Science podcasts now ‘gender neutral’ about pregnancy

[WinterNeverChristmas]

Listening to the ‘Brains On!’ Podcast about innies versus outies and other pregnancy related facts. Really excited that there was a new (to us), interesting podcast on science for our DC. However, quickly the podcast is all about how a placenta grows within a ‘pregnant person’ etc etc. That phrase was mentioned no less than 20 times. No mention of the fact that it’s actually a woman who has a child. Nope we are pregnant people now. It’s science.

This wouldn't be acceptable with any other group with a long history of being discriminated against and sidelined. Just imagine:

'I identify as disabled and I use a wheelchair. I am transabled. You must treat me as just another wheelchair user.'
Some time later:
'Why do you all keep banging on about accessible toilets, public transport and lack of lifts in public buildings? It makes me feel excluded because I will never have the experience of not being able to get on a bus that doesn't have special adaptations. You need to stop talking about this. My experiences are just as valid as yours but they're never centred.'

Pregnant living organism I think is fully inclusive

If everyone just becomes people, then race, culture, colour, sex, anything that defines you becomes completely irrelevant- your just a lemming basically

Aah but then you can reduce instances of everything and improve outcomes without doing a damn thing. Cos you can just remove the language to describe whats happening

Very true what

[quote Mummy1608]@Whatwouldscullydo
Women sometimes die In childbirth. Black women are 5 times more likely to die. Their lives and deaths should not be hidden amongst talk of " people"

This sums it up for me, well said[/quote]
Exactly. Situations require specific use of language - if a black woman is assaulted in the street by a white man she needs to be able to say 'a white man assaulted me' in order for the crime to be reported as both assault and possibly racially motivated.
If she can only say 'a person assaulted me' surely it loses its impact. The possible charge loses one element and the police can't narrow down who they are looking for. A man? Woman?

Language matters, and cloaking 'pregnant women' in 'pregnant people' obfuscates matters. As I said before - it does not benefit women.

As a pp said we need to complain more. We need to speak up because this will keep going on if no one does.

Lifeform, @GrumpyPanda? Although that excludes inorganic substances. Tricky!

😱

What would you call a man who has a womb?

Imaginary

@worriedaboutfitness

A trans man with a womb then (I feel like you all know exactly what I mean when I say that)- they exist whether you agree with it or not.

You answered your own question there.

A man does not have a womb a transman does.

We all know there is only one sex that can become pregnant. No male human can, or ever will, become pregnant.

We call that sex, in humans, women.

Given how taxing pregnancy is on the FEMALE body, I don't want particularly want to hear from actual men on the issue or give them a seat at the table.

@worriedaboutfitness

A trans man with a womb then (I feel like you all know exactly what I mean when I say that)- they exist whether you agree with it or not.

Is a biologically born man. Who you identify as is up to you. That's gender identify. And most people respect that. In terms of science which being pregnant directly relates to, biologically born WOMEN have babies. It's a bloody fact.

@bordermidgebite

I could also accept the use of female

I couldn't. Firstly 'female' refers to a female of any animal species. We deserve a word to distinguish female humans just as much as dogs and cows too.

Secondly, using words like 'female' (or people who menstruate etc) is not inclusive in (what should be) the real meaning of inclusive, in that it is a word that fewer people will understand. Using language like this can exclude or impede certain women (and men) , such as who are not proficient in english (may have it as as second language) or who have learning disabilities. Using simple and well understood language is particularly important in health communication.

@Janesmom

YABU - just don’t listen and leave those of us who aren’t TERFs to get on with our lives without your misery and bile

Best report all the bile you see, @Janesmom. MNHQ will remove it. Perhaps you could help the rest of us by explaining where the bile is in wanting to be referred to as women and female in contexts where that actually matters, e.g. pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, menstruation, menopause, women's health issues, women's sport, single-sex services and spaces?

@Janesmom

YABU - just don’t listen and leave those of us who aren’t TERFs to get on with our lives without your misery and bile

Are you able to articulate a reasoned response to any of the concerns that have been raised?

endofbluenight

I appreciate your view but I am more interested if the TRA /stonewall/ and general "people terminology "
community would accept it

@worriedaboutfitness

A trans man with a womb then (I feel like you all know exactly what I mean when I say that)- they exist whether you agree with it or not.

