Pregnant people?! It's 'women'

[BIWI]

Two links to surveys today, from Kings College London and Cardiff University. Both surveys wanting to speak to 'pregnant people'.

It's women who get pregnant and give birth. Male members of our society are unable to conceive, grow and birth babies.

Please, please, please - why are you accepting these requests? Do you not read them first? (Especially seeing as you allow them to post their links for free).

I'm appalled that Mumsnet is now complicit in erasing the word 'woman'.

Female people are called women.
Female people who at the younger end of that are called young women.
Female people who are not yet young women or women are called girls.

Male people are called men.
Ditto but young men
Ditto but called boys.

Male people can’t get pregnant - only the female sex (which by definition is comprised of women or girls( can. Female people can’t get prostate cancer, only males/men can. People can get breast cancer.

Do you see the difference?

Came on here to say what @SirChenjins said. Let's not tie ourselves in knots.

Why cant female people be people.

They can be, and are. It's just in some contexts, it's important to note that they are a subgroup of people with some things in common that are very relevant to them and not relevant to the other subset of people.

Otherwise, you can blithely pretend that sexism doesn't exist. If I said to you that half of the children in Afghanistan don't go to school, that sounds like one kind of problem with myriad possible causes and solutions. If I am clearer that that half has one charactaristic in common - that they're of the female sex - we can actually narrow down the cause and the possible solution. How does it benefit those girls to obscure the reason they don't go to school and hide it under the general half of children description?

Because women is a man-made ideological concept, not a material difference of biology.
No it isn't. Words don't just mean whatever you want them to mean, no matter how hard you try to make them do that. You'd be closer to the mark if you said that 'lady' is a man-made ideological concept, since it evokes notions of class, behaviour, etiquette, femininity, which are all socially constructed realities. But woman, no. It refers to the 'material difference of biology' of which you speak.

Are you getting confused between 'women' (ie the word) and women (ie adult human females)? Clearly all words are human constructs since we create language and use essentially arbitrary sounds to designate parts of reality. But that doesn't, without extensive further argument, entail that the parts of reality so-designated are themselves constructs, otherwise our self-designation as humans or as mammals or as extended objects in space would all be similarly 'ideological'.

That is an arguable view (though you'd need to present the arguments!), but what it doesn't do is indicate why we need to treat the word 'woman' as more of an ideological construct than, say, human or table or shoe.

Agree with @StephanieSuperpowers And it's funny isn't it, how MENS identities are not eroded and fucked over like WOMENS? The fucking GREEN PARTY were trying to push MEN and non-men as the 2 genders a few years ago. Why not WOMEN and non-women?

Oh yeah that's right, women are 5th class fucking human beings.

Exactly as @StephanieSuperpowers says.

If you talk about improving maternity services for ‘people’ then it’s unclear what you’re improving them and why. For example, pregnant women will experience maternity services in a very different way and will require very different services and level of service to men who are supporting their female partners.

I dont get the "lets not tie ourselves in knots" after explaining why we need three terms for female people, centred around age, rather than using the term "people".

The whole thread is an insistance that female people are women "by definition". This is the whole mantra, female people cannot be people because they are women (with girls tagged on as somekind of afterthought for "women in training").

What I am saying is that being a woman is not a desirable state of existence, its something that female people are coerced into largely by other female people who have been brainwashed and are now repeating the indoctrination.

The category of "woman" is something that men have defined - not as some kind of neutral descriptor of "female people" like many here seem to believe, but as an ideological categorisation of what they want female people to be.

As to age, the Equality Act 2010 says "a woman is a female of any age".

Its predecessor, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, says, " "woman " includes a female of any age".

That'll do for me.

This is the whole mantra, female people cannot be people because they are women

Not at all - I'm not sure where you're getting that from. It's been explained in very simple terms throughout the whole thread.

@Cailleachian so you’re not arguing that “women” should be replaced by “people” but rather “female people”. So we scrap the words “men” and “women” altogether? My contribution to the discussion was that we need to be specific, you seem to be discussing semantics, which is a whole different conversation really.

"As to age, the Equality Act 2010 says "a woman is a female of any age".

