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?

@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 would also point out that the whole point of words is that they ARE exclusive. A word is a discreet category of meaning that excludes other meanings. 'Inclusive words' that no longer have discreet and exclusive meanings, start to mean that we are unable to communicate effectively with each other.

If there is a disease, for example, which affects both men and women (defined by their sex) but women are disproportionately affected, then reporting on 'people' obscures the effect of the disease, and interventions to tackle the disease, on women. And this has started to happen in medical journals who wish to be 'inclusive'. And that starts to have real world affects on our ability to tackle issues that affects women due to their sex.

Which, given as we have only just started to recognise how illnesses and treatments can affect men and women differently, is a massively retrograde step in creating a society that genuinely treats women equally.

@anothersmahedmug Really? You strongly object to being referred to as a person? Think the replies here have answered my question!

I used to be a fan until he did a trans in sport debate and was a right arse, he ignored or talked over all those making the case for women (including Hayden).

I have not listened to him since and will not, he can fuck right off.

JoB is afraid of being cancelled by those he perceives to be the cool crowd. He’s so desperate to be considered a voice for today but really, he’s rather loathesome.

@oklets

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.

Its part of the same movement to pretend that sex is irrelevant to how women experience the world. And doing that causes real harm to women. Using language that denies women's experiences as women, leads to making women's experiences invisible and that does harm women and is harming women. I would say that is pretty dehumanising to women, yes. Poor maternal health care in many parts of the world reflects the low status of women. We can't recognise this as a structural inequality that women face, if we can't refer to it as something that affects women only. We can't address sexism if we can't name our sex.

Sometimes exclusion is necessary

We exclude adults from competing with children

We exclude white people from programmes designed to improve the lives of people from BAME backgrounds

Women are not included in programmes to screen for prostate cancer

The erasure of the word woman when it relates to something that only women can do in favour of people is not being inclusive at all, it’s just erasing women for no helpful reason at all

I can't bear James OB. This does not surprise me in the least.

No one is none binary sex

The word refers to the sex of the person

You can have whatever gender you like but it's pretty irrelevant to the pregnancy process

And by using gender not sex you exclude anyone without a gender

Perhaps you don't care about them ?

Yes, I have one of his books somewhere. I think it’s in a box in the loft so I can’t check it now, but IIRC he wrote that it didn’t cost him anything to be kind to trans people, so therefore only an arsehole wouldn’t be kind. Something like that.

I don’t know why a woman’s sense of smell changes during pregnancy, but I’d guess it’s linked to hormonal changes. I do know that women have a stronger sense of smell than men, especially in the fertile period close to ovulation.

JOB hates all women, not just GC ones.

[quote oklets]@anothersmahedmug Really? You strongly object to being referred to as a person? Think the replies here have answered my question! [/quote]
I didn't say I strongly object when it's the right level of abstraction

I do object when its the wrong level of abstraction because then harm follows

You call a chair the chair not the furniture if you want someone you sit down for clarity

Have a seat , have a chair not have the furniture

But carry on being exclusive and harming the female sex if it makes you feel better

@Beefcurtains79

JOB hates all women, not just GC ones.

Yes you're right. He's just outwardly nicer to the ones who agree with him and think he's a Good Lefty Bloke.

@anothersmahedmug What are you even talking about? I'm not really sure where you've come up with 'none binary sex'?

[quote oklets]@anothersmahedmug Really? You strongly object to being referred to as a person? Think the replies here have answered my question! [/quote]
Would you say the same thing to a person of colour who objected to someone refusing to refer to people of colour AS people of colour, when they were talking about issues of that relate to them exclusively as people of colour?

If you can see the offence and issue there, why can you not see it as it relates to women?

[quote oklets]@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. [/quote]
So you think that when women say they want to be referred to as women, that’s not what they’re saying at all - they’re actually saying they don’t believe there are any trans people existing in the world anywhere, ever?

Yeah, that’s a really logical interpretation.

[quote oklets]@anothersmahedmug What are you even talking about? I'm not really sure where you've come up with 'none binary sex'? [/quote]
@anothersmahedmug is referring to the fact that pregnancy only relates to one sex. And so it makes no sense to use language which denies that reality.

