New Scientist magazine and 'pregnant people'

[VeronicaBeccabunga]

Similarly to the Science Museum [in a previous thread] New Scientist magazine seems to be a bit lacking in basic science.
I've emailed them today about an article in this week's issue about the safety of covid-19 vaccines in pregnancy.
The article refers to 'pregnant people' about a dozen times, including in a photo caption, and to women only twice, once in a direct quote from the co-author of the study.
We are also told that, of the participants in the study, '97% identified as women'.
I feel sure that of all publications NS ought to know that 'pregnant people' are all women. It doesn't matter in the slightest how anyone 'identifies' in this context.
I'm disappointed in a magazine that I always thought was supportive of women in science, and believed to be factual.

I'm still waiting for New Scientist to take a break from drizzling on about the latest fad diet and go interview some sports scientists and do a proper article about what the research says about the physical differences between men and women in sport, the effects of hormones, and so on. Even one. There's been a deafening silence from them. I don't know what they're afraid of.

Well, as a previous pregnant woman, I really don’t think that if I was pregnant now that I would want to be dehumanised by being called a pregnant person.

As it was I was dehumanised by my employer at the time and by my GP as well. I really wouldn’t have needed other organisations doing it as well.

If other females have the need to be called something other than women, then organisations can make the effort by adding language rather than reducing it to ‘people’. And just because some posters might be very happy to accept that dehumanising, the rest of the female sex does not have accept it.

compared with ... vaccinated non-pregnant individuals.'

Were those non-pregnant individuals men or women? There's probably much less point comparing pregnant women with men.

No, thank you.

The day feminists start 'accepting where society is at the moment' is the day we lose everything and roll right back to being vassals of our fathers & husbands.

This. I won't be "accepting" being treated like a second class citizen whose feelings aren't important and it's considered fine to ignore my needs and concerns, to pander to a small group of self absorbed, confused female people and validate a group of entitled males.

@waitwhat23 🤣 yeah, I can imagine! It just reminds me of so many ineffective, arsey managers (usually women who genuinely think they're "kind" while hating everyone they know) I've witnessed in workplaces. People like that really think they come across as superior while everybody else is rolling their eyes.

Do not understand how someone who doesn't want to be woman does the thing that is a completely and utterly woman's experience- gets pregnant. Totally accept they may have been the victim of rape. Whereby they need personal support and not for 51% of the population to lose their identity

Holly06 believes that "woman" is a social role not a simple biological reality. Holly06 is a sexist.

New Scientist magazine does not deserve to use the word "scientist" in its title anymore. It us a disgrace to the word. I have a subscription and it will not be being renewed. It is so much dumbed down trite nonsense.

The crosswords are quite good though.

Women. The word that can now only be used to describe a minority of men. And can no longer be used to describe those who are pregnant.

To be fair ‘New Scientist’ has never been a “proper” science publication. It’s the Grazia of the “science” popular publications world.

I’m not surprised by this sort of crap from them. Don’t waste your money on it.

Seams like the perfect time to drop this brilliant paper about using sex based language and why it is important Gribble et al 2022

Pregnant females

what like cats? Fish? Dogs? Rabbits?

Just like ‘menstruators’? Would that be a bat? An elephant?

Non-pregnant individuals

So everyone on the planet who is not pregnant? Is it relevant to everyone, or just to woman?

There is a reason why using language that the majority of the group you are communicating to needs to be absolutely clear who is being discussed. People could be harmed if they don’t get that message.

There are ways to do this without dehumanising women.

Bill Tidy, the cartoonist who did Grimbledown Down, would've had a field day. He used to talk about 'nu-food', a forerunner of upf, I suppose.

Seams like the perfect time to drop this brilliant paper about using sex based language and why it is important

Thanks for this! I believe it's the one Elaine Miller referenced in an article posted (to discredit her) on the thread about her.

thecritic.co.uk/women-wont-wheesht

From Elaine's excellent article:

If you don’t recognise yourself as a “cervix haver” you are unlikely to attend your smear test. Cervix is an uncommon word describing a hidden body part so unless “woman” is used to invite women to screening those with learning disabilities, dyslexia, English as a second language or lower education attainment are excluded. Some of them might then die of cervical cancer. I don’t think that is ok.

