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

The first is grim and no interest in extending it to people. Women can keep that.

Same goes for nuts and bolts of looking after babies.

Haven't zoomed in. Obv men give bottles. Unless reason for focus mothers, then parents is surely better? Or just babies who are mix fed.

Just looked.

Using MOTHERS when it's to do with something many see as sub optimal feeding. Is VERY interesting. Parents/families intentions it should be for sure.

So women/mothers get the unpleasant procedures that make many people think yuck. And the full responsibility for deciding whether baby is fed in way seen as lazy/selfish/bad for baby by loads people and a beloved excuse for slagging off women by various high readership publications that love putting the boot into women girls and most of all MOTHERS.

FFS.

@Linearpark

Maybe the writers of each article are asked to supply their own straplines or running titles? So this is influenced by the writer of the article in question.

There is an editor though, surely?

Pregnant People = Latinx. It's not an accidental formation. It's there on purpose, imposed on the people it refers to, against their will.

Habitually using people instead of women is not a benign thing.

I recently listened to a programme on National Public Radio in the US about the Texas abortion ban. There were two female doctors being interviewed on the impact of the ban. Both were abortion providers and were admirable doctors working in very difficult situations. Neither of them said the word "woman" or "women" once during the interview. There was discussion of "pregnant folks" "pregnant people" "people seeking abortion" "impact on folk's reproductive health". It was clear that had received training/had a policy of never using the word women in relation to reproductive choices /health/pregancy etc it was all people or folks.

Which of course completely whitewashed the point that the Texas abortion ban is an attack on women - not men - women. If we can't say women are the only ones who get pregnant then we cannot say that a ban on abortion affects only women in a discriminatory and misogynistic way. Listening to the show you'd swear the texas ban was an attack on everyone's reproductive health and "people" will suffer and even die as a result. It isn't and people won't - it is an attack on women and girls and women and girls are the ones at physical risk.

I emailed the radio show to complain.

Don't care at all if this sounds OTT tinfoil hat to some.

This entire thing is an outright blatent attack on women and girls. (Bodies with vaginas).

And its working terrifyingly well, and shockingly fast.

What has been achieved, key points:

• Women's prisons mixed sex including males convicted of horrifying crimes against women/girls.

• Statistics for female sex rendered unreliable across pretty much everything.

*Impact of insisting on doing away with sex as a data element, massively skewing findings.

Obvious example, women being charged, convicted, imprisoned for sex offences, violence rising fast. Misleading headlines, feeding existing misognynistic societal preference to excuse, ignore, be unsettled by male pattern criminality.

• Words including woman girl redefined to mean... Whatever anyone wants it to mean. No definition. Word mother verboten.

Female essentially definition gone as well in practice. Also never to be connected to our reproductive biology. If female still meant female, and that was ok. Why people with etc from start? Why not females? Oh. Because female must not mean... Us lot. The ones with the extra hole.

*Social conventions around which sex goes where demolished, ability for women/girls to do anything when radar goes off, strongly diminished.

Risk presented by any old male can be in previously single sex spaces, not just ignored but LAUGHED AT.

None of this is subtle it's in your face. You're getting totally fucked over and no one gives a shit and you can't do anything about it either.

Shall I go on? Or is that enough for now.

It's an all out male supremacist assault on a vast scale. And we're LOSING. And have to fight to get back what we had, that was taken from us before most had any idea whatsoever any of it was happening.

Now it's about changing what has been done, a vastly more difficult position. And the changes were made without anyone asking, consulting, considering US AT ALL. On top of that, loads was done and deliberately hidden from basically whole population bar handful in govt etc who rewrote policies and guidelines.

And in loads of cases, eg police all info on anything self ID. Not sex any more.
Forces across the board (FOI) have no info AT ALL (and can't remember) when change made, how communicated to forces across England Wales, who authorised etc.

That's outrageous. Unbelievable. But it happened. And no one across govt police etc have any concerns about that at all.

@KittenKong

Do they do anything similar for black women - where maternal deaths are higher?

Black birthing bodies

A womens org tweeted out a paper/ article which (if I remember correctly) examined how doctors treatment of Black women differed to White women when it came to maternal patient care. It looked at areas like pain relief to doctors explaining options to the women so that they could give informed consent and basic bedside manners. Yet the author, herself black, decided to use terminology a farmer would not use for cows or ewes.

In context, with the phrase used to highlight the dehumanisation, and obvious from what already written before.

No probs.

In a tweet, with no context.

Just '"Black birthing bodies need and deserve radical solutions, not just sympathy."

Just what the hell? That's atrocious. That's what happened. Also look at pic used.
Again in context with author angle clear, impactful, issues home dehumanisation.
No context? Just shit.

mobile.twitter.com/npwf/status/1308889564681887744

The typesetting argument is bollocks. They could easily have just stuck with "for pregnancy" and had a point or two smaller type face on two lines if they were that bothered.

As someone who studied and worked as a typographer - we have ways…

I think this article says it all. The BJM amongst others should be seriously considering the arguments made here.

