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 point about using a term like "pregnant women" is that we generally prefer precision in language. It's why, when we talk about children with measles, we use the term "children with measles", not "people with measles", even though we know some adults catch measles too.

It's the same reason we refer to "men with prostate cancer" not "people with prostate cancer", even though "people" would be more inclusive - after all, trans women are also susceptible to prostate cancer, right? In fact, there are far more trans women who are susceptible to prostate cancer, I would hazard, than trans men who are likely to get pregnant, because most older trans people are male-to-female: it's only amongst teenagers that female-to-males outnumber males-to-females.

I don’t agree that only women get pregnant. A trans man could. I think it’s right to be inclusive. I’d hate for a pregnant trans man to not feel included, although I’m interested to find out how many there actually are.

But I do not think that to do that, we have to erase the word women. We should either be adding “pregnant women and pregnant people” or “pregnant women, pregnant trans men........”.

I find this a very difficult topic. It’s not always straightforward, or with one easy solution. But we should be adding to what we currently have, not erasing words for the sake of a small number of people. Add words to become more inclusive, not remove a term describing the majority.

If anybody pushing this kind of language really believed that men can get pregnant, they would just say 'pregnant men and women'

However, they know this would be utterly ridiculed by 99% of people, and they don't really believe it anyway.

The point of this language, for a lot of people, is to signal that you are a member of, or aligned with, an elite intellectual and social class who are currently indulging themselves en masse in the luxury make-believe that sex doesn't exist or somehow doesn't matter.

Using this language says that your obedience to this make-believe, and to the social group, is so complete that you are prepared to suspend reason and override the obvious interests of marginalised groups like women in favour of the pretence. Even to the point of making women literally unmentionable in the context of something like pregnancy.

None of this is about helping people with gender dysphoria. This is basically a thought experiment of elites which has got out of control because it taps very effectively into a few very powerful and deep-seated cultural and behavioural norms. Very unfortunately, it has now got embedded into elite institutions which have real power to enforce it.

The TW tweeted that "The name should be changed because I am a woman and I don't use this service"

Which is completely ridiculous. There are lots of women's services I've never needed to use as a natural born woman. It doesn't mean they shouldn't exist, or should change the name just because I personally haven't used them. Wouldn't that be rather egotistical of me!

Probably do you see the words woman girl man boy as purely identities?

I'd be interested to know why you feel that and your views on the words changing meaning over the last few years, while most of the public don't know that has happened. So people read stuff about men for example and understand it to mean sex.

Genuinely interested I promise!

On the other part, phrases like women, trans men etc are not acceptable. Not on the table. I'd be aok with adding but that isn't what is being pushed for or done.

Hereward absolutely. And while that signalling is busily going on, those indulging themselves are abandoning touch with the realities of the massive majority of the client group they are supposed to be serving, particularly the most vulnerable ones.

It's champagne socialism in the last drunken gasp.

The other issue around eg people with a cervix is that lots of people the message is aimed at won't understand.

The current approach is to leave people guessing based on context which is just not good enough. It's not straightforward and demands a good vocab etc.

Eg the conception stat on the NHS, the reader is expected to glean from the context that the 8/10 people refers to females.

The preceding text talks about having a vagina and so the idea is well obviously they're talking about women. But the word woman is not allowed.

It's just cobblers tbh.

And where is the stuff aimed at ejaculators?

we generally prefer precision in language

Indeed. "More inclusive" means vaguer, less precise, non-specific.

Clarity requires preciseness and concision.

This is the total opposite of that.

And the main point is

The words man woman boy girl are well understood.
The meaning has been changed but very very few people know that.
The changes have been made without any kind of widescale visibility.
The language being pushed is imprecise, confusing. And changes as well.
And it's only happening with things related to LGBT+ things, or things relating to female sexual and reproductive biology.

The fact it's not even handed between men and women, that we are yet again referred to in terms of our genitals, reproductive potential is grotesque.

While girls around the world still miss out on education due to periods, for example, the idea that should be referred to as menstruators is just grim. Being referred to not as a person but by the bodily function that is the whole issue.

Idle thought.

Women = menstruators
Men = ejaculators
People = urinators?

After all, this whole thing is seriously pissing me off...

People with 2 legs can try this exercise.
Some people don't have 2 legs.
Etc

Men = men though.

Not ejaculators.

@BarryFromEastenders

But women are people, surely! When I was pregnant, I was a pregnant woman and a pregnant person. I liked being called a pregnant person. Pregnant women have been marginalised (even animalised) throughout modern history in the UK at least and the label “pregnant woman” carries that history whether we like it or not. I’m happy to be labelled “person” as well, as a reminder that we don’t fall out of the human race when we get pregnant. I definitely felt, when I was pregnant, that lots of people and services needed that reminder. Our argument isn’t with the people who advocate for the term, “person” it’s for the patriarchal medical system that still sees women as second class citizens.

