'Pregnant people'

@Mouldemort NO man on earth has ever become pregnant. It is biologically impossible as they lack a uterus and ovaries.

EVERYONE knows this!

...who are still women. So no need to refer to them as 'pregnant people'. 'Woman' does the job just fine, as it has always done.

Language is important. Particularly when it comes to medical settings.

Of course transmen can get pregnant, because they're women.

Girls can become pregnant. Trans men, who have a uterus and ovaries can also become pregnant. People can become pregnant, and some of them aren't women. You've acknowledged this, so what is your problem with using "pregnant people?"

This has not a single thing to do with men who are not transgender.

How have we got here! It’s absolutely absurd!!

"44% of women have given birth by the age of 30.
vs
"44% of people have given birth by the age of 30."

Think about it.

@Mouldemort “Trans men, who have a uterus and ovaries can also become pregnant.”

They have a uterus and ovaries because they are WOMEN!!

@Mouldemort “People can become pregnant, and some of them aren't women.”

They are ALL women!!

I am happy to acknowledge trans men as women dressing and presenting however they damn well choose.

I'm simply not prepared to condone their sexist belief that something in the way they think or feel is incompatible with being a "woman" when the truth is they have no idea how other female people think or feel about themselves, it's all just their own prejudices and assumptions.

The words "women" and "girls" already encompass the female half of humanity in all our diversity. That trans "men" have a lesser view of us than is their problem not mine. As a person who is a woman by reason of having a female body and nothing more, I'm not going to accept a redefining that reduces and lessens what a woman or a girl can be.

Are you quibbling about age categories?

Girls can get pregnant because they are also female. With luck, for most of their lives they will be women. This means that they will continue to be affected by their sex and the fact that they were/are/could be the kind of person who could become pregnant, regardless of whether they actually are pregnant.

Trans men can get pregnant because they are also female. They also deserve rights on that basis.

treating women as a subset of people harms no one and is a fundamental feminist principle.

No idea what you mean here. I don't think anyone is suggesting that women are not people. They are just also unavoidably the kind of person that has the kind of body that gives birth. It's the main reason that they need specific rights.

Your anger is simply based on not acknowledging trans men exist and everyone else gets hit in the fallout.

Thank you for trying to tell me what I believe, however, I think you will get on better if you let me tell you what I believe. It's more accurate, and that is so important.

@Mouldemort I don’t believe that this is what you really believe!

You know only women can become pregnant and that trans men are women.

It’s not trans men that are the issue tbf - I think most feminists who are sex realists would very much welcome trans men in any woman-only setting

I think the reason for egregious language mangling like this is much more to do with concerns that trans identified males won’t accept the word “woman” being used in contexts that exclude them

Trans men, who have a uterus and ovaries can also become pregnant

A uterus and ovaries = female.

Even if you are one of the 1.5% of mothers who give birth under the age of 18 in the UK annually, you're still female. Even if you are one of the few hundred females who are trans-identifying who give birth in the UK annually, you're still female. Because only females can get pregnant and give birth.

There is another thread currently discussing men lactating. The practitioner who is championing this openly states that men may wish to bring about lactation to 'feed' children but also out of curiosity, for fun or for 'sexual gratification'. What are your views on this? Do you believe that men should be able to abuse children in the name of 'inclusivity'?

Breastfeeding, like childbirth, are female-only preserves. If men could just let us get on with it, that'd be absolutely smashing.

And not having a uterus and ovaries has specific health consequences for women.

All these euphemisms are harmful because they prevent clear communication.

Anyone who has ever been pregnant has been a female.
Trans men are women.

We know you know this.

It's like some dystopian comedy without the laughs.

Trans-identifying women can of course get pregnant as Freddy McConnell made sure we all knew. The fact that Freddy identifies as male has nothing to do with the fact of her female body doing what it developed to do. That is why the court ruled that Freddy had to go on the child's birth certificate as the mother. Words have meaning and the female person who gives birth to a child is that child's mother, not father.

@Mouldemort “Trans men, who have a uterus and ovaries can also become pregnant.”

Trans men are women, hence the name "trans men", not "men". Biologically they are - and always will be - female.

We have not changed the language for autistic people (2-3% of the population), people with ADHD (5%), dyslexic people (10%), people with severe trauma (11%). Why should we change it for 0.13%, when this change would simultaneously disadvantage 50% of the population - 50% who are also often suffer discrimination?

It’s very simple, men are more important than women! It’s unfair, but we women must ‘know our place’!

Biologically, an adult is an individual who has reached sexual maturity, so a pregnant human female is an adult in that sense, and a woman by definition.

That shows how little you know about pregnancy and childbirth. Women can tell you that far too many of our shockingly appalling NHS maternity services are drowning with all sorts of anti women language and rhetoric instead of focussing on providing safe maternity care that doesn't kill women and babies.

Maybe spend a bit of time on Mumsnt listening to women - you'd be amazed what you can learn.

But also women don't wat to be women, we can't call a woman an actress any more they are an actor, why?

Why does it make any difference to your care if you are a person (woman) or a woman (woman). If the care is bad or good that's what it is, the word used makes no difference.

I think there are good arguments on both sides about actor/actress. I always thought the argument that you wouldn’t say teacheress or doctoress was compelling, but I do also see the point that “actress” is specifically someone who plays women

but it doesn’t mean anyone who objected to being called an actress would also object to being correctly identified as a woman in a gynaecological or obstetric context