Woman's hour 7th feb - pregnant people

[WarriorN]

They're doing a piece on the language of reproduction:

Text reads:

You may have heard the term 'pregnant people' being used in place of 'pregnant women'. It's intended to be inclusive of trans men and nonbinary people who are having a baby. Today a global group of women's health experts publish an article in the journal Frontiers of Global Women's Health, arguing that there are unintended consequences to shifting the language of reproduction in this way. They say these include compromising the accuracy of some medical research and results, and the dehumanisation of women by using terms that refer to them only by body part or function - for example 'cervix haver' or 'birth-giver'. Jenny Gamble, Professor of Midwifery at Coventry University, is one of the co-authors of the article and joins Emma.

Emma mentioned stepping down from newsnight partly for more ideas for WH; I do hope she champions more of this.

Over the last year since Emma Barnett took over they've done a really good job of looking at many aspects of gender fuckwittery and how it impacts women, it's actually even more baffling to think what WH covered before. It makes you realise just how hard it must have been to ignore the massive rainbow elephant in the room and hold the 'nothing to see here' line.

Poor Jenni having to be stifled for so long.

Emma is letting rip.

The BBC is completely complicit in the situation we are in with language. They helped normalise and give legitimacy to "gender theory" in day to day practice: If the respected, national broadcaster and national treasure was promoting it, via such innocuous vehicles as CBBC, then it must be good. I'm very glad WH/Emma B are tackling this now (and applaud EB's tenacity and her and her producers' bravery), but I can't help feeling bitter about the BBC's conduct. If they had allowed women like Jenni Murray to speak freely, we wouldn't be in the shit show we are in today.

Good to see this being discussed.

@LilithOfEden

The BBC is completely complicit in the situation we are in with language. They helped normalise and give legitimacy to "gender theory" in day to day practice: If the respected, national broadcaster and national treasure was promoting it, via such innocuous vehicles as CBBC, then it must be good. I'm very glad WH/Emma B are tackling this now (and applaud EB's tenacity and her and her producers' bravery), but I can't help feeling bitter about the BBC's conduct. If they had allowed women like Jenni Murray to speak freely, we wouldn't be in the shit show we are in today.

Yup. Very good point.

I do agree with you Lilith.

WH did try a little but a lot of it was too little too late.

I feel Nolan has released the bbc a little.

This is a v short piece about transwidows from 2019

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p06xvbsc

But given how much more vocal trans widows have become, there's been nothing since. And yet so much more on coercive control in the public's consciousness.

The experience of the woman at the moment, a fake marriage with a policeman is horrific.

I would not be surprised if there were more transwidows in the U.K. than women who've been horribly gaslit in this way by the police.

A few weeks ago, during the Radio 5 weekly medical phone in a discussion on changes to women's menstrual cycles from the Covid jab, Colin Murray actually paused and apologised for saying 'women's periods' and changed it to just 'periods' and 'people'. This was not long after the Stonewall podcasts came out (with, it was very noticeable, none of the usual advertising, trailers or promotion that other podcasts get). In a programme earlier in the evening, also on Radio 5, discussing men's health, the words men, man was used throughout, no problem, no intervention from producers or upset listeners.

Here we go…

Listening

“Non pregnant people”

Australian woman - sorry, didn’t catch her name - is very clear that important health messages are not getting through as a result of this type of language.

I’m going to look for this study and send it to my GP surgery.

Professor Jenny Gamble is on top of the subject but even she is having a bit of a struggle to express (in using the special new language) what's going on and what's the problems are.

The pressie won Jenny is huge isn’t it. She is doing really well. But flustered. I feel for her.

The change in language is not and never has been about being inclusive of TM and NB's, it's about separating the word woman from biological functions only performed by female bodies in order to give legitimacy to the question "what is a woman". TM's and female NB's have never had and will never have that much power or influence.

None of the professional bodies having responsibilities in this area would agree to go on the programme to discuss this with Emma Barnett. That is depressing, but not surprising.

Surely the onus is on the individual to stay abreast - no pun intended whatsoever - of what their healthcare needs may be?? Is it really the responsibility of the NHS to remind people that they still have a cervix etc?

I think what is missed is that it’s not actually about transmen’s feelings - it’s about transwomens feelings. Remember that Daniel Radcliffes outraged response to JK was that trans women are women. It’s all about men being upset at the “power” that pregnancy gives to women that they can’t have.

There was an assertion that lack of the "correct" terminology means that transmen won't access appropriate healthcare, for example screening. I suspect that a large part of this problem is instead that they're reluctant to engage with healthcare that is appropriate to their sex, for reasons related to dysphoria.

The article was out a couple of weeks ago - apparently the full thing was being published today with additional information. Which is unusual, I think - do academic papers usually have a "soft launch"?

www.smh.com.au/national/inclusive-language-risks-dehumanising-women-top-researchers-argue-20220126-p59red.html

She made good points at the end.

I liked that Emma gave her a grilling putting the healthcare arguments as the Professor was able to both agree with pertinent points and dissect the issues.

Agreed.

Very telling that NMC &RCM wouldn’t engage.

[quote vivariumvivariumsvivaria]The article was out a couple of weeks ago - apparently the full thing was being published today with additional information. Which is unusual, I think - do academic papers usually have a "soft launch"?

www.smh.com.au/national/inclusive-language-risks-dehumanising-women-top-researchers-argue-20220126-p59red.html[/quote]
Testing the waters?