Historians - pregnant people

Believerinbiology · 15/08/2022 10:14

Have not heard it but isn't it amazing that they could tell the man was a man but not that the pregnant "people" were women. How wonderful that some people's "gender identity" can be discerned now, it must be marvelous technology! (Sarcasm alert)

KittenKong · 15/08/2022 16:37

Ah yes I heard that too. Also a ‘history’ programme which banged in about a Victorian lesbian murder victims ‘identity’ (in modern terms). Such a load of guff. Glossed over the actual murder (by her girlfriend) more interested in ‘gender’

flipping BBC nutters.

Flatmountains · 15/08/2022 16:40

Just remember there are still many books left in the world that were written before "newspeak".

MarshaMelrose · 15/08/2022 17:13

I don't really get involved in the trans debate on here but I feel this transcends that.

What I find annoying is that they have skeletons of the "pregnant people" so they know they were born women. The reason why they've called the man "a man" is because he has a male skeleton. So no messing around with "person", just calls him a man. If the skeketons had not been pregnant, therefore, wouldn't she have said they were women? Or are our two sexes now, men and people? Are women as a sex to be erased?

Is this the future or archaeology? No one is allowed to define sex which is pretty bloody important to our understanding of the past. Everyone is just a person so we'd be no longer be able to define a ruined religious establishment as a monastery because the monks might all have been transgender and it was a trans-convent? Because if everyone in the past was a person, then women weren't second class citizens and property of fathers and husbands, because actually people were treating people badly. So we were all equal.

It makes a mockery of history.

Original poster

maeveiscurious · 15/08/2022 18:56

MarshaMelrose · 15/08/2022 17:13

I don't really get involved in the trans debate on here but I feel this transcends that.

What I find annoying is that they have skeletons of the "pregnant people" so they know they were born women. The reason why they've called the man "a man" is because he has a male skeleton. So no messing around with "person", just calls him a man. If the skeketons had not been pregnant, therefore, wouldn't she have said they were women? Or are our two sexes now, men and people? Are women as a sex to be erased?

Is this the future or archaeology? No one is allowed to define sex which is pretty bloody important to our understanding of the past. Everyone is just a person so we'd be no longer be able to define a ruined religious establishment as a monastery because the monks might all have been transgender and it was a trans-convent? Because if everyone in the past was a person, then women weren't second class citizens and property of fathers and husbands, because actually people were treating people badly. So we were all equal.

It makes a mockery of history.

I find it all rather disturbing and things are happening by stealth

OP posts:

MTCoffeePot · 15/08/2022 19:43

I was quite enjoying this programme until the 'pregnant people' point. After that the whole comedy aspect began to seem really forced and grated on me. I won't be listening to any more in the series.

PanicAtTheDisco2000 · 15/08/2022 19:49

I’m listened to this yesterday and pregnant people jumped out to me, really grated like a PP said. Shame cos I like the series. Natalie Haynes also wrote a really good book about the Trojan war from female perspectives. Shame to see a contributor to her show deliberately choose people over women.

WhereAreWeNow · 15/08/2022 21:03

Was it Natalie Haynes who said "pregnant people" or a guest on her show? I hope it was the latter because I properly love NH and I'd be so sad if she turned out to be TWAW.

Manderleyagain · 15/08/2022 21:41

Who was the respected historian? If they follow the logic to the end, no one in the past should be labeled man or woman unless they left a document saying 'I identify as a....' And womens history disappears over night.

I didn't hear but is it possible it's because the phrase 'pregnant people' has become the in thing for a certain type. If the skeleton has not been pregnant the historian might just have referred to her as a woman.

PanicAtTheDisco2000 · 15/08/2022 22:32

It was Dr Sophie Hay. She is on Twitter. No pronouns in profile which is always my first check.

MeaninglessGraphs · 16/08/2022 00:13

I do remember Dr Alice Roberts, a few years ago, on one of the 'Digging For Britain' programmes - somewhat after she came out as "TWAW" on Twitter - looking rather disgruntled and a bit cat's-bum-face, when a forensic anthropologist, on examining an almost-complete human skeleton, pointed out all the characteristics on this particular set of bones, indicating that this individual was a woman, with particular emphases on shape of pelvis, characteristics of the skull, and length of arm and leg bones etc. It was quite interesting.

GlomOfNit · 16/08/2022 00:23

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Pallisers · 16/08/2022 00:43

I didn't hear but is it possible it's because the phrase 'pregnant people' has become the in thing for a certain type. If the skeleton has not been pregnant the historian might just have referred to her as a woman.

