How many pregnant “people” are we talking about?

[2021ismyyear]

I’ve seen lots of things on Twitter, about the wording: “pregnant people can now have a birth partner” or “pregnant people can get the Covid vaccine”. The word woman will be eradicated soon and I’m fuming.

My question is.... how many people are we talking about here? Per year, how many people in the uk that are/were women now identify as men and also get pregnant? Is it a handful or are we talking thousands here?

The NHS updated the trying to conceive page by just replacing women with people.

So the info that had said women under 40 have an 8 in 10 chance of conceiving in a year changed to 8 in 10 people under 40 had a chance of conceiving in a year.

That's not the same. That means 4 in 10 females.

This sort of thing which is important- clarity, language that people understand is being done away with in favour of making people guess from the context what it means.

The trying to conceive page does not include the words woman or female anywhere.

As a comparison I just looked at the low sperm count page. The word man is in the header in bold.

The idea this is about inclusion is probable bollocks as the stuff about men is not subject to the same changes in language.

Exactly. There is a really strong case for using gender/sex neutral language for non sex related issues and experiences such as fireman/ spokesman. But not for uniquely female experiences. This is not for the comfort of the few transmen that give birth anyway. It's for a particular subset of trans women.

A good point made on this by Helen Lewis

The word to describe human beings who are female and adult is women. This is an inclusive and accurate term for all the female sex human beings and only excludes male sex human beings.
The fact that a small number of women have obtained a GRC means that they should be treated as if they are the opposite sex in most (but not all) situations.
Being pregnant and giving birth is clearly a situation where sex matters.

I work as a midwife in a woke area of Canada. I have had three clients whose partners used they/them pronouns (one identified as a trans man. The other two identified as NB). I have never had a client who themselves didn't identify as a woman. I know that there have been some in the even woker city nearby, but again I think they tend to identify as NB (and present as obviously female) rather than transmen.

But women are people, surely! When I was pregnant, I was a pregnant woman and a pregnant person

Yeah, sure, but there's only one type of person who actually gave birth to the entire human race since the dawn of time.

It isn't "people" who get pregnant. It's a specific group of people who can get pregnant.

The other group of people use their dicks to get us pregnant.

We do need specific words to discuss the complexities of life otherwise it all becomes somewhat confusing.

Erectile dysfunction page is men.

Vaginismus is no mention women. But oddly says you can ask for a female doctor.

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

I’ll believe it’s inclusive when it happens to males as much as females

I'm giving you a standing ovation for the brilliance of this statement.

@NiceGerbil

The NHS updated the trying to conceive page by just replacing women with people.

So the info that had said women under 40 have an 8 in 10 chance of conceiving in a year changed to 8 in 10 people under 40 had a chance of conceiving in a year.

That's not the same. That means 4 in 10 females.

This sort of thing which is important- clarity, language that people understand is being done away with in favour of making people guess from the context what it means.

The trying to conceive page does not include the words woman or female anywhere.

As a comparison I just looked at the low sperm count page. The word man is in the header in bold.

The idea this is about inclusion is probable bollocks as the stuff about men is not subject to the same changes in language.

Assuming thet mean having a baby grow in their womb it's actually 16 out of 10 women, to average to 8 out of 10 people. However if it means play their part in making a baby it's OK to generalise like that.

The argument for pregnant women is a no brainer, it is far more compelling that the people who menstruate argument. Though both are bullshit. I do sometimes wonder why trans men, who (obviously?) would not wish to menstruate, don't stop it hormonally. I believe it is relatively straightforward with progesterone. Any endocrinologists available to comment?

@teezletangler

I work as a midwife in a woke area of Canada. I have had three clients whose partners used they/them pronouns (one identified as a trans man. The other two identified as NB). I have never had a client who themselves didn't identify as a woman. I know that there have been some in the even woker city nearby, but again I think they tend to identify as NB (and present as obviously female) rather than transmen.

So you agree that "pregnant women and people" is inclusive language for your clients?

I also worry that language like pregnant person and birthing people take away from birth and prenatal care being women centred- given there's a long patriarchal history of things being done to pregnant women or women giving birth without their consent. Need to keep emphasis on women and what best meets their needs during pregnancy and birth (which is then what is best for the baby too)

@manatsu

Echoing other posters that I wouldn't mine so much but it is NEARLY ALWAYS just 'men' when it's 'people with a cervix', 'menstruators', 'bleeders', 'vagina owners', 'pregnant people'. I would really like someone on the other side to justify and explain that.

I may have an answer to this.

I once come across a tween where a TW questioning why some women's health project was called exactly that. The TW tweeted that "The name should be changed because I am a woman and I don't use this service".

