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

Not when it's preceded by the "pregnant" condition.

See also: tall people, blonde people etc.

Pregnant people is perfectly correct. It is not as clear as pregnant women, this is true. But it's not incorrect.

Does 'people' not encompass everybody, and therefore incorrect as everybody cannot get pregnant, only women?

I wish that male people could get pregnant. Maternity services would be turbocharged.

If I told the academics I manage what stance to take on ideological issues, there'd be murder.

The make-up and hierarchy of the project team matters in this case, but this would be a project discussion, not an order from the boss.

You are perfectly reasonable for preferring real life language and not using the identity driven alternative.

Watch out for any action that looks like mobbing.

A checklist created by Leymann, the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror,
23
lists 45
mobbing actions and sets a threshold for deeming that mobbing has taken place if one or
more happens around once a week over at least a year. These actions can be grouped into
five broad categories, each centred on a aspect of the victim’s life that is harmed:
● self-expression and communication (such as being denied expression, facing
continuous criticism, threats and denial of contact)
● social contacts (being ostracised from colleagues)
● personal reputation (malicious rumour-mongering, being treated as if mentally ill,
being ridiculed in terms of beliefs, private life, nationality and other characteristics,
suffering sexual innuendos)
● occupational situation and quality of life (being denied prestigious or new tasks,
being given jobs that are meaningless or low-status)
● physical health (made to do physically strenuous work, physical threats or abuse,
damage to property and sexual harassment)

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/academic-mobbing-what-university-management-needs-to-know/

Push back immediately on any instance of mobbing and name it for what it is.

It's time to reclaim normality in universities.

If you're at a university, and you're her line manager, are you actually responsible for the research output?

If you're her supervisor or project lead, this would seem to be within your remit. If you're head of department or such, and not connected with the research project, I'd leave her to work with her research group and peer reviewers.

I would write women, but academics should be able to choose (and defend) their use of language. They shouldn't all sing from the same hymn sheet. And their managers shouldn't undermine this.

If it's a project you're actually working on, different story and room for an academic discussion.

When you start dismantling the word women from pregnancy all sorts of things happen. When it becomes ‘people’ what you are allowing is for all ‘people’ (both male and female) to start having a say on important issues like abortion rights etc.

The term "people" includes every human on the planet and is therefore incorrect.

I think there’s an academic point here too, if you start using data……issues which affect ‘pregnant people’ v the population as a whole compared with issues which affect pregnant women v the population of women will give very different results; so it is really important to use appropriate language otherwise the data won’t make sense

You could refer to the Plain English Campaign which is focused on making public information clear and concise. It's so that people of all intelligence and literacy skills in English can have the best chance of understanding public communications.

I also like what Cofaki says - just change it, no discussion.

Perhaps in some part of the NHS but not all of it and there is a move to stop it, and rightly so. The RCOG uses women - so use that.

@SirChenjins as a PP has said, NHS literature refers to pregnant people. She's consistent with the NHS. Also, the term "people" includes women therefore she is factually correct.

Her boss who requires her to stick to biological facts.

Don't gently tell her anything, she can say pregnant people if she likes! Who are you to police her choice of language?!

As the birthing parent. It is better to differentiate that way because not all mums are the birthing parent.

Could this be language the research board prefers or the phrase most used in the literature she will be citing

Let’s hope that no research board prefers to introduce confusing terms which has an impact on health literacy that lead to confusion for certain population groups and variations in health outcomes. That would be very concerning and should be corrected. Ditto if she’s citing literature which does the same. That’s not policing language, that’s correcting incorrect terminology.

Why is it acceptable to call another woman a 'twat' as some have done on this thread?Particularly on a feminism board!

Is she policing your language, because if so then that isn't on. But you can't police hers either. Could this be language the research board prefers or the phrase most used in the literature she will be citing?

You have given us very little to go on here

If you have seniority, then I would just add in the footnote as suggested by others and then simply edit the document to change people to women.

I wouldn't even discuss it. I would just do it.

And that is fine for you. Can't say I'd even be much engaged myself if it was a HCP referring specifically to me in the doctor's office - I might roll my eyes a bit but wouldn't be offended as such.

But referring to "pregnant people" in a research setting or when discussing consequences of pregnancy whether it be impact on health, earning power, social integration, whatever, completely obfuscates the reality that pregnancy only happens to women and girls and therefore women and girls are the only ones who feel these impacts. It creates a fiction that the all people in society carry the burden of bearing and delivering babies - they don't. Only women and girls.

After the Dobbs decision in the US there was a whole ton of "this affects provision of healthcare for pregnant people" as if the whole population was affected. It wasn't. only women and girls are suffering the health consequences - many of them significant. Not "people". Even my TWAW daughters were up in arms about it.

Honestly OP I totally get where you are coming from but I would leave it.
i work in the third sector and face similar issues of language on a daily basis . I have no freedom of speech.

Depends on the audience.

For scientific study of women's health, I've seen footnotes along the lines suggested previously: 'In this report, for brevity, we use 'woman' to mean a female person of any age. We recognise that not all those affected identify as women.'

If the information is going to be for general reading, a useful guide is sometimes 'can it be accurately translated by the 9 year old who is interpreting for his mum?'

(I know how to say woman in about sixteen different languages, thanks to a lockdown Duolingo habit, but would only recognise 'person' in two or three.)

Are you prepared to be hounded out of your job or harassed by students? I'm not saying it will happen, but you need to be prepared for how this can unravel, no matter how tactful you are.

But other women are not happy to be called a 'pregnant person', it feels alien and distancing. Only women become pregnant, so saying 'pregnant people' is erasing that fact.

Non-binary and transmen are both women. They can only get pregnant because they are women. What they think in their heads is irrelevant. Anyway, the OP can point out that women with identities can be approached in the best way for them, but that most women object to being called 'pregnant people'.

Turns your stomach?! I question your motives.

She’s technically correct too.