Aaannd another one. British Journal of Midwifery refers to "pregnant people" in the front cover of the January issue.

[FannyCann]

Yet another medical journal, this time the British Journal of Midwifery has a front cover referring to "Pregnant People".

twitter.com/bjmidwifery/status/1479136444555931653?s=21

It is worth remembering that thanks to solids support from the House of Lords the government was forced to change language in its maternity bull from pregnant people to mothers.

Women will not stand for being erased in this way.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56204865.amp

And being ratioed for it. Curiously, the words women & mother also appear on the front cover. Inconsistent, to say the very least.

I’ve just realised my work intranet page uses ‘pregnant employees’.

Wow that sucks. They are being told that ‘this is the new normal’ ‘women is outdated’ ‘think of the poor folx who are pregnant but not women - be kind’ and they aren’t smart enough to say ‘no thanks, it’s ok as it is’

How tedious and dehumanizing. It’s lazy too. They could have said women and pregnant people to be inclusive without being insulting, but no…

FFS

Pendolino, as a doctor, I would object to "women and pregnant people".
ONLY women can be pregnant. There is no other category of "people" who can be.
Women who identify as transmen are still women. And, if pregnant, are doing the most womanly thing possible with their female bodies.
We must resist any attempts to erode the meaning of "women", or allow it to be stolen or colonised by others.

Hear, hear Babdoc!

The BJM betrays mothers.

Women who prefer gender neutral terminology should be catered for compassionately but they are a tiny minority. This should not be imposed on the majority.

The irony is the word midwife means ‘with woman’ so they best get themselves another job title. Idiots.

The thing is it does gradually permeate into general usage. I have found myself starting to say "people" and checking myself and saying "women" just in general conversation a few times recently.
It really needs active resistance.

No I agree @Babdoc, adding ‘and pregnant people’ would have signaled kinder intent but it is still a fiction.

@Rightsraptor

And being ratioed for it. Curiously, the words women & mother also appear on the front cover. Inconsistent, to say the very least.

Have you ever been in charge of signing off a magazine cover? Repeating words is to be avoided if at all possible. I really don't think this is ideological.

They have chosen the same order of words as I would have done. 'Pregnant' needs to be the main one that jumps off the page - putting 'woman' next to it means you can't use 'woman' or 'women' anywhere else - 'pregnant women' is also, ironically, somewhat tautological, thus making the phrase weaker in a coverline than 'pregnant people'.

If it weren't for the ideologically driven language policing happening elsewhere, this wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

Yes, I have been in charge of signing off a magazine cover. And this is ideological. The phrase "pregnant people" would never have been used prior to 2021.

It sounds so Orwellian and biologically incorrect. Doesn't really fill you with confidence in the publication itself!

@OperationDessertStorm

I’ve just realised my work intranet page uses ‘pregnant employees’.

But that's very different - employees are a narrower group than women in general. Unless there's context you haven't provided I'd say this is actually innocuous.

Thank fuck I don’t waste my money on BJM.

Watch out for new issue of MM - you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

@Babdoc

Pendolino, as a doctor, I would object to "women and pregnant people". ONLY women can be pregnant. There is no other category of "people" who can be. Women who identify as transmen are still women. And, if pregnant, are doing the most womanly thing possible with their female bodies. We must resist any attempts to erode the meaning of "women", or allow it to be stolen or colonised by others.

Frankly if someone has a problem with a everyday word and it "triggers" them they need therapy.

I used to have anxiety attacks every time I heard sirens after a house fire, I didnt campaign for fire engines to be silent because they triggered me.

No, multivac, strangely my chequered career history hasn't had me signing off on magazine covers. Yet.

They used 'woman' & 'mother' and then ran out of ideas. Really, nobody could think of another word instead of 'people' in that context or re-phrase any of the others? Sadly lacking in imagination.

The plan is that do it often enough and women will give up, shut up and accept.

As opposed to get increasingly pissed off, resistant and difficult. This marketing plan, remember, comes from a political lobby that has absolutely no clue about female people. And seemingly hasn't realised that the response of most people to phrasing like this isn't to upload new programming that sex doesn't exist; it's to snarl to themselves women . You mean women . And make the divide even stronger than it would have needed to be had this male led, male centric political lobby just accepted other people exist too.

As a midwife this pisses me off.
The minute a man comes in and delivers a baby I will change my mind.
I am a midwife not a mid person ffs.

@OperationDessertStorm

I’ve just realised my work intranet page uses ‘pregnant employees’.

What's wrong with that in the context of a work intranet site?

The intranet site is for the benefit of all employees. There is information for pregnant employees.

How else do you think "pregnant employees" should be described?

True - is read that as employees who are pregnant (not persons).

It’s a rubbish cover line. And yes, it’s something I’ve done in the past. How about pregnancy and the pandemic: developing a vaccination clinic/strategy. Multiple permutations. People is a flat/generic world. I’m not a regular reader of this journal so no idea what their usual covers are like and obviously you are not persuading people to pick out it from among the glossies in your local WHSmiths but sorting out the ‘sells’ on a cover is quite important for any mag really

@Artichokeleaves

The plan is that do it often enough and women will give up, shut up and accept.

As opposed to get increasingly pissed off, resistant and difficult. This marketing plan, remember, comes from a political lobby that has absolutely no clue about female people. And seemingly hasn't realised that the response of most people to phrasing like this isn't to upload new programming that sex doesn't exist; it's to snarl to themselves women . You mean women . And make the divide even stronger than it would have needed to be had this male led, male centric political lobby just accepted other people exist too.

Precisely! I getting ever more sensitive to this woman neutralising, disempowering, mother erasing language and ever more likely to be angered by it.

Unfortunately there does not seem to be a single midwifery journal or organisation left which has not been captured and had the woman centred language stripped out in favour of complying with the ideologues. I thought these midwives were strong women with a grounding in evidence based practice and critical analysis of research, standing up for women, for mothers and babies.