I’m happy to be labelled “person” as well, as a reminder that we don’t fall out of the human race when we get pregnant

What an odd comment. It never for 1 nanosecond occurred to me that "I'd fallen out of the human race" when I was pregnant.

I think most men will know they have a penis. We have established through research that approx. 44% of women don't know they have a cervix. There is the added confusion that there is also such thing as a cervical spine (commonly known as the neck), that both men and women have.

With that information available, Macmillan was contacted many months ago to ask why they don't use the words 'women' or 'female' AT ALL in their entry for Cervical Cancer. In contrast, they use the word 'men' several times in relation to Penile Cancer (remember all men have already got a heads up here).

Their response was that the entries relating to men's cancers are 'scheduled for review in the coming months'. In a moment of utter fubizarrity (so bizarre I have to make up a word), they mentioned 'men's gynaecological cancers' (I have no words).

So, on checking the website again tonight - there is no change. It is a slightly odd idea that they are updating female only related stuff first and then addressing the pages relating to male only cancers. Generally, if you are updating a website you would look to make a specific style or language change across the whole site so I'm not buying their excuse.

Not good enough Macmillan. Has anyone got a more senior email contact in the organisation than the basic Feedback address? I think this needs escalating but there seems to be no one to speak to. PM me if you have anything please.

www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/cervical-cancer

www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/penile-cancer

Women and girls still aren't accorded 'personhood' in all sorts of places all over the world.

Even in the UK we are still seen too often in terms of 2D 'types' and not whole complex people. We are labelled and judged.

Milf
Jailbait
Ball breaker
Etc

Men get to be seen as whole people much much more.

I don't think calling women 'people who menstruate' for example will do anything for us. The reverse.

'Most men diagnosed with penile cancer are over the age of 50. But it can also affect younger men.

The penis
The penis is the male sex organ. It is made of different types of tissue, such as skin, muscle and nerves. '

I skimmed a fair bit of the cervical cancer one and didn't see woman or female anywhere.

pigling

Its stuff like that which just pisses me off

Inclusive my arse

Anyone who says that it’s inclusive when it doesn’t affect men is a fucking liar who isn’t worth listening to

If you do get a email for higher up that particular food chain please let me know and I’ll join with the complaining

I’m still baffled and appalled by the pathetic reply I got from the NHS after complaining about the daftness of their page on pregnancy.

This thread made me do a quick spot check and for ovarian cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and menopause I can only see them mention women.

Are all of these likely to become “inclusive” and organ rather then sex specific or are they less sexy and exciting therefore we can keep them for ourselves?

Yeah this page is pretty shitty. "People" yeah which type of people?
Is my dad at risk?

Are all of these likely to become “inclusive” and organ rather then sex specific or are they less sexy and exciting therefore we can keep them for ourselves?

I fear one by one they'll all go.

That's why I didn't specifically mention the NHS page I was looking up that still refers to women here on this forum.

We know this area is studied closely by people who want to erase the word woman. Don't want to provide targets for them really.

That’s fair, sorry.

Well I have a close family member who is pregnant, very close to giving birth he identifies as male. We are close as I've just given birth. He dosent understand the whole shift to language to take away women either. Our local trust had pregnant women and in some leaflets pregnant women and people. In one to one settings staff would use diffent language for him which he appreciated. In answer to original question we are not in a large trust but not in a small one either and he is the first person in two years who identified as a trans man.
In response to the quotes up above about how could a trans man get pregnant with dyoshoria. It's been incredibly hard for him. But he found out about the pregnancy late near abortion cut of point. He didn't believe he could get pregnant also most medical professionals believed he could so they don't ask relevant questions. He was raped and couldn't get the help he needed either.

@RedDeerRunning

Pretty much none. But that's not the group of people being pandered to here. None of this is about improving things for women. It's the feelings of the XY brigade that Stonewall bangs the drum for.

This

@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.

And this

@Riggsisadino

Well I have a close family member who is pregnant, very close to giving birth he identifies as male. We are close as I've just given birth. He dosent understand the whole shift to language to take away women either. Our local trust had pregnant women and in some leaflets pregnant women and people. In one to one settings staff would use diffent language for him which he appreciated. In answer to original question we are not in a large trust but not in a small one either and he is the first person in two years who identified as a trans man. In response to the quotes up above about how could a trans man get pregnant with dyoshoria. It's been incredibly hard for him. But he found out about the pregnancy late near abortion cut of point. He didn't believe he could get pregnant also most medical professionals believed he could so they don't ask relevant questions. He was raped and couldn't get the help he needed either.

I am so sorry to hear about his experience, sounds very difficult