James O’Brien on now ‘pregnant people’

[GreekOlive]

Big fan of J’OB ON LBC but listening to Mystery Hour now and he’s continually saying: why does a sense of smell change in ‘pregnant people’ as one of the questions. It’s grating as well as ridiculous.

Anyone fancy ringing in to explain why a WOMAN’s smell changes in pregnancy?

Women still not people in the GC world, I see.

Only one sex gives birth blueberry sorry if you still find that confusing

All women are people but not all people are women hth

Give it a rest with the disingenuous tone Blueberry - you know exactly what the issues are so don’t pretend you don’t!

Only one category of “people” gets pregnant. Why should we have to disingenuously pretend that’s not true? It’s like reviving Victorian euphemisms because it’s too horrific or naughty or titillating to talk about reality in normal terms. Perhaps you should go back to talking about “people who are in the family way” if you are so keen on coy pretend language that covers over the truth of the matter.

Woman is not a dirty word in the 'GC world'.
That's the world I wish to live in.

I’m imagining that Blueberry spends his/her time off gender issues maybe complaining to the Welsh press about why they aren’t referring to Welsh people as British; or perhaps on forums dedicated to marine biology about how whales should be only referred to as “mammals”.

Perhaps making comments like “Whales still not mammals in the National Geographic world, I see!” under relevant articles about whale biology.

@foxgoosefinch

Perhaps making comments like “Whales still not mammals in the National Geographic world, I see!” under relevant articles about whale biology.

Urgh, he can get in the bin as well.

@foxgoosefinch

Give it a rest with the disingenuous tone Blueberry - you know exactly what the issues are so don’t pretend you don’t!

Only one category of “people” gets pregnant. Why should we have to disingenuously pretend that’s not true? It’s like reviving Victorian euphemisms because it’s too horrific or naughty or titillating to talk about reality in normal terms. Perhaps you should go back to talking about “people who are in the family way” if you are so keen on coy pretend language that covers over the truth of the matter.

I'm re-reading a Victorian novel right now and the writer uses the words 'the female sex', 'the male sex' quite happily, with no tee-hee or ooh-err about it. I never noticed it when I first read it as a student 30 years ago, but now we're in the 21st century the coy euphemism 'gender' has been problematically substituted for it everywhere.

James O'Brien is the living embodiment of the well known quotation from Upton Sinclair:

It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.

@foxgoosefinch

I’m imagining that Blueberry spends his/her time off gender issues maybe complaining to the Welsh press about why they aren’t referring to Welsh people as British; or perhaps on forums dedicated to marine biology about how whales should be only referred to as “mammals”.

Humorous and makes the point so well at the same time : )

Not a fan of JOB myself

He is firmly in the ‘transwomen are women, women are worrying about nothing’ camp. DH has his latest book and there is a section about it.

I am a woman, I have given birth. I have no idea why people get so worked up about the use of inclusive language. Is it simply that you deny the existence of trans/non binary people?

No oklets it isn't.

Have a read round. There's 6+years worth of discussion, examples, scientific evidence, law, opinion and much much more on precisely why it isn't.

It’s not ‘inclusive’ to erase the word ‘women’.

@oklets

I am a woman, I have given birth. I have no idea why people get so worked up about the use of inclusive language. Is it simply that you deny the existence of trans/non binary people?

No, its just that we understand the important of biological sex to women's experiences of the world and the vital importance of the ability to use language that reflects experiences based on our sex. Here is an excellent article to outline the issues relating to maternity care.

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856/full?fbclid=IwAR1GmMyg9yC58i3SargXSSpsw1NgaVoD6raB8cz40YuEgx9VxFTr5A4m4OQ%20OPINION%20article

I wouldn't bother. JOBby hates GC women and talks over and patronises them.

@oklets

I am a woman, I have given birth. I have no idea why people get so worked up about the use of inclusive language. Is it simply that you deny the existence of trans/non binary people?

I also find it really misogynistic to believe that when women are standing up for women's rights that it must not be because they actually have regard for women, but must be because they are against another group.

I don't see that you slurring of feminists in this way is any different from in the 70s when feminists were called 'man-haters'.

I fail to see what is inclusive or benign about using language that fudges the issue of which sex gets pregnant - not always through choice - and which sex grows and gives birth to a baby, sometimes at considerable risk to health and life.

@oklets

I am a woman, I have given birth. I have no idea why people get so worked up about the use of inclusive language. Is it simply that you deny the existence of trans/non binary people?

What's inclusive about pretending anyone other than women ie adult human females can give birth?

What's inclusive about not including the word women? Why not women AND non binary people and transmen?

Thanks @spikesonbuildings, there are some good points in this. I agree some of the language they refer to in this is really clunky and can see some of the issues with that. But 'pregnant person' isn't really difficult to understand. Nor does it seem dehumanising. A lot of the replies on here are nothing to do with these issues and do seem just an angry anti-trans/non binary thing.

Inclusive

Why say people ? Why not animals or mammals? Why not just things ?

@Intheopinionofourexpert Well my point was is your objection based on you denying the existence of trans/non binary people. And your reply indicates that yes, it is.

People get cross because the ignoring of the differences between the sexes causes real harm. Like no safety gear for women

People get cross because pretending there is no difference between the sexes means that the female ones get shat on. You can't show the fact that women don't get safety gear that works if you can't show the fit of kit based on sex. So you don't know why half the population can't use the safety gear so you can't fix it