'Pregnant people'

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

@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?

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

It literally does!!

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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?

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

@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.

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.

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. 🤮

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 "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.

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

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).

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.

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.