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

@Mummy2024 - "... OP needs to tread carefully as the employee can probably put in a formal complaint against her if she makes a thing out of this. The employee only wants to keep the project politically correct and gender impartial. There are gender based equality laws, so if I were them I would tread very carefully"

But the employee is participating in a scientific medical research project into pregnant women (according to the funding proposal) that is being led by the OP.

The employee's concerns about political correctness and gender impartiality have absolutely no place in a scientific study - this isn't some social studies or humanities based project.

If you don't understand the medically significant importance in pregnancy studies of not confusing "sexed" language with "gendered" language and of making sure that communication is as clear and simple as possible, you cannot have read this artcile which has already been linked to twice. You might not think it's important but researchers do.

Frontiers | Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language (frontiersin.org)

And as others have pointed out, there are no gender based equality laws. It's unlawful to discriminate against someone who has undergone or is starting gender reassignment, but how can using the term "pregnant women" in this study discriminate against anyone? It's referring to sex, not gender.

It was ageist and offensive. I’m glad you’re sorry though.

“Pregnant people” doesn’t include “all people” any more than “young people” or “disabled people” or “sick people” or “athletic people” or “French people” or “working people” include “all people”

Pregnant is a qualifying adjective delineating which subset of persons we are referring to.

Personally I would just leave this one. She’s allowed to say it, she’s not breaking the law. You would come across as pretty horrible if you start having a go at her about this.

‘Pregnant people’ is not an example of language evolving for goodness sake!
It’s inaccurate because people includes all humans some of which are biological men who cannot get pregnant. Even if they think they can.
It excludes the people who are the sex who have the large gametes even if they are unable to achieve a pregnancy they’re still women

I really do not. I was writing about my own life experience. Sorry it was offensive that was completely unintentional and I still don’t know what was wrong with the post.

Thank you for letting me know you didn’t report it.

Transmen used to be called women, but Millennials have decided this shift in language and thinking is their contribution to our civilisation.

I would certainly hope you wouldn’t repeat your earlier offensive post - you know why you got deleted.

I would suggest you just let her say pregnant people if she wants to. You say pregnant woman if you want to. I agree with the poster who says pick your battles. Let her get on with it.

transmen are women that’s how they’re pregnant

and I very much doubt you’re older than me & fjr the record, I didn’t report your post. I’m all for letting people’s posts stand

You really think I would re-post word for word a post of mine that got deleted?
No that isn’t exactly what a said, I paraphrased so as to hopefully not get accused of being ‘ageist’ against myself again.

How can it exclude unless you think women are not people? if using person/people makes women invisible, then how can chairperson include women while pregnant person/people exclude women?

Logic fail.

Chairman excludes women because women are not men

Chairperson includes all people who can chair a meeting: women and men

Pregnant women excludes girls, transmen and trans boys.

Pregnant person includes all people who can conceive: women, girls, transmen and transboys.

People is simply the plural of person.
People: ”Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers. Often treated as a plural of person,especially in compounds. "People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people. This book is not intended for laypeople."

That’s not what you actually said. You were offensive in your ageist language.

lol, not sure why I got deleted. I was saying I didn’t want to do to Millennials (who are not teenagers but adults) what was done to my generation in terms of clinging to old fashioned language.

The funny thing is I am probably older than eyeballinthesky who accused me of ‘ageism’ while blatantly infantilising professional adults as being ‘teenagers’. The irony.

No I do not mind pregnant people. I am not at all bothered about language evolving.

A pregnant female could be a mongoose or a polar bear.

This is a research project, not a community outreach scheme. There is no need whatsoever to mangle language and, as some people keep forgetting, the funding is for a study about pregnant women.

Many moons ago I worked on a project on maternal and child health. I can't imagine any of those academics people-ing women, but I wonder how they have managed their masters students and younger research fellows. I must look them up.

OK but now they to use the words pregnant female and not woman? I suppose it's a workable compromise tbf

There are gender based equality laws, so if I were them I would tread very carefully.

Um, no @Mummy2024 the 2010 Equality Act is sex-based.

This are the language changes the next generations want, and I remember how I felt at oldsters not adopting the gender neutral language I wanted. no desire to repeat the resistant to change, stuck in the mud view of older people

The difference is that the battle to get "Chairman" "police man" etc etc changed to include women, was just that - inclusive.

The move from 'pregnant woman [or girl]' to 'pregnant person' makes women invisible again. It excludes.

No they were woman, now they don't want to be called that anymore.... why should they be forced to, to keep you happy? How doesn't them no longer wanting the name affect you?

Someone else wanting to be known as a woman doesn't take away from me being a woman. Who wouldn't want to be a woman we are great lol 😆. All these people terrified woman are being somehow diminished as woman, because of what someone else wants to be known as, need to get some self esteem. OP needs to tread carefully as the employee can probably put in a formal complaint against her if she makes a thing out of this. The employee only wants to keep the project politically correct and gender impartial. There are gender based equality laws, so if I were them I would tread very carefully.

So if men are impotent or have rubbish sperm, they aren’t men?

interesting…

And then you get those horrible beardy bros says, "Well if women who can't even get pregnant are allowed in your exclusive woman club how on earth can you deny entry to those men who want to join?" Because a woman who can't fall pregnant is basically just a man amirite!!??!!

oh yes I always feel deep joy when TRA weaponise my infertility in support of their nonsense. I’m infertile, I’m not a sodding man

This is the problem, I think, with "pregnant people." It divides women who can fall pregnant from those who can't.
All of new terms, "people with a cervix," "menstruators," "birthing people" - they separate us into little boxes of disconnected experiences, so that we never realise the political saliency of our being women. So that women who were born with MRKH feel cut off from the group, and those who've had hysterectomies, those who never give birth - we're never all put in the same category together as women.
And then you get those horrible beardy bros says, "Well if women who can't even get pregnant are allowed in your exclusive woman club how on earth can you deny entry to those men who want to join?" Because a woman who can't fall pregnant is basically just a man amirite!!??!!
Just to be clear, because I'm sure there will be women reading who have had that last sentence communicated to them in a thousand small ways, it's absolute bulshite.