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'.

Ah but according to the truly credible source that is X (formally Twitter) trans women CAN get pregnant. However, it always results in a miscarriage.

I've seriously seen numerous posts claiming this with lots of likes and shares.

We are truly through the looking glass....

Yes, odd they didn't go to Pistonheads or fora for football fans.

"People" is a word that also includes men. Who cannot be pregnant.

"Person / people" are appropriate words when referring to humans of both sexes (there are only two, as with all mammalian species). "People who work in medicine" is correct

In referring to those who are pregnant, the correct words are "woman / women".

I am dismayed to see how the right wing anti-gay, misogynistic, racist, PC gorn mad types have managed to recruit people who would never be racist etc in their lives to be transphobic and go on about women being erased because of the use of a word.

Suggesting transphobia is name-calling.

Thank you, you have made my day.

And thank you, @Ereshkigalangcleg, for clarifying and reminding us of the law around birth certificates. The word 'mother' was confirmed as the correct, legal word by the High Court in 2019.

I think I used the phrase 'pregnant people' the other day without even thinking about this. It wasn't a political statement about trans rights or anything. It's just what I said.

The other one has gone

Filed under bad day at the moment office but also researchers should listen to women

Which is why they insist upon using it. It's not supposed to be inclusive of trans men, it's supposed to stop us making an automatic association between women and maternity, since that's one area of being a woman that trans women simply cannot replicate. If pregnancy is something that "people" do, not a specific subset with shared, immutable, definable characteristics, then trans women can be women - no uterus, no cervix, ovaries, vagina etc required.

Which is why they insist upon using it. It's not supposed to be inclusive of trans men, it's supposed to stop us making an automatic association between women and maternity, since that's one area of being a woman that trans women simply cannot replicate. If pregnancy is something that "people" do, not a specific subset with shared, immutable, definable characteristics, then trans women can be women - no uterus, no cervix, ovaries, vagina etc required.

Exactly this.

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.

I'm not trans or a TRA and don't wish to be accused of being offended on behalf of others, but some people do take it that far, on Mumsnet, and certainly not everyone posting here, is female, a feminist, or remotely in favour of female equality. Especially as these threads are reported and commented on widely around the internet.

I'm in favour of a society where there is no prejudice or unfair discrimination re any of the protected characteristics in the Equalities Act.

Taking a cocktail of hormones designed to increase testosterone and reduce oestrogen and progesterone doesn't change a woman's sex either.

Generally "trans men" have to change their hormonal regime to get pregnant and gestate a child. Because male sex hormones aren't conducive to pregnancy.

protected characteristics in the Equalities Act.

Again, it's the Equality Act.

But they didn't on this thread. So why did you say that they did? It goes both ways, some people will see that you said that people on this thread denied the existence of transmen and they will believe you.

Why did you lie? Did you just get carried away?

Just had a look, the King’s College study pages seem to have been updated with “women” added, as well as “women and other pregnant people”. Phew!

We will always aim to use respectful and inclusive language, that is in line with community preferences.
For example, we will use words such as

• "pregnant person" or "birthing person" alongside "pregnant woman" (unless we are talking specifically about women)

https://www.wanda-study.co.uk/our-values

Chalk that up as something of a win.

If you control the language you control the culture, the way people are able to think about their world. I was reminded of this:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/22/the-power-of-language-how-words-shape-people-culture/

The power of language: how words shape people and culture

Stanford linguists and psychologists study how language is interpreted by people. Even the slightest differences in language use can correspond with biased beliefs of the speakers, according to research.

One study showed that a relatively harmless sentence, such as “girls are as good as boys at math,” can subtly perpetuate sexist stereotypes. Because of the statement’s grammatical structure, it implies that being good at math is more common or natural for boys than girls, the researchers said.

Language can play a big role in how we and others perceive the world, and linguists work to discover what words and phrases can influence us, unknowingly.

I'm in favour of a society where there is no prejudice or unfair discrimination re any of the protected characteristics in the Equalities Act.

except of course that charities supporting women with learning difficulties and women whose first language is not English have pointed out repeatedly and wearily that it is enforcing discrimination against those women by refusing to use clear simple language ie women when you mean women

however as we know, some protected characteristics are more equal than others

In that case I'm sorry. I wasn't meaning to call you transphobic by that comment, but trying to talk about the wider debate.

Small wins I suppose.

At the very least, this thread has served as a reminder (for those who need it) that no-one changes sex and that no-one on here has denied the existence of trans-identifying people of either sex.

If you control the language you control the culture, the way people are able to think about their world

Absolutely. Any study of linguistics usually would talk about this

We defy the loss of the word woman and we are against other attacks via language because it really matters

The law in this area is an absolute mess.

Gender Recognition Certificates were introduced following a judgement in the European Court of Human Rights directing the UK government to make it possible for a trans-identified person to marry someone of the same sex, which was not then possible, because same-sex marriage was illegal in the UK. It's legal now, so the original reason for introducing GRCs has long gone. However, back then the Blair government chickened out of trying to introduce same-sex marriage and went for the Gender Recognition Act instead. Both Houses of Parliament were assured that this was a tiny legislative change that would affect almost nobody. A maximum of 5000 people at any given time would hold a GRC. The idea that on the back of this people who didn't qualify to get a GRC or who for whatever reason didn't want one would nevertheless demand to be treated as the opposite to their natal sex doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone except a few prescient but ignored feminists.

So we're now in a position where a person whose revised birth certificate says male can give birth and will be registered as the baby's mother, or where the birth certificate still says female, but the mother insists on staff using he/him or they/them pronouns to refer to the mother in correspondence or conversation when the mother is not present.

The Equality Act (NB Equality, not Equalities) says that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, but this is not tightly defined in law and the legal protection given is widely misunderstood. Sex is a protected characteristic too, and so is pregnancy. The tension between these two has not been addressed.

If I were in charge of the UK, I would repeal the Gender Recognition Act as I can't see the need for it. I would also massively increase funding for good, evidence-based mental health services across the UK and support for neurodiverse people and their families. I think that would go a long way to reducing the numbers of distressed young women who think identifying as trans or non-binary will be a quick fix for their very complex problems.

Yeah I don’t waste my time with them, maybe if more of us refuse to complete them they might start using sensible language but whatever, their loss.

Completely agree.

Everything stems back to that legislation.

Of course it does it allows males to gain female legal sex certificates, the amount of obfuscation needed to defend that biological impossibility is huge and growing

Indeed, but we had that horrifying academic paper recently where it was argued that it's ableist to want a baby that's born in the best possible health and therefore to advise trans-identified pregnant women to stop taking the various hormones during the pregnancy.

Not in some misoginistic parts of 'transworld'. They're just 'unterpeople' of no consequence.

If women were considered people, their words, concerns etc would be heeded, taken into consideration. As it is they are 'non people' - their concerns are ignored or worse - attacked.

Male transwomen however are people and they take precedence. Their XY chromosomes give them priority (of course ) over XX people - women.

A philosophy as reactionary as ever. Any XX woman who complains about the take over should be verbally and physically attacked. Put in her place.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.