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'.

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

I hope the answer is "to piss off Daily Mail and The Sun readers and GB News viewers" as it's worth it just for that alone, frankly.

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

Very snarky. I had been offended by a survey's use of "birthing partner" and "chest feeding partner". I suggest that you also might feel uncomfortable with this wording but I could be wrong.

I hope the answer is "to piss off Daily Mail and The Sun readers and GB News viewers" as it's worth it just for that alone, frankly.

Not really. You seem ill informed. Not everyone who thinks this language is bullshit and erases women is "right wing". That's just silly, and reflects your own prejudices and biases.

Well the reply from @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet gives the impression MNHQ don't care.

Poor show.

No, just the opposite. Posters here are saying they want to leave out transmen as they don't believe they exist. I don't want anyone to be left out and am wondering how to be inclusive without causing detriment to others and within the law.

Because they’re women

Posters here are saying they want to leave out transmen as they don't believe they exist.

Of course they exist, as a group within the subset women. Women are female, so are "trans men".

Fully accept that trans men exist. They haven't changed biological sex though, even if they've changed legal sex, and the fact that they're pregnant only underscores that reality. There is no reason for all other women to accept being called a birthing person to try to help these people not face the reality that if you can get pregnant, you are female.

But transmen ARE women (it's prerequisite), so they're included anyway.

That pregnant transmen or non binary people should be included in the provision of pregnancy services is not up for debate AFAIC
Don't do that 🙄
Literally nobody has suggested trans people should be excluded from pregnancy services.

@actualpuffins
If you have to resort to name-calling you have no argument. If a woman believes she is a man and then gets pregnant I would say she has a lot more issues than the word woman. It really is the anti-intellectual age. You can’t change your sex, a piece of paper doesn’t change reality. The trans lobby has infected every institution in the country it seems.

Ok, I'm misinformed. Yes I'm sure consumers of right wing media are massively in favour of the Equalities Act.

What name-calling?

It depends on the sense in which they are using the term, and I'll admit I haven't looked at the survey as I'm not pregnant. But we see people on here all too often posting stuff saying "We are pregnant" or "We are trying to get pregnant" (which frankly always irritates me) and I'm just wondering whether they want to hear from both mothers and fathers/partners.

Could not agree more. The most female thing anyone could possibly do is become pregnant and give birth.

As for revised name of MN, how about Wombhavernet?

What excellent publications are on the allowed list? The Guardian? The Independent? Channel 4? Pink News? They all have significant issues.

That's an absolute whopper. Shame on you.

It depends on the sense in which they are using the term, and I'll admit I haven't looked at the survey as I'm not pregnant. But we see people on here all too often posting stuff saying "We are pregnant" or "We are trying to get pregnant" (which frankly always irritates me) and I'm just wondering whether they want to hear from both mothers and fathers/partners.

They do want to hear from both, but that's not the sense in which they were using the "inclusive" language.

You've lost me there.

You can't change your sex. It's every cell in your body. XX Woman XY Man.

You've lost me there.

Not being funny, but that's not surprising. You are just parroting the received trans talking points about "incluuuuusion" without really grasping why many women have an issue with the dehumanising language. It doesn't even occur to you that their feelings matter too.

Please spell out in words of one syllable how a pregnant human female, aka a woman, is identifying as a man or living as a man.

Helpful hint: none of the following turn a woman into a man - wearing trousers and flat-heeled shoes, having short hair, not wearing make-up, having a mastectomy. Taking a cocktail of hormones designed to increase testosterone and reduce oestrogen and progesterone doesn't change a woman's sex either.

Nobody on the thread has said they want transmen left out of maternity services - the language already includes them.
Nobody on the thread has said that transmen don't exist.

It's divisive, dishonest and generally unpleasant, but sadly a common tactic, to accuse women standing up for the language that's used to describe them as denying the "existence" of transpeople.

Women are people. So people is inclusive. Are you seriously saying that women are not people????

Exactly.