I think it is this. I am in the US but I notice otherwise interesting regular contributers on NPR will ALWAYS say pregnant people (but use man and woman in other situations) and I think it is down to them having media training - you can spot it (pregnant folks is also a favourite) - they have been trained to never put the word woman after the word pregnant.

It's all a load of shite and became quite dangerous during the run-up to and overturning of Roe v Wade when an alien arriving on earth listening to the discourse would have been certain that access to abortion would affect the health of all people on earth and not just one particular half of them - women.

Even my super woke dds were up in arms about it.

Helleofabore · 16/08/2022 06:25

MarshaMelrose · 15/08/2022 17:13

I don't really get involved in the trans debate on here but I feel this transcends that.

What I find annoying is that they have skeletons of the "pregnant people" so they know they were born women. The reason why they've called the man "a man" is because he has a male skeleton. So no messing around with "person", just calls him a man. If the skeketons had not been pregnant, therefore, wouldn't she have said they were women? Or are our two sexes now, men and people? Are women as a sex to be erased?

Is this the future or archaeology? No one is allowed to define sex which is pretty bloody important to our understanding of the past. Everyone is just a person so we'd be no longer be able to define a ruined religious establishment as a monastery because the monks might all have been transgender and it was a trans-convent? Because if everyone in the past was a person, then women weren't second class citizens and property of fathers and husbands, because actually people were treating people badly. So we were all equal.

It makes a mockery of history.

Maybe you are finding out just how pervasive gender identity ideology actually is. I am not sure there is one aspect of life it has not started to impact.

EdgeOfACoin · 16/08/2022 07:07

Pallisers · 16/08/2022 00:43

I didn't hear but is it possible it's because the phrase 'pregnant people' has become the in thing for a certain type. If the skeleton has not been pregnant the historian might just have referred to her as a woman.

I think it is this. I am in the US but I notice otherwise interesting regular contributers on NPR will ALWAYS say pregnant people (but use man and woman in other situations) and I think it is down to them having media training - you can spot it (pregnant folks is also a favourite) - they have been trained to never put the word woman after the word pregnant.

It's all a load of shite and became quite dangerous during the run-up to and overturning of Roe v Wade when an alien arriving on earth listening to the discourse would have been certain that access to abortion would affect the health of all people on earth and not just one particular half of them - women.

Even my super woke dds were up in arms about it.

When I was in the US a few months ago, I was pleasantly surprised by the number of newsreaders on CNN who said 'pregnant women'.

Given that every US website on pregnancy and childbirth appears to have been 'updated' in 2020 (it's almost always 2020) to remove the word 'woman', it was a breath of fresh air.

Perhaps the TV channels are starting to cotton on.

Truthlikeness · 16/08/2022 17:38

The Romans were extremely clear on who women were and treated them completely differently to men. Pretending you don't know what sex a pregnant person is will make it impossible to understand Roman culture.

maeveiscurious · 16/08/2022 18:17

This reply has been withdrawn

Withdrawn at OP's request

Sazzasez · 16/08/2022 18:38

maeveiscurious · 15/08/2022 09:48

I was listening to a programme on Radio 4 yesterday regarding the destruction of Pompeii. Haynes stands up for the classics. It's a great programme.

At 28.55 minutes in a respected historian is describing a man who did not escape and is forever a statue. She then goes on to describe "pregnant people" who were left behind.

My curious mind wonders if they now think men were also pregnant in ancient times and historians are reporting this as fact.

Our future perception of history is going to change if these terms are normalised.

Yes!
Talking about a bloke with a block of masonry on him, and of course the Plinies get to be “he” but “pregnant people” mysteriously of unspecified sex.

FireFlyBoogaloo · 17/08/2022 02:39

Perception of history won't really change.

The phrase "trans women are women" is completely and utterly dependent on everyone already knowing the definition of the word "woman". If the word "woman" comes to mean something else, then another word to mean "adult human female" will come up to replace it. Will it be "cis woman"? Perhaps. But if so, "cis woman" will simply come to mean what "woman" does today. And "woman" will mean maybe female, maybe male. And TRAs will immediately hate it.

Far-left leaning people have always had far too much confidence in the idea that language constructs the world rather than reflecting it, which is just plain wrong. It's also why their crusade to bend reality by bending language is an impossible and never-ending one. Language can disrupt, but the concepts described do not change and sex is simply too important a characteristic in human life to withstand the absence of a dedicated word for each sex.