So it may not be about including TMs, but rather making sure that TWs don't feel excluded.

It's a tiny number of female people who prefer to be named in different ways. It's not for them that the word 'woman' is being eradicated. (And it is. Obviously. It's ridiculous to pretend otherwise.)

It's because male people do not want the word 'woman' used in any way that suggests there is a form of womanhood that excludes them, despite that over 99% of those known as women in the UK are biologically female.

It's a massive, massive lack of tolerance and equality for biologically female people. And it's not ok. 'Women and....' Add whatever you want. But there needs to be a requirement that either everyone gets to choose their identity, language and beliefs, and everyone is required to respect other people's choices or no one does.

Stealth yes 16 out of 10... Even worse!

No they just changed the word women for people. The stat has stayed the same.

Yes of course it's about TW.

Not TM at all.

The link between the words woman/ girl and increasingly female to our sexual/ reproductive biology pisses them off.

The idea that women's marches focusing on abortion etc are 'gynocentric' and exclusionary.

The idea that FGM should be renamed and that campaigners should not use the words girl or woman.

Etc etc

The push to refer to us in terms of our body parts. Same old same old.

Legs on that
Gash
The one with the tits
Person with a vagina
Menstruator
...

Nothing new. Very regressive.

I just meant you could argue men conceive when they impregnate a woman. So it could be genuinely 8/10.

No that's not what it is.

@Whatsnewpussyhat

The minuscule number of females who do not want to call themselves women that then use their female reproductive organs to get pregnant, give birth and breast feed should not get to dictate the language used by the other 99.99999999% of women who want their sex based language left alone.

They can simply have a note added to their records so their midwife knows their preferred pronouns.

But then we know it's not about trans men.
It's about male TRA's telling us we're not allowed to use the words woman or women for any solely female biological function because it 'excludes' them.
Of course it bloody does. That's the fucking point.

Abso-bloody-lutely, nail on the head Whatsnewpussyhat anyone who says it is to do with transmen or female non binary people is lying.

The push to refer to us in terms of our body parts. Same old same old.

Legs on that
Gash
The one with the tits
Person with a vagina
Menstruator
...

Nothing new. Very regressive.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

manatsu

Echoing other posters that I wouldn't mine so much but it is NEARLY ALWAYS just 'men' when it's 'people with a cervix', 'menstruators', 'bleeders', 'vagina owners', 'pregnant people'. I would really like someone on the other side to justify and explain that.

20:21 MandalaYogaTapestry
I may have an answer to this.

I once come across a tween where a TW questioning why some women's health project was called exactly that. The TW tweeted that "The name should be changed because I am a woman and I don't use this service"

So it may not be about including TMs, but rather making sure that TWs don't feel excluded.

Yes I've come across this.
I'm not directing my comment at you directly only at the general subject of erasing the word woman, but because we're always told by gender ideologists

"Not all women menstruate so that's why we shouldn't use the word woman on menstrual products"

"Not all women can get pregnant"

"Not all women can breastfeed"

All this seemingly justifies calling male people "women" and consequentially erasing the word entirely.

It's pretty much gaslighting on an industrial level

All it comes down to really is the desire of some bepenised people to own the one word relating to female people for themselves.

@FrankButchersDickieBow

It should be women and other pregnant people.

The 'pregnant people' want to show that not just women get pregnant, so why is it not okay for women to want acknowledgement that they are also pregnant?

This is what annoys me. Why are women not allowed to have their sex acknowledged in inclusive language, but everyone else who identifies as another gender, must be adhered to.

This is so true. I'm having the same battle with my employer regarding 'people who menstruate' Just use the word women!!!

@FrankButchersDickieBow

I have explained that very clumsily, but I hope you get the jist

I think you've explained it rather well.- better than what I could have done. Thank you.

@NiceGerbil

Erectile dysfunction page is men.

Vaginismus is no mention women. But oddly says you can ask for a female doctor.

I recently visited an NHS page about a condition that can only be experienced by a female person and "woman" is in the first paragraph then mentioned at least three more times. I was surprisingly pleased.

The last thing I'm going to do is link it here seeing as we're so monitored, it'll only get bombarded by TRA determined to erase the word woman.

I'm saddened by the "vaginismus" page but not surprised.

Unfortunately vaginismus is a porn theme.

@Shizuku

No one is trying to eradicate the word "woman" - it is used in pregnancy services across the country thousands of times a day - it's all fine.

The only thing that has happened is that when talking to, or about, a group of pregnant or potentially pregnant people which might or does include some trans men or non binary people, then more inclusive language is preferred. That's all it is.

Gaslighting.