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?

Oh dear what a mess humans are getting themselves into. Political correctness is now attacking women. This feminist talk section is revealing a disturbing picture for women’s (females) future. Some could argue it’s just a play with words but when it messes with the very distinct classification of women for equality purposes then it poses a serious threat to us. Reading up on transwomen in women’s sport brought me here and I am grateful to have found intelligent voices of reason and sense from my own sex (there I said it - MY OWN SEX).

These discussions have been going on in forums like this for several years. They can’t be held in public because one is not allowed to hurt people's feelings (apart from women’s of course). So what can we do? Well there are elections coming up in some parts of the UK. We can refuse to vote for parties that are pushing this ideology and we can spoil our ballot papers by writing on them the reason why. If we get the chance to tell the candidates why they won’t be getting our votes, all the better.

These discussions can’t happen in forums either. Well at least in pregnancy, birth, birth, breastfeeding ones. You’re liable to be removed if you state something as innocuous as only women get pregnant.

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

If you are pregnant I'm sure you can also cope with being called ' a woman'. I'm not sure why women should have to be so generally dehumanised for the sake of the personal feelings and needs for validation of a tiny few.

the sooner people realise that it is not all about them and that the world will continue to operate along the lines of biological reality long after they have gone, the better for everyone. Then you would not have to spend quite so much time here trying to convince everyone otherwise.

You could just get on with being your true self, just like everyone else.

I am interested in the OP's original question, namely how many trans men give birth each year. There's a shortage of statistics, though on Wikipedia I found the following: "According to figures compiled by Medicare for Australia, one of the few national surveys as of 2020, 75 male-identified people gave birth naturally or via C-section in the country in 2016, and 40 in 2017."

So how many might there be in the UK? We know that according to government's "tentative" estimates, there are between 200,000-500,000 trans people in the country. Let's go for a figure in the middle - 350,000.

How many of those are female-to-male? We know that the vast majority of older transitioners are mtf, while younger ones (under 20) are predominantly ftm, which makes it harder. So let's go for less than half being adult f2m, say 100,000 - which is probably an overestimate.

We know that about 650,000 women give birth every year in the UK, about 2% of all women. So let's say 2% of trans men give birth every year. Again, this is probably an overestimate: even through trans men are a younger cohort, you also have to take into account that many will be infertile and/or don't want children. But if we go with 2%, then that's 200 trans men giving birth each year.

So, 200 trans men and 650,000 women. I think 200 is an overestimate, but would love to see some better figures.

So, if we compare that (brilliant) bit of stats to other populations - how many women with learning disabilities give birth every year? Do we use clear language with them?

What about women with English as a second language, how many of them are there?

What about women who are tripping off their face on gas and air and finding it hard to follow conversation, is clarity of language important for them?

Is it better to use the plainest language for most women, and have training on how to ensure you use gender neutral language for anyone who is in labour and also has a gender difference?

I mean, if it's supposed to be patient centred care why are we centering the needs of anyone other than the one patient in front of us?

@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.

It is NOT all fine. It's not inclusive language when you are excluding the large numbers of women who want to be called women.

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.

The word woman is inclusive of all human beings who are female sex and thus all of those who are pregnant, have been pregnant or have the potential to be pregnant.

The only people excluded from the term woman are human beings who are male sex and therefore are not and have not been pregnant having no potential to become pregnant.

@MichelleofzeResistance

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.

Exactly this. This is not about making a tiny number of transmen or NB people who are female and inexplicably want to be pregnant feel better, at all. Those people are a) a tiny handful and b) have been socialised as girls and women growing up and hence don't complain vociferously about it. Its about ego-driven men being annoyed that there are some areas of womanhood they can't colonise to feed their beta male egos.

Being a girl or a woman is not an identity or a matter of socialisation.

Being a girl or a woman is only a matter of being a human being who is female sex.

What about women with English as a second language, how many of them are there?

It's a good question. I don't know, but more than one in four women who give birth in the UK were born in another country. So my guess is that quite a lot of them will not be native English speakers.

But the really striking thing looking at those stats is how small even the overall number of trans people is. Even at the high end, 500,000, it's only equivalent to the population of Bristol, and half the size of, say, the population of Birmingham. Why are there so many charities and lobby groups devoted to this tiny group? Why are large private companies and NHS trusts spending so much money on training in trans inclusivity? It's a kind of madness.

@RoyalCorgi

What about women with English as a second language, how many of them are there?

It's a good question. I don't know, but more than one in four women who give birth in the UK were born in another country. So my guess is that quite a lot of them will not be native English speakers.

But the really striking thing looking at those stats is how small even the overall number of trans people is. Even at the high end, 500,000, it's only equivalent to the population of Bristol, and half the size of, say, the population of Birmingham. Why are there so many charities and lobby groups devoted to this tiny group? Why are large private companies and NHS trusts spending so much money on training in trans inclusivity? It's a kind of madness.

This is an interesting point.

By way of comparison, there are, in the UK, approx:
-700,000 pregnant women in any one year
-2 million people who are blind
-7 million people who are deaf or hard of hearing
-700,000 people with an autism diagnosis
-367,000 people diagnosed with cancer

I could go on....

Now, I guess the above categories fall within protected characteristics in the EA2010 as well as often protected under standard HR policies and DDA1995.

And, they do have several charities shouting for their cause.

So in many ways I don't think there 'are so many charities and lobby groups' devoted to the trans community as it is not really so tiny.

That said, I think, at the moment, trans rights are a bit of an 'cause du jour' - it causes heated debate, it seems to be massively increasing population and some of the voices within it are loud.

A certain charity has also somehow managed to gain massive traction and convinced those private companies and NHS trusts to spend all that money.

Is some of the high level of activity in the TRA arena due to fear of being branded a bigot?

Have some of the cases in days gone by re discrimination (sex, age, disability etc) put the fear into companies that this (gender identity/trans status) is the next thing that people will sue over?

Obviously companies do need to make sure they are complying with the law and not discriminating trans people.

But they do also need to make sure they are complying with the law when it comes to women's rights.

Thankfully, cases like Forstater, Bailey, Rosario-Sanchez etc are showing that women are no pushover.

That's a good point about numbers, Leafstamp, but I do wonder how many organisations are spending money on making themselves inclusive to disabled people, for example. Making sure that blind people can access all the leaflets an organisation produces, for example. Making sure that deaf people are encouraged to apply for jobs, knowing that their needs will be accommodated. Making sure that people with autism aren't discriminated against.

Oh I totally agree.