A recent international paper examined cases where gendered language caused harm or confusion, and it makes for grim reading. It is hard to understand why adding barriers to healthcare for those already marginalised is championed as inclusion.
I was so cross about all this that my birth injury became my muse. My episiotomy scar is a zig zag shape and I read somewhere that lightning bolt scars can be powerful…so, if need be, I will gather crowd of women, march to Holyrood and whip out our scarred pudendas and bellies, prolapses and piles, mastitis infested breasts and our fierce capacity to love and demonstrate that we earned the word “mother” and we won’t give it up without debate.

Yes, can you imagine this for any other minority activism?

White people being told they must refer to themselves as non blacks

Heterosexual people being told they are to be referred to as non homosexual etc. ( I know people use the word straight but that's usually used in context where someone's sexuality is relevant not what you can call yourself generally)

Christians being told they are no longer Christians but non Jews etc

You get the point...

I'm sorry you feel it's a mistaking in engaging with this thread, how frustrating for you.

It must be so difficult when a thread calls to you and you don't get the replies you'd like. It must make you feel so disenfranchised and angry.

I hope you thoroughly enjoy your G&T. Please pop back to the echo chamber whenever you're ready 😊

Seriously though, do you think it's reasonable to be spoken to like this, @Holly60? And then wonder why you get people's backs up?

Yes I think it would be the same one.

Oooh, I know one of these.

Bills himself as a ‘master practitioner of neural linguistic programming’ but comes across a massive wanker.

’pregnant people’ is fine for a WhatsApp group chat on queering one’s pregnancy but it’s useless for science where a grouping made up of ‘pregnant people’ is likely to need a grouping of ‘almost the same only not pregnant people’ to compare to, and ‘non pregnant women’ and ‘non pregnant people’ aren’t going to produce the same comparison group.

I've never understood why, if you think you're actually a man, you would deliberately get pregnant/breastfeed?

I'll be cancelling my sub. A shame, I really enjoy the NS, even if it is junk science. And yes, the crossword is good!

I like the little snippets about weird animals and that kind of thing. But I've just found the articles where they go on about pregnant people (and, with reference to the word count discussion, waste a whole paragraph explaining/excusing their use of the term) ridiculous. I just can't trust the content of the other articles so much when I see the capitulation to the ideology on display. What other things that are being written in there are ideologically driven?

I grew up in a world in which the word woman was rarely ever used. It was the Bible which referred to the default group as men.

I'm now living in a world in which the word woman should not be used at all.
The word most accepted is people. Now it's science which can't call us women.

Barely 50 years of being able to see the word woman written down in print.

Woman is not a dirty word.

Eurgh as a scientist I absolutely hate this. It’s not accurate and it’s offensive to me as a woman.

For me it is the cult of woke labelling gone absolutely bonkers. It demeans really important word changes as in racist or sexist language. These people or cervix owners or whatever word changes as based on ideological preferences, and often completely silly. They do not reflect woman’s wishes, only trans and allies wishes. So it is not a consensus. The word woman is not up for grabs by men or trans people. It is for women to decide. We say no.

"No, they are all . Some of them will identify as transgender men, non-binary etc." and? Why does that mean we have to remove the word women?

"Sex is biological fact. The rest of it is open to interpretation. I accept that you aren't comfortable with it, but that doesn't give your opinion any more weight than anyone else's." So why do we have to change our language because some women don't want to be women?

"This publication has used this wording because they are willing to accept that female people identify in different ways. I'm sorry you feel very strongly that this is wrong- that must be very frustrating." I don't give a shit how anyone identifies - don't erase the word women in order to identify as a bloke.

"There may be a sea change again where society moves away from this but I think you just need to accept that this is where society is at the moment." Why can't you accept that many women think this is bullshit?

"Historically, all big societal and cultural shifts would have left sections of society feeling disenfranchised and angry." By sections do you mean women?

Honestly what patronising rot.