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?

Haven’t RTFT but in case it hasn’t been said already, when terms like ‘pregnant people’ or ‘people who menstruate’ are used instead of the term women rather than in addition to the term women, as we are seeing on a very regular basis, that is not about being inclusive of trans men, it’s about not hurting the feelings of trans women by using the term women in the biological sense , as that cannot include them. This is all about a sustained untethering of the term women from its biological meaning altogether, so that it can include trans women.

@manatsu
I want an answer. Why women but rarely men?

Well, according to one recent prolific twaw poster it's a deliberate tactic; as women are less likely to make a fuss but men will kick up stink.
So it's to be done gradually

As said poster claims to work teaching teenagers RSE, I have a suspicion this may have been picked up at some policy meeting or strategy presentation.
Although it could equally have been spun from thin air...

Yy we were told it was an NHS strategy to

Change the language for women first as we don't complain
Engage with young people to educate them in the correct language so over time it becomes the norm

I mean that's a pretty scary statement tbh

@NiceGerbil Thank you for explaining that. I didn’t know “ The words female and male are being increasingly used to refer to gender rather than sex.”. I thought that was one thing that was set in stone.

It is overwhelming when beginning to learn about terms, abbreviations, words changing their meaning or being used in a way you didn’t know. You think you understand and actually mean something, and then flaws in your line of thought show you clearly can’t agree your own thoughts at all.

Thanks to everyone taking the time to explain things.

They never ever say "ejeculators" or "prostrate owners" do they?

Intersection to hear someone say outright there's a movement on changing the words for women first as I'd say yes, women would be easier to persuade to 'be kind.'

I don't believe there will ever be terms such as prostate havers or ejaculators used as it highlights the uncomfortable fact that penises could be in women's spaces, given that many transwomen choose not to have srs surgery as it's such a major operation with awful consequences it it goes wrong.

@Lifeaintalwaysempty

Haven’t RTFT but in case it hasn’t been said already, when terms like ‘pregnant people’ or ‘people who menstruate’ are used instead of the term women rather than in addition to the term women, as we are seeing on a very regular basis, that is not about being inclusive of trans men, it’s about not hurting the feelings of trans women by using the term women in the biological sense , as that cannot include them. This is all about a sustained untethering of the term women from its biological meaning altogether, so that it can include trans women.

That's an excellent observation - and so glaringly obvious now you've said it.

@Lifeaintalwaysempty

Haven’t RTFT but in case it hasn’t been said already, when terms like ‘pregnant people’ or ‘people who menstruate’ are used instead of the term women rather than in addition to the term women, as we are seeing on a very regular basis, that is not about being inclusive of trans men, it’s about not hurting the feelings of trans women by using the term women in the biological sense , as that cannot include them. This is all about a sustained untethering of the term women from its biological meaning altogether, so that it can include trans women.

Exactly this!

Health organisations know that removing the word woman is detrimental to many women. Any move to make health advice LESS clear goes against all the research and hard work that has been done over the years to improve clarity and accessibility of the information.

If the health orgs wanted to be inclusive of female people that would rather not be referred to as such the phrasing should be ‘women, transmen and female born non binary’ (or similar - we need some way to distinguish between the two types of non binary bodies), but it isn’t.

It is a deliberate move to decouple the word woman from biological functions that only women experience.

There is only one group of people who would benefit from that and it isn’t women.

The part that really concerns me is that the health organisations charged with looking after our health (including preventative health education) have bought into the ideology and are ignoring the needs of the very people they need to help and prioritising the wants of a tiny group of people who biologically have no relevance to the issues of women’s health.

They are ignoring everything they know about what is right and replacing it with an illogical fiction.
Sex is important, gender is not sex. Gender identity should not override sex based needs.

What also struck me about the Macmillan site and the tweet (about testicular cancer) is both had diagrams of the male anatomy. Where is the corresponding female anatomy? .... tumbleweed. Could be triggering maybe?

