BBC 'pregnant people' again

[TopKnotch]

Was reading this interesting article on managing type 1 diabetes and pondering the issues at hand when...

Why are they using 'pregnant people'? It gives me a jolt every time I see it. It makes me feel so sad!

Did you look at the OP's linked post? I've just looked and "pregnant people" is still there.

I think this sort of article is more problematic. It’s not an article about gender, it’s just a standard article about a medical issue. But “pregnant people” is slipped in casually as if it’s completely normal, or to attempt to completely normalise it. It’s all these little things that contribute to the attrition of proper language.

Exactly @NotBadConsidering - it's seeing it being shoe horned into other arenas, particularly an article about a scientific endeavour!

Fucks me off. Just because some women can't deal with being women, we all have to be coy about the fact we're women. Why?

The complaint form seems to be asking for a physical address and phone number. It didn't used to. Is this to discourage women from contact them them over this subject?

I'm not sure I want my full details available to any person reading the message.

It's like Adam Bandt, Green Party Leader in Australia, who recently protested very loudly at the re-insertion of the word "mother" into Medicare online forms. Mother had been removed, replaced with "birthing parent". The brilliant Sall Grover, just after she had her baby, got the word "mother" put straight back in.

Meanwhile, on Bandt's twitter account, he describes himself as a "Dad of 2". Not "penis-haver of 2" or "ej4aculator of 2". Refused to change it.

Have the BBC ever used gender inclusive words to describe men? I might tootle off to find a look.

[email protected]

If worried about using your real email address just make a new one up. I have a male-sounding email, it gets responses far quicker than my own.

Interesting the BBC had a discussion about this early on in the year. Obviously BBC journalists (looking at you, Zoe Kleinman) don't pay attention to Woman's Hour

twitter.com/BBCWomansHour/status/1490634827397218304?s=20&t=sb1rXW1jSim5dtMlfLvnzQ

I complained and have had this response.

'Thank you for writing in with your feedback about the BBC News story “Google rules blocked children's diabetes app” (www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62184812).

I note your concerns about the use of language in this piece.

We do value the use of inclusive language where possible but the use of ‘pregnant people’ here had no intention of trying to ‘erase’ women and girls.

Sometimes it is useful to use a general term like ‘people’, for example to refer concisely to both adult women and younger girls.

The diabetes technology being reported on is an app recommended by the NHS for children from the age of 1, and/or women or girls who are pregnant.

I hope to have provided clarity and assistance, and thank you again for contacting us – we listen carefully to what our audience tells us, and your comments have been recorded and circulated widely.'

[yours blah blah]

What rubbish. And weaselly; common sense dictates that a reader would know what sex of person 'pregnant' applied to and that it might apply to both older and younger.

As for 'The diabetes technology being reported on is an app recommended by the NHS for children from the age of 1, and/or women or girls who are pregnant.', well why can't they just use that phrase in the article if they can use it in this reply?

I'll be writing back.

Sometimes it is useful to use a general term like ‘people’, for example to refer concisely to both adult women and younger girls.

What utter, utter nonsense.

The term 'pregnant people' has never once been about making sure that pregnant girls are included in the discussion.

I heard this term first used on Eastenders a couple of years ago when Linda kept mentioning “pregnant people” in the conversation, she said it few times for emphasis which didn’t sit well at all with me so I googled it and realised what it was all about.

The diabetes technology being reported on is an app recommended by the NHS for children from the age of 1, and/or women or girls who are pregnant.

Girls who are pregnant are surely included in children, so -

The diabetes technology being reported on is an app recommended by the NHS for children from the age of 1 and for pregnant women.

• would have been entirely clear, accurate and concise.

I also had a response to my complaint today and it was word for word identical to this. Anyone else get the same?

I got the same reply from the BBC, what a load of rubbish, clearly trying to deny any erasing of women, how can saying pregnant people in any way be easier to write or help clarify that they mean woman and girls.
still it’s a step up from the usual , inclusive to all women blah blah be kind, response.

standard bbc talk now. I heard this on morning life.

@ForFiveMinutes I got the identical reply too

Thank you for writing in with your feedback about the BBC News story “Google rules blocked children's diabetes app” (www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62184812*).

I note your concerns about the use of language in this piece.

We do value the use of inclusive language where possible but the use of ‘pregnant people’ here had no intention of trying to ‘erase’ women and girls.

Sometimes it is useful to use a general term like ‘people’, for example to refer concisely to both adult women and younger girls.

The diabetes technology being reported on is an app recommended by the NHS for children from the age of 1, and/or women or girls who are pregnant.

I hope to have provided clarity and assistance, and thank you again for contacting us – we listen carefully to what our audience tells us, and your comments have been recorded and circulated widely.

Yours sincerely,

Tara McBride
BBC News Website*

Me too!!
So you have to use "people" because you're talking about different age groups?! WTAF?!

It's interesting that on other contentious terminology issues the BBC is perfectly capable of handling them through the appropriate use of disclaimers. Remember the heated discussions about whether to use "migrant" or "refugee" a few years back, when UNHCR pushed heavily against using the overarching term "migrant" by conflating it narrowly with "(solely) economic migrant"? (Other organisations in the sector, in particular IOM, vocally disagreed with them and in fact argued at one point the UNHCR's position was reflecting an interagency turf war.) The BBC handled this perfectly and in fact admirably. Ever since they've added a "note on terminology" to every article on the topic stressing that the BBC uses the word "migrant" to include both groups of people. So it's really, really striking they won't do the same with regard to sex-based language. Nothing easier than using a similar type of disclaimer saying that the word "woman" is used to include, etc. etc. Mind you that would be the rational solution...

I wouldn’t get the allusion to different age groups from “people”. Often clarity requires being specific and explicit. Adults and children, women and girls, men and boys, women and children.

Communication is key. If girls are important then don’t obscure them with “people”. The same goes for women. Gender neutral language excludes women and girls, boys too in fact because men are the default. Men are who most people think of and cater for when they are thinking of “people”.

Although obviously in the context of “pregnant people” I assume they mean women but that they consider the word woman to be taboo. Is it a dirty word? Offensive? Embarrassing? For some reason it is taboo, maybe it is too powerful.

It used to be taboo in my childhood too, lady was considered more polite, being part of the aristocracy making being female a bit more acceptable. Girl was used for adult women, somehow infantilising women made them more acceptable too. The word woman was used as an insult, sometimes with added adjectives. Jeered across playgrounds and sports grounds, in workplaces and during road rage incidents.

The link doesn’t work anymore, the article has either been taken down or moved

Just moved www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62184812

I think you are confusing sex and gender. My friend at work who is non-binary could choose to carry and have a child one day. My friend who is a trans man could one day choose to become pregnant. Are they women? No, they very much aren't. 'Pregnant people' doesn't exclude women, rather it includes non-binary people, trans men and any other AFAB gender that becomes pregnant. Being inclusive isn't like sharing out pie; including other people doesn't mean taking away any of your pie.

'Pregnant people' doesn't exclude women, rather it includes non-binary people, trans men and any other AFAB gender that becomes pregnant. Being inclusive isn't like sharing out pie; including other people doesn't mean taking away any of your pie.

Some clinicians would disagree with you. The paper is worth reading

“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.”

They added: '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.'"

internal-journal.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856/full?fbclid=IwAR1GmMyg9yC58i3SargXSSpsw1NgaVoD6raB8cz40YuEgx9VxFTr5A4m4OQ

There is a decent literature in line with these arguments.