Its predecessor, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, says, " "woman " includes a female of any age".

That'll do for me."

It also says "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

And that you must not be discriminated against because of gender reassignment.

I guess those writing the invitation to the survey were trying not to discriminate against anyone either due to sex or due to gender reassignment, and follow the law.

The question is how best to word things without causing offence to women or trans men, who may also get pregnant, as you don't need to have had surgery or take hormones to fit in with the above wording in the act. Clearly it did offend lots of women posters here and the survey(s) was(were) taken down. Yes, women who have not undergone gender reassignment will be by far the majority, but I think trans men should feel included as well.

Some people seem to be objecting to that as they feel that "women" includes trans men and is self-evident, or that the word "people" is offensive to pregnant women I'd really like to know what trans men do think. We hear a lot from trans women generally on the web but not trans men so much.

If you think that by refusing to use the word "woman" you'll change the material reality of what it is to be female, you're bound for a sad disappointment.

It's something that I've been noticing for a while, this almost "magical" belief that because people can be badly treated by using words, if we change the words we can change the behaviour.

This never really works out in the wider world. Instead the new words become the "bad" word. The behaviour remains the same.

Queer theory has used this magical thinking by changing the meaning of ordinary words and then acting as if this changes reality - so, "woman" is anyone who says they are a woman, ergo a man is a woman and anyone believing their lying eyes is a bigot.

At the heart of this is that we as a society should not discriminate against others, for their differences or beliefs. Such as that God made the Earth in 7 days or that a man can be a woman. It is a person’s right to believe either of these things, and we as a society should not discriminate against either belief in job interview etc.

However we as a society should not have to affirm others beliefs by changing ours, especially if these are established facts.

And we should definitely not go one step further and compromise others by refusing to call women, women in case it offends a person’s beliefs.

Just like many female children are taking a look at what women are today and thinking aint no way I want to grow up to be one of them. Because women is a man-made ideological concept, not a material difference of biology.

Girls being able to get pregnant has fuck all to do with pretending some women are men.
Your arguments are ridiculous.
The only people who think 'woman' is an ideological concept are those who believe in gender ideology, a tiny % of the population, which enforces the bloody stereotypes.

A woman is simply a female of any presentation with any personality, interests.

It's men who claim to be women that need these 'woman' stereotypes, not women.

Instead of opting out of the catergory 'woman', which is impossible, perhaps it would be better getting rid of the sexist stereotypes of 'gender' like women have been doing until the gender cult came along pushing their nonsense.

Pretending words mean other things than they actually do, won't stop women's oppression, it just makes it impossible to fight.

All the shit that happens to women and girls at the hands of men won't stop because you call everyone 'people'.

Also funny how TRA's NEVER claim that 'man' is an ideological concept. It's only 'women' that seems to cause the poor souls considerable confusion.
It's almost as though one sex has all the power to oppress the other. 🤔🤔🤔

Your argument is that women is a "bad" word and because "man" is the default concept women should remove the word used to classify their sex class and be only named as people, which by your own logic actually means men?

And yes girls fall within the sex class women. Your example of a 12 year old who is pregnant is only pregnant due to having gone through female puberty and having periods, egg production etc. She will need womens pregnancy related rights along side the rights of a child. Society is not suggesting that she be regarded as a fully mature adult once her body begins puberty and therefore offers an overlap of rights.
If the 12 year old had not become pregnant any sexual abuse will still have happened, and she would still deserve the rights and protections our society decided was age appropiate

But in your world order woman and girl and man and boy will not be used.
In your world order you will be wittering on that people sexually abusing other people.

And that you must not be discriminated against because of gender reassignment

The comparator for discrimination is people of their own sex.

I guess those writing the invitation to the survey were trying not to discriminate against anyone either due to sex or due to gender reassignment, and follow the law

Pregnancy has fuck all to do with gender.
Every female is 'included' on the basis of their sex, regardless of any chosen identity.

but I think trans men should feel included as well

So transmen themselves choose to opt out of being a woman then whinge that they feel excluded? Bit contradictory no?