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856/full?fbclid=IwAR1GmMyg9yC58i3SargXSSpsw1NgaVoD6raB8cz40YuEgx9VxFTr5A4m4OQ

Daisies what a brilliant article thank you for posting that.

@DaisiesandButtercups - thank you for posting that article. I note the wonderful Susan Bewley is one of the authors. Excellent points made clearly and logically. If only some people would pay attention.

I am so fucking sick of this shit.

Brilliant article - I know a couple of the authors, so proud of them.

Thanks so much for posting that Daisies
I feel it's a really important article that I will be quoting and referencing frequently from here on. It articulates so many ideas I have been thinking, but of course they aren't ideas, they are well researched and referenced concepts.
Love Susan Bewley and I'm so pleased she is one of the authors. I don't know anything of any of the others.

It's 14 pages and takes a little time to read and digest but I do recommend taking the time to do read it all and think about it.

@KittenKong kerning can be a wonderful thing

Which type? (dork alert!)

To those who feel pregnant people is better.

There's a large amount of attention globally, for obvious reasons, on girls and pregnancy.

Context-
Forced marriage
View that puberty moves a body with a vagina from girl to woman. (Apologies, I will use the inclusive terms below).

While there is of course a different understanding around the world of when a person with a vagina moves from girl to woman around the world.
And the social and legal aspects again massively varying due to culture, religion, level of oppression of the population with a vulva.
I find any arguments that girl is therefore an ill defined term and it's correct to change it to another clearer one to be missing a very important point.

The point is the fact that girl is the word that everyone understands, and that it is attached to particular emotions. It strongly brings up a deep and strong psychological set of associations.

Obviously to say eg

Devastating impact on girls of forced marriage.

That is undeniably reduced in impact when altered to take into account that some boys can get pregnant, and some girls can't as they are male.

Anyone who is in favour of the improved wordings, which of these would you prefer, or something else?

Do you feel a difference in reaction?

• Devastating impact of pregnancy on youths due to forced marriage

*Devastating impact of pregnancy on young people due to forced marriage

• Devastating impact on postpubescent pregnancy in children due to forced marriage

Hmm. Those are unclear on who is impacted. Could be the gestatator or the. ? Impregnator if also young. Or even their parents, community... Anyone. I'll think again.

*Devastating impact of pregnancy on postpubescent children due to forced marriage

Hmmm.

• Devastating impact on menstrusting people whose bodies are not fully mature, due to pregnancy as a consequence of forced marriage.

Is that good?

Shit meant to include in context (sorry everyone massive oversight).

• Grooming
• CSA (organised abuse, sexual exploitation, incest
• Rape *Forced marriage
• View that puberty moves a body with a vagina from girl to woman.

Etc sure are more.

Anyone got a better phrase that the above?

Maybe one of the posters who supports inclusivity?

Everyone is most welcome for the share. I agree that it is a really important piece. I am really grateful for these eminent voices tackling this. Perhaps it will turn things around in maternity and breastfeeding.

The fact that it is 14 pages demonstrates I think all the many implications of a universal change from sexed language to the language of gender identity and applying it to all women.

It also highlights that so called additive language doesn’t cater for everyone but only caters for adherents of gender identity.

“For example, what does the phrase ‘women and birthing people’ actually mean? This construction could be interpreted in a literal way as meaning that ‘women’ are not people. Another interpretation occurs if ‘women’ is meant or read in a gendered sense so including males with the gender identity of ‘woman’ who cannot be pregnant or give birth. It is not always clear from the context. The change in meaning of ‘women’ from a sexed term to a gender identity can also mean that those women who do not have a belief in gender identity as a concept do not see themselves reflected in the gendered use of ‘women.’”

I also found this particularly important

“Desexing the language of female reproduction has been done with a view to being sensitive to individual needs and as beneficial, kind, and inclusive. Yet, this kindness has delivered unintended consequences that have serious implications for women and children. These include: decreasing overall inclusivity; dehumanising; including people who should be excluded; being imprecise, inaccurate or misleading; and disembodying and undermining breastfeeding. In addition, avoidance of the term ‘mother’ in its sexed sense, risks reducing recognition and the right to protection of the mother-infant dyad.”

Agrred. So true about the right to protection going. Extremely sinister.
These arguments are going to be really helpful to call on as and when our employers start to use this language. And to use as a reference to show the NHS and other bodies who already use the made up language, that it’s the opposite of inclusive to do that.

@KittenKong

As someone who studied and worked as a typographer - we have ways…

As an ex typogropher, pre WYSIWYG, command driven, hairy aresed etc, I agree. There is no reason whatsoever to have chosen that wording for typographical reasons. we all have our ems, ens, thins, hairs - non breaking spaces, on and all!

'pologies for the mispers. My fat, arthritic fingers are cold!

Oh did you get to use those old typesetting machines where you had to input code (I can only remember ‘bell’). I also used to run off the sheets, crop the text, run them through the waxer, them then stick them down… and do hand mark ups (and colour seps - my favourite job). I used to make printing plates too (and muck out the presses). And develop film. It’s amazing I still have all my fingers and lungs!

An the good old days (before anyone with PowerPoint was a ‘designer/typesetter’)