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'.

I notice the KCL thread had been withdrawn following the OP request, clearly not keen on the feedback.

Agreed, I knew a woman years ago who said that if wives and husbands took turns to give birth all families would stop at 3 children, no man would ever do it more than once. Women put up with so much due to our biology and I object to not being able to own that, because of some 'inclusive' nonsense.

How is the word "women" inclusive of someone who has changed sex legally to male?

Agree. We shouldn't have to reclaim the word women, especially not in the context of maternity services, and yet that's precisely what it feels like we're having to do. Women/females get pregnant and have babies, men/males do not.

Nobody changes sex.

Because regardless of what they wish they were, they are adult human females - WOMEN. So they are indeed already included.

No-one changes sex @actualpuffins

I want to hear more about changing sex, @actualpuffins especially in the context of maternity (personternity?). How does that work?

Agree with the OP. This is awful.

But if they are men legally they are entitled to be called men or male. How do you deal with that in printed/online materials so as not to break the law?

What language is used in order to be inclusive is debatable. That pregnant transmen or non binary people should be included in the provision of pregnancy services is not up for debate AFAIC.

This is right, they should be included. We should be able to come up with a way that includes them without changing language for all women, and then calling women transphobes recruited by porn soaked etc etc like a drive-by face slap.

And transmen call themselves male as a legal fiction. No one can change their sex.

Agreed. It's highly offensive

@actualpuffins you need to keep up.

You cannot change your biological sex

A transman is biologically female. So even if they go about their lives being addressed as Dave (other names are available) and dress like a Dave, if they conceive a baby, grow it in their uterus and birth it through their vagina, they remain a woman.

Famous case featured heavily in The Guardian a few years ago of a transman who had a baby who wanted to be 'father' on the birth certificate. It went to court and it was ruled that wasn't possible, as they were female and therefore the mother.

I'm wondering, also, why you think the desires of such a small community should override the actualities of the vast, vast majority of people - aka women? And why, therefore, you resist the use of the word 'woman' or 'women'? We do not want to be referred to as 'people' or 'person' when there is already a perfectly good word to describe us. Women.

I've no idea, I'm not a transman or a non-binary female bodied person. I'd love to hear from people who are, on this thread.

Sorry if anyone was offended by the use of the word "people" there.

We need to stop pretending; no one changes sex. If a person has a uterus and the other female organs she is female.She can call herself what she wants but that changes nothing. And when registering the birth she is still registered as the mother.

The same way that they can only be called MOTHER on the birth certificate. Reality. No one is entitled to compel anyone else's language. They're women.

May I ask a question of the posters objecting to the use of “pregnant people”?

Do you object to the use of additive language - ie “pregnant women and birthing people” and “mothers and birthing parents”? I understand that it sounds quite clunky and unwieldy, but in terms of not erasing ‘women’ and ‘mother’ from maternity discourse, are those terms better?

Worth mentioning that you only change sex in law with a gender recognition certificate and in the process for that you have to state your intention to live as the opposite sex forever. There is zero part of “living as a man” that involves being pregnant and giving birth.

did you know that pregnancy and maternity leave were originally protected in law as an extension of sex discrimination- ie: because only women experience them. So if we start pretending this is someone men do too, we jeopardise the legal basis of important protections for women.

How is the word "women" inclusive of someone who has changed sex legally to male?

It's not actually possible to change sex, it's a legal fiction that you can have a certificate that proclaims your "gender" is the opposite sex and allows you to have a birth certificate pretending you were actually the opposite sex from birth. However it won't change your legal status entirely, as there are exceptions to both the GRA and EA for single sex protections where they exist.

Odd how Freddie who makes a career out of having given birth does have a GRC so they are legally male. However part of being granted a GRC is a promise to live as a person of the opposite sex to the one you were born as

And yet Freddie went off and did the most female thing it’s possible to do, indeed a thing only women can do

and yet still they hold their GRC. It’s almost as if creating the legal fiction that one can become the opposite sex is a pile of bollocks

Please see this example of inclusive language from NICE which manages easily to acknowlege the preferences of gender minority groups while not ignoring the preferences of the majority.

www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng194

"The guideline uses the terms 'woman' or 'mother' throughout. These should be taken to include people who do not identify as women but are pregnant or have given birth."

Be NICE. Don't erase women.

I'm wondering, also, why you think the desires of such a small community should override the actualities of the vast, vast majority of people

I'm wondering why you think the Equalities Act exists. It protects many minorities- ethnic minorities, disabled people, and also on the grounds of sex - not necessarily a minority but often something which causes prejudice.

Life isn't all about what the majority say goes, and bugger the minority. As much as some people would like it to be.

Do you object to the use of additive language - ie “pregnant women and birthing people” and “mothers and birthing parents”? I understand that it sounds quite clunky and unwieldy, but in terms of not erasing ‘women’ and ‘mother’ from maternity discourse, are those terms better?

I roll my eyes at it, because it's nonsense, but yes it is somewhat better.

I'm wondering why you think the Equalities Act exists

It's the Equality Act, and I imagine most of us know why it exists.

It protects many minorities

Great. But it shouldn't do so to the detriment of others. Which is what you're advocating.