Lifeaintalwaysempty yes it's exactly that. The word woman can be used when it can be shared with transwomen. But when it comes to things that can't include transwomen, such as periods, then they believe the word woman needs to be removed as it doesn't include all woman.

When whathisname made his dramatic statement about how terrible JK Rowling was with her people have periods tweet he talked about how transwomen are women. Did not MENTION transmen. Who the reference to people with periods is meant to include.

Because imagine the shit he would have got if he'd been all inclusive about men get periods to....

My friend is doing a breastfeeding peer support course, and at the first session one of the other participants asked if they could refer to it as 'breast and chest feeding' to be inclusive. My friend is very much not one to get too bothered about these things either way, but even she was a bit 🙄 and wondered who exactly this was catering to. Of course she (and everyone else) was too afraid to say or ask anything.

Radcliffe! Damian? Radcliffe is who I mean

'I see 2 sexes - male and female. This is determined at birth and most people fall into one. Sex can’t be changed. I do see man/woman/girl/boy as identities. I probably used to see them in the same way as sex - boys and men are male and girls and women are female. But not now. Now I do see them as something that can be changed'

Accepting the disruption of the terms girl, boy and woman, man whilst clinging on to female and male removes the ability to recognise the difference between children and adults.
It is a very dangerous compromise, one which ignores the clear Safeguarding implications.

Girls are human beings who are female children
Men are human beings who are adult males

@R0wantrees Thanks for explaining, and I agree.

@R0wantrees I agree about the safeguarding issue. And I hadn’t thought about needing to differentiate between adults and children, and how female and male isn’t accurate enough.

But I am struggling to agree (in my head) the terms that should be used. I do think we need to be inclusive, it’s not always straightforward. We need to be able to state sex, whilst also having the terms that describe individuals who have changed gender/identify differently (I do not know all the terms). I don’t know the answer.

Girls are human beings who are female children
Boys are human beings who are male children
Women are human beings who are adult females
Men are human beings who are adult males

These four terms have specific meanings which recognise human beings, their sex and maturity.

If people feel uneasy/unsure about using these terms accurately they should consider how that has happened and what the Safeguarding implications are.

Definitions are (by definition) not inclusive. They are specific.

The term 'girl' excludes all animals except for humans, all adults and then all male children.

@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.

That's great for you, @BarryFromEastenders. But please don't speak on behalf of anyone else, because I very much DO mind. I am a woman, and I want to be referred to as such. In my personal opinion, being pregnant was the most womanly thing I have done.

Safeguarding decisions are also not 'inclusive'. Many Safeguards would exclude on the basis of age and sex.
Being able to clearly recognise, name and mitigate risk is the basis of Safeguarding.

If we are inclusive then how do we keep ourselves and our loved ones safe.

I exclude people by locking my front door.
Schools exclude people who are the wrong age.
Changing rooms exclude people whose sex does not match the sign on the door.
Criminals are excluded from society by being locked up.

When people say 'we need to be inclusive', the questions should always be inclusive of who, for what purpose and with what impact on others?

@R0wantrees

When people say 'we need to be inclusive', the questions should always be inclusive of who, for what purpose and with what impact on others?

Yes, there are a whole raft of exclusions that are there for damn good reasons, if people want them changed they should be the ones to give equally damn good reasons for changing them and prove they do not impact negatively.

Very important last few posts there. I presume there are similar posts on the ‘Break it down for me’ thread, because if not, you should copy and past them there.

Inclusive when used in these terms inevitably means valuing the feelings of people who the service was not intended for while not valuing and actively excluding some of those the service was intended for. With no alternatives available for those pushed out. It's not inclusive. It's borrowing from a lot of emotion around disability in the hope of overcoming female boundaries and making people unable to say 'no' to male people.

Male people being sad is not nearly the crisis it's painted as, and there are other alternatives to meeting complex male needs without necessitating ending female provision so they can have it. The fact that these alternatives being offered causes a lot more sadness and frequently a lot of anger too alongside threats of sexual punitive violence tells you what this is really about and everything wrong with it.

'Inclusion' is not an honest word when used in this sense.