I would say that if he was taking the drugs in order to be male, his womb (what an old-fashioned word that is to be sure, really quite biblical!) would be unlikely to be fertile so the question of pregnancy would be unlikely to arise.

Worth having a look at even so open a source as Wikipedia, where you will find this:

"Pregnancy is possible for transgender men who retain a functioning vagina, ovaries, and a uterus" -- good start

but then

"Testosterone therapy affects fertility, but many trans men who have become pregnant were able to do so within six months of stopping testosterone" (the others took longer without it, not stated but obvious from the context)

Also

"Exposing a fetus to high levels of exogenous testosterone is teratogenic."

So let's hope that he does stop taking the testosterone and doesn't risk disabling his baby. You know, like not taking thalidomide when you are pregnant is a good idea.

I will have to listen to it myself (apart from this issue it does sound good) however I read that some women are offended when talking about how all women have wombs, give birth etc as obviously not all women have wombs. Just like not all pregnant women are mothers - so I would be more leaning towards they’re not wanting to offend biological women rather than trans-women.

Regardless I think it’s ridiculous and I’m saddened that a Science podcast wouldn’t just stick to facts.
It’s up to the person listening to understand that everything isn’t always back and white.

@worriedaboutfitness

What's the downside of saying woman instead of person in the instance given by the OP?

That the very low number of trans men who are planning to get pregnant would feel 'not included'?

We cannot change language and make it less clear and less accurate just to cater to potential hurt feelings of a very, very small minority of people.

My trans friends wouldn't be offended by 'pregnant woman' being used instead of 'pregnant person' because they are sensible, reasonable and know that language is important - it matters. Even more so when something medical is being discussed.

I have yet to hear the phrases 'people with a prostate' or 'penis havers' campaigned for which is a reflection of the underlying misogyny within the TRA community. It's clear they believe that natal women should pipe down and #bekind at the expense of clarity or safety. That natal women should consider and cater to the feelings of trans women at all times, while trans women shouldn't ever have to prioritise the feelings of women over their own.

I couldn't. Firstly 'female' refers to a female of any animal species. We deserve a word to distinguish female humans just as much as dogs and cows too.

This is ridiculous.

@WonderfulYou

I will have to listen to it myself (apart from this issue it does sound good) however I read that some women are offended when talking about how all women have wombs, give birth etc as obviously not all women have wombs. Just like not all pregnant women are mothers - so I would be more leaning towards they’re not wanting to offend biological women rather than trans-women.

Regardless I think it’s ridiculous and I’m saddened that a Science podcast wouldn’t just stick to facts.
It’s up to the person listening to understand that everything isn’t always back and white.

If it is about pregnancy, why would somebody unable to get pregnant be interested in it? If somebody has no womb, it wouldn't be of relevance to them.

I will have to listen to it myself (apart from this issue it does sound good) however I read that some women are offended when talking about how all women have wombs

Hasn't most of this discussion involving all women have wombs etc come about becuase of the attempts to remove the word woman as a biological fact. So people ate forced to keep going with lists if characteristics until we find one that cant be appropriated or " used against" inter women like those who have had hysterectomies etc

Or taking the whole not all women have a womb but all who have a womb are women etc out of context.

The real actual.insult however is this constant nonsense we are exposed to where just because some women don't have a uterus that means male people can also be included in the word woman because they are now exactly the same

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

Lifeform, *@GrumpyPanda*? Although that excludes inorganic substances. Tricky!

😱

"Things". I win

If it is about pregnancy, why would somebody unable to get pregnant be interested in it? If somebody has no womb, it wouldn't be of relevance to them.

Just because you can’t get pregnant or don’t want to get pregnant doesn’t mean you shouldn’t learn about it.
It’s a science podcast so it will go through a range of science subjects.

It seems to require a reliance on parents teaching their children that only females get pregnant, so that 'educators'' can then score their woke points.