The survey could have used the word women throughout with an add on for the miniscule number of females with a 'gender identity'. But we all know it's not about transmen, but about uncoupling 'women' from their bodies because the men won't allow us to say ONLY women get pregnant, have periods etc.

The survey could have used the word women throughout with an add on for the miniscule number of females with a 'gender identity'. But we all know it's not about transmen, but about uncoupling 'women' from their bodies because the men won't allow us to say ONLY women get pregnant, have periods etc.

Do we all know that?

A conspiracy of men and TRAs put together these hospital and university surveys using the word people in order that women can be uncoupled from their bodies and not be allowed to talk about women getting pregnant?

Or do you think it's more likely that it was a mixed group of people or predominantly women putting the surveys together, looking for inclusive language and getting it wrong?

Fucking 👏🏻

but I think trans men should feel included as well.

Included in what exactly?

Only women as a sex class will need pregnancy related services.

If a woman decided to have a baby (or not) why is her voice more important if she claims to be a man?

Why should womens services be renamed and women themselves be renamed because that woman decided that being recognised as a man elevates her status above other women.

That is what the researchers looking for data from women had decided.

To gather the data they have to either make a special section for this small group of men or design the data collection process around pretending that its not just women who growing new humans.

This type of study gets rolled up into the information supplied to policy makers and women suffer from the report bias of "men get pregnant too" and how services need to spend time training on pronouns rather than the improvements in actual medical pratice (eg which is why a medical teaching hospital signed off on training on the complications of a male giving birth).

No, I'm saying that some people are excluded from the generic category of "people" because they are female - abortion isnt a human rights issue for example, but a women's rights issue.

I see a shit tonne of posters on demos saying "woman = adult human female", yet here we are saying actually "woman = adult human female and children who have need of pregnancy services" because we are defining pregnancy services as something that only women can access, therefore if you are 12 suddenly you become a woman because of what a man has done to you.

Why does she need women's pregnancy rights (ie the pregnancy rights of an adult female)? Why do 12 year olds have to be considered adults to get the healthcare that they need and is appropriate to them in their situation as a female child who is pregnant?

Female people are people.

Male people are people who intrinsically lack the human capacity of conception, gestation and birthing and thus have no experience of significant parts of the human condition.

@@Heyhoherewegoagain

defines a woman????

many of us have not given birth and are just as much women as those who have, thanks very much.

@BIWI

couldn't agree more, the language used by MN is getting worse & worse.

Gonna come back to De Beauvoir here "women are not born but made".

People give birth to people. Some of those people will have the capacity to birth other people, some will not; some of those who do not have that capacity can and will be identified at the time of birth.

The ones who know from their earliest years that they do not have this capacity and cannot aquire it organise society in their interests.

The definition of woman that is being pushed - as an socially and sexually mature person who is assumed to have the capacity to conceive birth and gestate and the automatic inclusion of a sexually and socially immature person into that category once their ability is proven reduces female people only to that which breeds, and by implication, that which can be fucked.

That 12 year old got made into a woman, by being raped. A man changed her status from "girl" to "woman" by raping her, because only women can be pregnant.

Female people are people. This is the hill in the TERF war on which I will die.

That 12 year old got made into a woman, by being raped.
Not necessarily. And I’m afraid you’ve generally lost me, and didn’t reply to my last post seeking clarification. No one said female people weren’t people (it’s in the name, no?).

I'd prefer go by what our legislation has defined than by anything De Beauvoir has written!

"As to age, the Equality Act 2010 says "a woman is a female of any age".

Its predecessor, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, says, " "woman " includes a female of any age".

To gather the data they have to either make a special section for this small group of men or design the data collection process around pretending that its not just women who growing new humans.

I thought you, or perhaps other posters, had spent three pages of this thread arguing that trans men were women.

I'm just trying to discuss how all women can be included whether or not they have decided to be a man, which I think is an important issue, as a feminist myself.

If a woman decided to have a baby (or not) why is her voice more important if she claims to be a man?

Why should women's services be renamed and women themselves be renamed because that woman decided that being recognised as a man elevates her status above other women.

I'm not saying that anyone should have elevated status, but that they should not be or feel excluded. Even if it's a tiny minority of one or two people out of 50,000.