Good for you, seeing your friends as autonomous people, not just as pawns in an ideology.

I certainly see something similar in trans circles. I am pretty sure that the trans people and allies I know do not subscribe to all of the batshit extreme positions, though it is hard to find out, as they don’t seem to be secure enough in their (incoherent) worldview to be open to critical questioning.

In view of recent reports on the almost catastrophic care pregnant women get during their pregnancy and while giving birth I should think that clear, precise language is the very basic starting point that we should all insist on.

That is you though.

I have had four pregnancies and three births.

Pregnant people is a deeply offensive term to me.

No male will ever experience the excruciating pain of a cervix opening.

If she still doesn’t grasp the importance of using clear, unambiguous language point her to the ONS results in Newham. A perfect case in point https://unherd.com/2023/04/how-the-trans-census-fooled-britain/

Haven't read the full thread, but suggest taking the clarity/ accessibility route through this.

'We need to make this material as accessible and clear as possible because not everyone reading it will be an academic. I'm concerned that talking about pregnant people could be confusing for anyone who doesn't have English as their first language. Sex matters when you're talking about issues of pregnancy and childbirth. We know that only women can conceive and bear children so let's use the phrase pregnant women to avoid any confusion.'

If she says yes-but-transmen you say 'Of course, but we both know that transmen are women, don't we? This is an academic project: we need to be clear and accurate.' Smile firmly and move swiftly on.

If anyone says anything, ask them if they've heard of the Jo Phoenix and Maya Forstater employment tribunals.

As has been said already, the issue is not the terms per se, its the context.

Also JKR, much as I love and admire her, is not 'chief TERF' who determines what the rest of the GC hivemind is allowed to say, or not.

(Also, the fact that she uses those terms so regularly should be borne in mind by those that label her a transphobe, but that's a digression).

Absolutely!

RTFT then.

Honestly don't know why people bother commenting 8 pages into a discussion about something that 'doesn't matter'(to them) anyway without at least reading to see what the fuss is about?

You don't speak for the rest of us. We are allowed to discuss things that wouldn't bother you.

as said above it’s the difference between the personal and the general

Indeed @Theeyeballsinthesky

This is how it's possible to be critical of gender extremist ideology and transactivism, but not be transphobic.

I have friends who are pretty committed to their religious faith. There are ideas in that faith which I find problematic and I would not want to live in a society governed by those religious beliefs.

But I still love my friends.

Honestly don't know why this would bother you the

So what? "Even" I might use those terms in the right context. Just not in this context.

JKR is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, basically.

Ignorance and lack of critical thinking can't just be a default position if you're demanding that society reorganise itself in a way that significantly disadvantages 51% of the population.

Totally, @AstonScrapingsNameChange

Women's Place UK or FairPlay for Women (sorry, forgot which) has a slogan "Nothing about us, without us."

51% of the population should not have the fundamental definition of their material existence erased, to suit the beliefs of less than 1% of the population.

Particularly when that 51% of the population is the most subject to disadvantage and discrimination on the basis of sex.

Is JKR now writing research papers on pregnancy or drafting maternity policy? If she was I guarantee she’d be saying women and mothers

as said above it’s the difference between the personal and the general

Even JKR uses those terms.

Pregnant women excludes girls, transmen and trans boys.

These are all women or girls, though.

Pregnant People does include all people by definition of people
’disabled’ ‘athletic’ etc still includes men and women which is what the argument/debate is about
Your last paragraph has it
That’s what most posters are saying!!!!!
FGS is it me????
It’s going in circles

I'm so sick of this shit, I really am.

Back in 2016 say, before all this went mainstream I could understand people thinking 'why not just be nice, who cares' - well for about 10 minutes until they'd read up on the issues.

But now? Ignorance and lack of critical thinking can't just be a default position if you're demanding that society reorganise itself in a way that significantly disadvantages 51% of the population.

It's like trying to have a sensible conversation with a toddler who has their fingers in their ears and is singing la la la can't hear you!

Innit!

We know exactly why TRA want to divorce words from their accepted meanings for oooooh well since people began to speak really

how odd thats it’s only been in the 21st century that some people have decided that it’s sooooo haaaaard and like almost impossible to know if someone is biologically male or female

therefore we better just hand over women’s rights to men

@Theeyeballsinthesky it's almost like words have meanings and if you want to communicate a specific meaning you need to choose the most specific word!
🙄

Exactly @AstonScrapingsNameChange its the difference between the personal and the general

when research about pregnancy or maternity is being carried out, it needs to be stated at the outset that we are only talking about biological women as only women can get pregnant. People includes men, men cannot get pregnant

And I can’t believe in the 21st fucking century this is having to be spelled out!

The issue is differentiating between specific people, and when we are generalising.

If specific pregnant women find being called a woman upsetting and ask people to refer to them as men, that's not (much) of an issue. It's not causing confusion to other people and messing up statistics.

What we are discussing here is a research project specifically about women.

As has been said umpteen times upthread, not being clear about language risks statistical inaccuracy in the research, and difficulty in communicating the findings. Is that worth it to avoid upsetting a vanishingly small number of theoretical pregnant trans men who will likely not come into contact with the research anyway?

I, and many others here, don't believe it is.

(As an aside, I'd love to know what percentage of women identify as a man AND get pregnant AND still want to be referred to as a man AND want all references to woman, mother, etc removed from literature. It's got to be absolutely miniscule, yet keeping them happy is deemed by sme worth all the damage this is doing to women, non native English speakers, neurodiverse people, the visibility of women's health and countless other things. That's an interesting trade off which says a lot about how some people view women and mothers).

There are no gender equality laws. The Equality Act does not list gender as a protected characteristic.

The OP quite rightly doesn't want nonsense written in a document that will reflect on her.

There are reams of posts discussing how changing language in a non universally agreed way does affect society as a whole - maybe read some of them if you are interested?

Oh and if you believe my views are due to my 'low self esteem' rather than my critical thinking, it's not very kind to say I should essentially buck up and do better - why doesn't that equally apply to anyone upset by 'pregnant people'?

Your true colours are showing.

They were women and still are women, but don’t want to be called women.

So the question is whether it is sufficient for them to be referred to as something other than women by all the staff during maternity care on a case by case basis OR do we also have to also remove all written references to ‘women’ in documentation for the sake of this tiny number of people to the detriment of everyone else?

Material reality is important.

You have explained it clearly in a few short sentences!

Chairman excludes women because a man can only be a man.
Chairperson includes women because a person can be either a man or a woman.

So a person (or people) can be either male or female.

Pregnant person or pregnant people refers to "people" who are pregnant.
Just like with tall people, or brown-eyed people, the qualifier is that they are tall, brown-eyed or pregnant. As "people", they could be either male or female people who happen to be tall, brown-eyed or pregnant.

Obviously, only female people (women) can get pregnant. But using pregnant people asserts that men can get pregnant. The only reason you read "pregnant people" as meaning pwomen is because you know that men can be tall or brown-eyed, but never pregnant.

Women is the name we give to adult human females. Identities are irrelevant - it includes every female adult on the planet and who has ever lived. All "People who can conceive" are women.

Pregnant as a qualifier for women indicates the subset of women who are pregnant. Who are the subjects of the study.
Edited for clarity.