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'.

@BIWI This gets me so annoyed too OP! But I am at the point now where I am actually TRYING to not let it get to me anymore, as it's becoming farcical and ridiculous now, and I think lots of people are not taking it seriously anymore. Uterus owners, non-men, pregnant people, ACTRESSES now being known as ACTORS, no more fucking female or male singer awards. It's pathetic and farcical, and I am trying to not get worked up about it anymore.

I reckon we're nearly a point now though where this shit will start to implode, and things will gradually return to normal. (I hope!!!) Because SOOOOO many people are so pissed off with it now. I have only met a couple of people in real life who have said 'pregnant people' and call actresses 'actors.' They are mid 20s in age. Typical for (some) people in that age group tbh. 95% of people I know don't buy into this pathetic wanky bullshit.

👏 👏 👏

This for all women throwing other women under the bus in the name of inclusivity or as I see it, pandering to men.

1. Some people who espouse transphobic views are also homophobic, racist, disablist and sexist or some delightful combination of the above.

1. Some people who would never consider themselves homophobic, racist, disablist and sexist seem to come out with some horribly transphobic things from time to time on MN, so on that issue seem to be in alignment with people in category 1.

Hence why I made the point.

1. I've read some horrific anti-women bigotry also on the part of some TRAs, mostly elsewhere on the internet and not on MN.

I wouldn't like to consider myself a bed fellow with any of the above, personally.

What is the point of this nonsense? People who give birth are women. They are adult human females. They can be called Dave and dress like a teddy boy. They can wear men’s shoes on their (size 5) feet. They can even take hormones to give them a bum fluff beard and male pattern baldness, but if they have the equipment that enables them to get pregnant they’re a woman. Being pregnant and giving birth is something only a woman - an adult human female - can do.

Ah the old transphobia on MN.

Care to give any examples?

Simple. You deal with it exactly the same way the BBC deals with the migrant/refugee clusterfuck: by using an asterix and a disclaimer upon first use of the word - in this case to state that "the term 'woman' in this publication is used to include a, b, and c."

@Cailleachian
Where did your identification with the gender of woman come from if it wasnt socially constructed?

Can you expand on this question? I don't really understand it as written.

Removing the words women/girls/mother from the female sexed realities of pregnancy/birth etc. supposedly for 'inclusion' is not for the benefit of women (including transmen). It's for the benefit of transwomen, aka men.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · Today 19:02

Female people are people. Male people are people. The reason we need feminism, or women's liberation if you prefer, is because for much of human history women have been treated as second-rate humans, subservient to men, often considered as defective, ridiculously overcomplicated variants on the perfect version of the human form, i.e. the male.

Annoyingly, these weak creatures are the only ones capable of gestation, birth and making milk to feed a baby. So we are tolerated, but not always credited with any intelligence or resilience or capacity to do anything very much except pander to the male, do the cleaning and cooking, and bring up the children.

It's taken generations of women working tirelessly to get away from this nonsense. And it's taken just a few short years of gender ideology to put all of that into reverse.

Very moving post, very thought-provoking, and very accurate. Also quite depressing, and sad... But as I said, accurate, and true.

👏👏 👏

Any comments on this point @actualpuffins ?

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?

Do as Prostate Cancer UK does and address women with clarity, use an asterisk if needed elsewhere

First paragraph

1 in 8 men will get prostate cancer. If you’re over 50, or you’re black, or your dad or brother had it, you’re at even higher risk.

Just plain English and the word men generally hadn’t been attacked in the same way as women has in marketing and information

What is the point of this nonsense? People who give birth are women. They are adult human females. They can be called Dave and dress like a teddy boy. They can wear men’s shoes on their (size 5) feet. They can even take hormones to give them a bum fluff beard and male pattern baldness, but if they have the equipment that enables them to get pregnant they’re a woman. Being pregnant and giving birth is something only a woman - an adult human female - can do.

Do you regularly find trans people to tell them of these kind of views?

If not transphobic, it just seems rude, like going up to gay male couples and pointing out they can't have children and so on. I just wish there were a trans person or several here to give their views.

I’m a pregnant woman who is puking my guts up every single day after having experienced loss and TTC troubles and the last thing I care about in the world is the term ‘pregnant people’. Trans men can get pregnant. Would you prefer they say ‘pregnant women and pregnant trans men?’ Honestly, don’t you PEOPLE have better things to think about?

Talking about women as a sex class is not ‘transphobic’ it’s biological reality

Women should refuse to do these surveys and tell these institutions, that they are affecting the quality of research by causing a group - which may be economically or socially self selecting in other ways - to self exclude.

Some people who would never consider themselves homophobic, racist, disablist and sexist seem to come out with some horribly transphobic things from time to time on MN, so on that issue seem to be in alignment with people in category 1.

Hence why I made the point.

Some people who would consider themselves much more righteous than thou seem to come out with some horribly sexist and misogynistic things from time to time on MN and elsewhere. So on that issue seem to be in alignment with people in category 1.

Absolutely horrendous, not acceptable at all

I don't think we have to neccesarily list out every protected characteristic individually in order to protect people, fwiw, and the language used should be tailored for the circumstances. It wasn't my original comment, perhaps ask the poster who made it to respond.

You'll get different views, but no, it's only marginally better in my view. It's not only "clunky", it's also absurd and illogical. And it doesn't take away the (in my eyes) main problem, the redefinition of "woman" from a sex term to a gender identity term. I refuse to be forcibly defined as a feminine person rather than a female person with a personality all of my own, and that's what's implied with the use of additive language.

Yes, I'm sure they do.

Any examples of transphobia on MN?

It's at the heart of why you haven't grasped the problem, @actualpuffins, that's why I'm asking. Pregnancy is a woman's health issue, a women's financial issue, a women's employment issue. It's a key area for discrimination against women.

Exactly.

don't think we have to neccesarily list out every protected characteristic individually in order to protect people, fwiw

Why do they mention them, do you think? Why not just have one mass of "people"?

Sorry, my quote marks didn't take.