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!

I'll add in this thoughtful editorial.

When introducing their rationale for gender neutral language, Ross and Solinger noted: ‘the danger that excising the word ‘woman’ in order to include transgender persons in our reproductive justice analysis can have the effect of effacing the particular lived experiences of women’.2 Indeed, it seems difficult to justify routine omission of the word woman, if some women object to being described by various alternative phrases. Logically, the same arguments that support gender inclusive language for transgender people apply equally to women who may feel erased or dehumanised by terminology labelled ‘neutral’. If the aim is to maximise respect for every person’s sense of self, it must follow that female patients who simply understand themselves as women cannot either be expected to ‘go along silently with language in which they do not exist’.

Dahlen S Do we need the word ‘woman’ in healthcare?Postgraduate Medical Journal 2021;97:483-484.

pmj.bmj.com/content/97/1150/483

People who are born female but identify as male also have periods and even babies though. If you say 'people' it's all inclusive. I'm a woman but it really doesn't put me out to try to be more inclusive of others in that way.

Thank you EmbarrassingHadrosaurus, interesting perspective. I will have a read of your links, thanks.

But what about those who are put out by language they find offensive. Should all offended people be mollified… or just some of them?

And me.
I'll probably be writing to them again.

No, YOU are confusing sex and gender. Your friend at work identifies as non-binary. Fine; but if this person 'could choose to carry and have a child one day' they are biologically a woman.
Your friend who identifies as a trans man, who 'could one day choose to become pregnant', also very much IS a woman.
They can identify however they like, but in biological sex terms they cannot re-identify as the opposite sex.

People who are born female and have periods and babies are women (sex), although of course they may identify as male (gender). It is sex that's pertinent in a piece about pregnancy.

DameHelena where did I say they had changed biological sex? I'll wait.

Thanks for pointing this out. I've just complained. Very simple to do.

I haven't said they changed biological sex.

Your friend at work who is non-binary, as they could choose to carry and have a child one day, is therefore biologically female.
Your friend who is a trans man who could one day choose to become pregnant is therefore biologically female.

Whatever genders they choose to identify as.

Thanks DameHelena yes I think biologically female is a better term rather than calling them Women, I think we both understand Sex and Gender are two different things!

Right. And so does AmaryllisNightAndDay, who you 'corrected' originally.

Anyhoo.

I've written back to the Beeb pointing out why their initial response to me (and clearly to others on this thread too) isn't accurate or acceptable.

I was referring to this in part:

"This language is inclusive of people who are pregnant but not women."

"Like who? You can't be pregnant unless you're a woman. Yes I know you can identify as a transman or binary, but to get pregnant you still have to be genetically female and physically a woman, like it or lump it. Medical science simply hasn't got to the point where someone who was born a boy can get pregnant when he grows up. No drugs or hormones or surgery can do that. And it's dishonest and confusing for the BBC of all organisations to pretend otherwise."

She said 'You can't get pregnant unless you're a woman' (so I described two people who aren't women that could get pregnant) and then went on to talk about biological males (no one said they could get pregnant), and then said the BBC was being dishonest and pretending (I'm not sure what she means by that, I read the link and couldn't see where they were, but I suppose I could have missed it). All of those points made me think she didn't understand 'Women' in the quote she replied to was about gender not sex. My apologies if I have done her a disservice.

The issue is that you're using language inaccurately.
(Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding), the two people you describe ARE women. They can say they're non-binary or identify as a man, that's fine, but they ARE women. Because women are adult female humans and it is women, exclusively, who can get pregnant. And you're right: no one, including that poster, has said biological males can get pregnant.

Ah I see. When I refer to gender I use 'Woman' when I refer to sex I use 'Female' I find that helps, although I recognise that some people believe Woman only refers to adult human females. When I'm at the hospital and they give me a form that asks me for my sex (with a little box to write a letter) I put 'F' not 'W'. It doesn't help that just lately I've seen people generally start to use gender when they mean sex (e.g. 'gender reveal'. It's just a bug bear of mine but that's a 'me issue'.

And I guess I was confused if no one mentioned males getting pregnant I wondered why she was bringing it up, no biggie.

P.S. I don't blame you not being happy with that reply from the BBC person. I think they've skirted the issue and not addressed the point you raised, very weird standard reply that misses the point!

OK, but it's not that 'some people believe Woman only refers to adult human females.' Woman DOES only refer to this. 'Female' here is a red herring.

This is precisely why this issue is so important. We can't know what we're talking about/agreeing or not agreeing on unless we know we're on the same page re terminology.

"OK, but it's not that 'some people believe Woman only refers to adult human females.' Woman DOES only refer to this. 'Female' here is a red herring.

This is precisely why this issue is so important. We can't know what we're talking about/agreeing or not agreeing on unless we know we're on the same page re terminology."

I have tried to explain what I mean re terminology, I don't believe woman always means that, clearly you do, that's fine, and that's what I mean when I say "'some people' believe" (as some people don't believe it means only that). You are entitled to believe what you want and I'm sure you don't go around calling trans man women to their faces, so all good.

Trans men are women. It’s a misconception that the use of “pregnant people” is to be “inclusive” of women who deny this reality. The real reason is to make sure the word “women” is never used to speak about a uniquely female experience, because this excludes males from being included in the word “women” and they don’t like it. If it was about inclusive language we would see “prostate havers” and such about males. But we don’t.

“Woman” is not a gender term. It’s a qualifier of sex, referring to the adult female. The world has not consented to change it to a gender term, it’s been thrust upon us by activists. Only women can get pregnant, people can’t.

Hi NotBadConsidering I totally respect your right to believe that. You may be interested to know that terminology for men is also changing. On Prostate Cancer Uk https://prostatecanceruk.org/prostate-information/about-prostate-cancer they include the following:

Who has a prostate?
The following people have a prostate:
• men
• trans women*
• non-binary people who were assigned male at birth**
• some intersex people.*
A trans woman is someone who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman. Trans women can develop prostate problems, even if they have taken hormones. The prostate is not removed during genital reconstructive surgery.
 A non-binary person may not identify as a man or a woman.
** An intersex person may have both male and female sexual characteristics and so might have a prostate.

So some health providers are definitely starting to use 'people with a prostate'. I know some people don't agree with the whole thing, just pointing out it's not Language relating to women that's changing. Incidentally I don't think any of us consents to language change, it just happens, as I find out every time my children use a new term I have to look up!

Sorry that should say 'not just language relating to women'.

People might be all inclusive but it is wrong, as it includes males.
Mammals would be even more inclusive, but no one would think that as an option.

I was wondering if your posts were in good faith or if you were being disingenuous about muddling up sex and gender etc.
Now it's clear that you are deliberately conflating them.

I don't 'believe' that woman always means adult human female; it does mean that.
You believe that people with male genitalia can be women. I cannot compel you not to believe that, but it is not factually true.
This is all especially important in the medical/health context.

In that case why not just say 'pregnant females' ?