'Pregnant people'

@Mouldemort “I’d suggest some remedial research into reproduction if you don’t know.”

I learnt in school Biology that ONLY female mammals can get pregnant. They are the ONLY sex to have the internal organs that are needed to become pregnant.

Unfortunately, without language to refer to sex it's impossible to understand reproduction.

I do know, and so do you - so I'm glad I'm not the one posting that a whole variety of 'people' can get pregnant or else I'd be feeling very silly and embarrassed.

Tell me you didn't type, with a straight face, that anyone who doesn't know only females can get pregnant needs to do remedial work?

I’d suggest some remedial research into reproduction if you don’t know.

"It's not about the women (or girls). It never is".

Spot on. The use and abuse of children and the young runs through all this as in a stick of rock. Yet proponents have no shame or care for the young. Just using them to promote their toxic beliefs. It's quite sickening to see them in action.

You're quite right. Someone who disingenuously says they're only here to protect the dignity of 12 year old girls while simultaneously believing that the same 12 year old girls should be cool with undressing in front of men in changing rooms or sharing their school toilets with teenage boys.

Also believes that the most pressing need wrt to a pregnant 12 year old is that we call her a 'pregnant person' and not a woman in order to be inclusive. Never mind the fact that her being pregnant in the first place is likely to be a direct consequence of sexual violence, and pregnancy as the result of sexual violence is something that only a female can experience.

It's not about the women (or girls). It never is.

Maybe you're right Flirts.
Whatever the reason I've tried to give up up paying attention to those promoting the rights of men to access undressing / unclothed girls and women. These anti social / anti safeguarding views take up too much space as it is.

I suggest not so much lack of insight, as lack of fucks given. For TRAs like Mouldy, women (actual women) and girls (actual girls) losing the services and protections that were set up to meet our needs are acceptable collateral costs in the higher service of supporting trans people's identies.

Indeed. Why anybody's wasting time arguing with a poster who thinks that men are entitled to share changing rooms, showers, hospital wards with women I can't imagine.
Their comments demonstrate their total lack of insight in pregnancy, child birth and parenting.

Agree. Can't defend women if we can't even say the word. And how would equal pay claims work.

But as long as we don't get tricked into not supporting trans rights along the way.

We don’t say female identifying people to label the toilets do we? We say ladies. That refers to women and girls. Same applies to those of us who breastfeed, give birth etc. only females can do this. Therefore we need distinction from people.

happy to help

It matters, and it matters a lot. Those who would mangle the English language into a bastard form of Newspeak do not have good intentions, and should be strongly resisted. The right approach is surely "Just fuck right off with all that".

Presumably you will be taking Cheltenham Ladies College to Court for false advertising on the grounds that they don’t admit pupils over the age of 18?

Nadia Comaneci certainly needs to return her medals.

Where do we stand on the March girls? Has anyone checked their ages? I fear a full recall of all ‘Little Women’ books and merchandise may be necessary.

Trans identifying women and non-binary people who are pregnant are women. They are not men, which is the opposite of women, because men cannot become pregnant. So, the 'entire category' you describe is covered by the word 'women'.

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. They are female. And are likely to be the victims of sexual violence, which is a consequence of them being female. To attempt to erase their femaleness is to attempt to erase sexual violence against females.

Once more - we do not need a new term (ie 'pregnant people'). We already have one which describes that section of humanity, and it's women.

@Mouldemort “It literally doesn't, which is why we use pregnant people.”

It literally does!!

@Mouldemort what’s the best way to know if someone is in the certain category of “non binary people” who can get pregnant or not? Or is it just not possible?

Those ‘certain’ non-binary people are back, I see.

Pregnant women absolutely does include trans identifying females and females who prefer plural pronouns to be used about them. You’re just grasping at straws now

It literally doesn't, which is why we use pregnant people.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic if you are talking about pregnant women, and say "pregnant women" - that's fine. If you are talking about the entire category of people who can get pregnant, which includes girls, women, trans men and certain non-binary people, then no, pregnant women does not include them.

Pregnant people is precise and straightforward. It's much more precise than pregnant women, because that is a subset of people who can get pregnant. That is, unless you subconsciously think the default person is a man!

You full well know it’s not trying to be inclusive of both women and girls, leave it out 🙄

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic “Do we really have to dumb down language to spare the feelings of women and girls who have a notion that they would like to be men?”

Why would women who have a notion that they would like to be men, want to do something that only women can do?

Make it make sense!

You seem to think that language is always precise. The boundary between girl and woman depends to an extent on context. For example, the legal boundary between child and adult is different in the contexts of age of consent, what vehicles can be driven, incarceration, alcohol consumption, Gillick competency, and several others. It is quite common to refer to older girls as young women, and many of my female acquaintances have gone on "girls' nights out". My mother is a very fine old girl, and I don't think she would object to being referred as such.

There may be a valid argument that "pregnant women" should sometimes be made more specifically inclusive of pregnant girls, but most people will instinctively include girls who are old enough to become pregnant.

"Pregnant people" is just weird, as about half of us can never be, or have been, pregnant. Do we really have to dumb down language to spare the feelings of women and girls who have a notion that they would like to be men?

Generally language is most helpful for communication when it is precise, but in practice we all use context to inform our understanding. What is really egregious is deliberately altering definitions in a way that denies reality.

A pregnant 12 year old girl would be under the care of a consultant or specialist midwife and she would be receiving very different information to that given to women. Pregnant people would absolutely not be the terminology used - the language would be crystal clear and would be written in a way that could be easily understood by someone of that age who is sadly very likely to come from an area of deprivation, have had one or more ACE, or have been raped.

@Mouldemort “So, "pregnant women" doesn't cover all people who can get pregnant,”

In medical, legal, and public health contexts, the term "pregnant women" includes pregnant girls (adolescents and minors who are female).

To be clear, any term that excludes men is unacceptable to you. Why is this?