'Pregnant people'

The term people refers generally to human beings of both genders (yes, there are only two).

I am sorry that biology may offend some people, it doesn’t make what we are saying a hate crime.

Are we gonna start referring to “people who get prostate cancer” too then? Because again, biology states that only males can get prostate cancer. I don’t see language in their healthcare information changing as drastically as it does for us women and girls.

@Mouldemort “Pregnant people includes all people who can get pregnant.”

NO!! People include BOTH sexes. Only ONE sex can become pregnant.

You know this, we all know this. Only WOMEN can become pregnant. STOP trying to eliminate the words WOMAN and WOMEN!!

Suggesting that trans should be “subsumed” under pregnant people is exactly the same argument.

Only females can reproduce and become pregnant. You cannot erase gender when it comes to reproduction.

I've explained myself very clearly

No you haven't.

Do you think Boris Becker's 1985 Wimbledon win should be scrubbed from the board on the grounds that at 17 he wasn't yet a gentleman?

Would you like ice and fruit in your gin and tonic?

Oh, that's a lovely looking pie, what is the filling? Oh, fruit! Great, that's my favourite!

You should eat five piece of fruit and vegetable day, but do strive for variety - for example, you could have a fruit with breakfast, but a fruit at lunch, and then after having vegetable with vegetable for dinner, finish with fruit! Being healthy doesn't need to be boring!

No, but I'd think it was weird and confusing if someone said 'I've made a fruit crumble' rather than doing the normal thing of saying what fruit it was made of.

I think you have explained yourself clearly, yes, but I don't think what you've explained is necessarily what you meant to 😆

Pregnant people includes all people who can get pregnant. Pregnant women doesn't. That's why it is used. Honestly, do you get upset if people say "citrus fruit?" because apples aren't citrus fruit?

We aren't talking about specific cases, but a general term. Of course "pregnant girl" works if a girl is pregnant, and pregnant woman works if you are talking about it women. "Pregnant people" is a general term which includes everyone who is pregnant.

I've explained myself very clearly and I have nothing else to say on matter. Transphobia rots the brain and bleeds into perfectly normal use of language.

If a girl gets pregnant, ‘pregnant girl’ works.

The word ‘people’ include both sexes. Pregnancy is something ONLY females can do.

I mean it's women that should be getting pregnant, not girls...

I know how this works
"Women are people. If you have a problem with this, you are no feminist."

Just like "Men are women if the say they are. If you have a problem with this, you are no feminist."
"Sex change is great for children suffering from pubertal angst. If you have a problem with this, you are no feminist."
"Some special men are entitled to share changing rooms, showers and hospital wards with women and girls. If you have a problem with this, you are no feminist."

Rinse and repeat.

@Mouldemort We must use precise terms instead of "people" for female-specific conditions and male-specific conditions to ensure accurate medical treatment, clear communication, and proper health screening.

Black people are people, @Mouldemort and if you deny as much you are some kind of racist from the 1840s. But we don't say 'People's Lives Matter' do we? Because the actual category is really quite fucking important, wouldn't you say? In fact, isn't 'All Lives Matter' kind of a .... racist dogwhistle?

Now, if Mouldy were proposing a new umbrella noun exclusively meaning the female half of humanity I'd accept he was arguing in good faith. While we haven't had such a noun in Emglish before, I can see the utility in it.

But he isn't. He is arguing the opposite. He is arguing that there should be no words that specificaly refer to the female half of humanity at all.

And given the clear and undeniable physical and social consequences sex has for us, particularly if we are female, who on earth would think that was a reasonable thing to suggest other than a person who at best totally devalues, and at worst perhaps even literally hates, women and girls?

Mouldy ain't no Feminist and he ain't no friend to female people if he can't even allow us a unique name within the overall mass of "people".

Women are people. If you have a problem with this, you are no feminist.

Of course we are and we are also the only people capable of becoming pregnant because we are female, unlike the half of the population who are male. Age and any inner identity feelings are irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is reproductive sex.

is a casualty of gender critical obsessiveness with trans men

Thank goodness somebody cares about them and understands that they depend on sex based rights.

@Mouldemort “Women are people”

MEN are people too. Men cannot get pregnant. ONLY women can get pregnant. ‘Pregnant women’ works fine and ‘pregnant girl’ if need be.

in particular by pro-choice groups

Generally the kind of pro-choice groups that operate in countries where choice has reduced dramatically over the last few years.

it's vital that we use language that all includes all people who can get pregnant, including children

But you aren't doing that are you - you are suggesting language that includes all people and ignores the sex specific nature of pregnancy.

And you still haven't explained the circumstances where using the word 'woman' would be a problem. We are talking about general communication. We all understand that there are circumstances where tailored patient specific language is necessary.

Many women will have medical conditions that mean that general pregnancy advice doesn't apply. We cope.

Can't do Venn diagrams in a post, but

All women are people
Not all people are women
No people who are not, or are not going to become, women, can get pregnant.

Uncoupling reproductive rights from ‘womanhood’ is one of the most regressive things so-called progressives have done. It’s allowed it to become a ‘people issue’ and, as such, one that men feel entirely within their right to pontificate, and legislate, on. (More so than before).

Are you familiar with the concept of a Venn diagram at all, @Mouldemort ?

As "pregnant people" is frequently used in the context of reproductive rights, in particular by pro-choice groups, it's vital that we use language that all includes all people who can get pregnant, including children. Only "pregnant people" does this.

Frankly, suggesting that "children" should be subsumed under "women" because they are pregnant a deeply regressive and is a casualty of gender critical obsessiveness with trans men. You don't think they are men - fine - but don't let your views undermine reproductive rights.

Women are people. If you have a problem with this, you are no feminist.

The youngest pregnant CHILD I've been aware of was 5 years old

Lina Medina in 1939?

Thankfully few children experience both rape and precocious puberty. It's not a rational reason to avoid the word 'woman' when referring to pregnancy.

As has been explained to you many times, girls who are pregnant are medically regarded as sexually mature and fall under the umbrella of woman also

🤮

Untrue and very dangerous especially for safeguarding reasons. A pregnant CHILD is not a woman and there is absolutely zero reason to say something like this. The youngest pregnant CHILD I've been aware of was 5 years old and referred to as a young woman because that's exactly the narrative sexist child abusers who see female CHILDREN as sexually mature rely on. Can't believe an adult woman would say this in this day and age. 🤮

So we could try saying, non-binary people who were assigned female at birth are the ones who can get pregnant? Quite the coincidence, then, that the midwives randomly assigned them female and they then turned out to be the kind of people who can get pregnant, isn't it? If only there were a simpler way to articulate any of this.