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

Pregnant women covers all those women too, and is more precise.

Crazy that we're at the stage of having to point this out.

Sometimes in life, especially in research or in legislation, we need to refer to specific groups.

That's not too say a word describing a 'super group' would be 'incorrect' as such, but it isn't always going to be as specific as it needs to be.

For example, if you were drafting legislation relating specifically to motorbikes, but used the word 'vehicles' instead, it is indeed correct to say all motorbikes are vehicles. However, not all vehicles are motorbikes. The effect of this code of language would be that your legislation had an impact on all vehicle use, not just motorbikes, which isn't what was intended.

Similarly if you were doing research into something specific to children, perhaps incidence of asthma diagnoses, it wouldn't be incorrect to refer to children as 'people', but it would be misleading as the study was about a specific subset of people, under 18s.

Can you see where I'm going with this?

Of course, women are a subset of people so you could substitute the word 'people' and it wouldn't be wrong as such, but if you are doing research or writing legislation relating specifically to women ie female bodied people, it wouldn't be specific enough to accurately describe what you meant.

Not all mums are a birthing parent, but all birthing parents are female. It's the common denominator.

"Not all mums are the birthing parent"- but the vast majority are! It's what mother universally meant until very recently.

Why is it more important to cater for this tiny minority than the vast majority of women who are horrified at being dehumanised like this?

Why don't we matter too?

Why don't non English speakers matter?

(Edited for clarity)

It isn't important to me not to use it. If you'd read the thread, you'd see I agree that "pregnant women" is clearer.

But it's false to say that "pregnant people" is an incorrect usage.

Cazpar

Female mammals, pregnant vertebrates...
Why is it so important to you not to use the word which means female human beings?

No need to complicate things - if there’s a word which has a clearer meaning then use it for all the reasons already given.

It sounds really bloody silly, though, when there's a perfectly good word you could use instead (men, women, adults).

'People' includes whatever the preceding condition determines. I.e. male people, pregnant people, adult people.

Also the term "people" includes men. So she's factually incorrect.

Sorry, I hadn't read all the thread and see the paper has been referenced.
It's brilliant paper and covers everything.

I was delighted to meet Jenny Gamble who gave a great talk about it.
She was so funny too.

Mentioned an academic who had been criticised about their language and advised to make changes. She said she would think about it. Later when publication time came and she was asked what she had done about the language she said "I thought about it".

An excellent technique.

Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language

"Regardless of the approach taken, we would recommend that clarity in terminology and avoiding conflation of terms are important. In particular, when sex is meant, refer to “sex”; when gendered expectations of the sexes is meant, use “gender” and clearly define the term; and when “gender identity” is meant, ensure the phrase is distinguished from both gendered expectations of the sexes and from sex itself. We suggest consideration of the following questions: How can I be clear? How can I include the people who should be included and exclude the people who should be excluded? How can I ensure that people understand what I mean and can readily recognize themselves? How can I avoid dehumanizing language? Does it make sense to apply a gendered understanding of words or a sexed understanding? Am I engaging in cultural imperialism or improper use of privilege by requiring others to use language in a particular way? How does language usage support or undermine the rights of women and children? "

Tell her she is engaging in cultural imperialism or improper use of privilege and see how she come back from that.

If you haven't previously seen it this is the reference you need:

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856

Who am I to compel her speech? I'm the project leader, the budget holder, the person who successfully bid for the money. My name will be on all documents, articles, papers, press releases associated with the research, and I won't have my name attached to work which talks about 'pregnant people'

Good for you, @LittlePrecious I don't think some postdocs realise sometimes just what work goes into being a PI.

If it's with one of the UKRI funding councils, they may have guidance on this, but there's been such useful advice on this thread, that you've got a lot of strategies now.

MN hive-mind at its best.

KarenOH

Men are people too.

The study is about pregnant women. There is no reason to include people who can never be pregnant, or who can never be women, for that matter, in a study about pregnant women. A woman claiming a special identity is a woman. If there is a reason to analyse different challenges or health needs of women with identities, I am sure those will be addressed. No men will be involved, however they identify.

If this research is being published in your name, I would persist in referring to women when talking to her (she would probably say you can't compel her speech just as she can't compel yours), try not to let it get to you, but ensure that all the wording of the report/paper/article refers to women where she would be using people, NBs, TM etc.

Thats what pregnant people covers. All of the above.

The OP doesn't have a 'belief' that the word 'woman' is accurate when talking about someone who's pregnant. This is fact.

but her belief is that some women who may be pregnant would prefer to be referred to or addressed as trans men or non binary. I don't think OP disputes that. This is about how, in the publications, those women are referred to. For the sake of clarity and brevity it is more appropriate to use 'women' throughout, and use a footnote early on to say that 'woman' includes all adult females however they identify.
Sorted.

She is as entitled to her beliefs as you are. But you are in a position of power. Don't abuse that position to enforce your beliefs on her.

I think I would bring it up in terms of accuracy. If, for example, you state that 10% of people struggle to get pregnant, when you mean women - it isn't accurate. By default 50% of people will never get pregnant, they are men.

I would ask why she is using vague language though and if she states concern about trans men, then give her a side note to create by herself about "people" and stick it in an appendix. It might just say "there were no pregnant trans men in the study," then you can bin it or put it briefly in the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

If the funder is interested in women's health and about women then I would just say that you don't want to get caught up in the trend of avoiding saying women and that you will start doing so when testicular cancer etc stop saying men.

Definitely 'women' then. You make the project vulnerable if you don't.
You can't (and shouldn't) stop her saying 'pregnant people' verbally, but you can absolutely make your position on the written/published material clear.
Verbally, I'd continue using 'woman' yourself.