[quote oklets]@anothersmahedmug Really? You strongly object to being referred to as a person? Think the replies here have answered my question! [/quote]
The problem is you have arrived with an objection. One based on something out with the wider FWR cohort.

And now posters from inside that cohort are trying to explain you are narrow focussing on one sentence, that doesn't quite say what you report it as saying

The history behind women posting here objecting to having their femaleness being nullified is manifold:

Person with a cervix - excludes a great % of women who don't recognise the word cervix, and many other gynecological terminology. Yes, there are some proper statistics on this. Quoted across FWR threads many times.

The removal of the sex based identifying word only occurs in female products and services. No men's health service has changed its terminology, there is no call for people with a prostate.

Oh! Do excuse me. One of the twin telly doctors did that last week, didn't he? Used the circular logic of "if you have a prostate then, unless you have had it removed for medical purposes, you are a person with a prostate". Because he couldn't bring himself to say "Men, get your prostate checked".

But no national health drive has done so for men's health. Just women's health services.

Women are women. Not all women give birth, have a womb, go through menopause etc. But ONLY women do. So it seems logical to refer to those people who do as women. For clarity and also for not fucking around with statistics. If, say, 40% of women experience a specific health issue what is the point of advertising screening services to everybody with the headline 40% of people will experience this cancer in their lifetime. So get yourself checked

It's a lie. No man experiences a specifically female cancer. 0% of men and 40% of women do. So not only does the headline lie, it misleads, causes fear where none need exists and reduces the real risk factor where it does exist.

And yes, this has happened, recently, in the UK.

This is why so many women do care, do object, do speak out. Because language matters, buggering about with it has consequences, and non amount of 'being nice' overrides the realities of health.

Please do have a wider read
There is a thread here called "break it down for me" that is long but has all of the salient bits of information in it.

Exactly

There is no none binary sex

There is only none binary gender

The word woman is related to female sex

You can not be excluding none binary people by saying woman

Ergo the idea that saying people is more inclusive of none binary is nonsense - they are already included in women which is adult human females of any gender

But using gendered terms excludes none gendered people

All I'm hearing is 'women have the right to be called women'. This is true, nobody is denying this. Then 'ONLY women give birth'. This is true only if you deny the existence of trans and non binary people. Think my question has been answered so toodles 👋🏼

@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?

For the same reason that All Lives Matter is both more inclusive and more problematic.

We also end up with statistics we can't understand when we so this. So 'eight out of ten people having regular unprotected sex will get pregnant within six months' or 'five out of ten people found that they were more likely to get covid when they were having a period'

I've see this happening more and more. My DH is terrified by the pregnancy types one I must say...

Language is less effectual the more general.it becomes on the whole.

*disclaimer - made up statistics

Toodles?!

Infantilising and rude. Pity you couldn't engage with all that was said. But never mind. If you ever change your mind and come back, we will still be here, ready and willing to discuss this with you.

You are always welcome🙂

We are denying the existence of people who are neither male nor female sex
( people with chromosomes disorders I believe are comfortable with that statement )

We are denying that it is possible to change sex

Nowt to do with anyones gender. I don't care about their gender . Sone people are attached to it but it's not universal

I do care about people trying to change the meaning if sex based words to mean gender

Sex is not gender
Woman is adult human female
Female is the sex with eggs
Woman is about sex not gender

If there is a disease, for example, which affects both men and women (defined by their sex) but women are disproportionately affected, then reporting on 'people' obscures the effect of the disease, and interventions to tackle the disease, on women. And this has started to happen in medical journals who wish to be 'inclusive'. And that starts to have real world affects on our ability to tackle issues that affects women due to their sex.

Which, given as we have only just started to recognise how illnesses and treatments can affect men and women differently, is a massively retrograde step in creating a society that genuinely treats women equally.

This is really important. We know that women who suffer a cardiac arrest are less likely to be resuscitated and survive.

A recent study showed us, that alarmingly, nearly half of women didn’t know what a cervix was. Inclusive language such as “people with a cervix” can exclude a lot of women, especially non-native English speakers and women with literacy issues or learning disabilities.

The consequence of excluding these women isn’t hurt feelings. It’s about reduced understanding of female health issues, reduced take up of women’s cancer screening and potentially the loss of women’s lives.