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.

How many transmen even get pregnant? We're told constantly that they "are men", so why the hell are they wanting to be pregnant and birth children?

"What about transgender men who are pregnant? They presumably would rather not be referred to as a woman."

Please someone explain why a trans man would get offended being lumped in with women when they are in fact pregnant, the most female exclusive thing they could possibly do. I have a headache.

Oh bless your little heart. I can just imagine you at different stages of history, passively accepting the status quo - marital rape is legal? I think we just need to accept that this is where society is at the moment. I’m sorry if it leaves women feeling disenfranchised.

Not able to get a mortgage without a male guarantor? I think we just need to accept that this is where society is at the moment. I’m sorry if it leaves women feeling disenfranchised.

Not allowed to vote? I think we just need to accept that this is where society is at the moment. I’m sorry if it leaves women feeling disenfranchised.

All those women not comfortable with so many aspects of the patriarchy throughout history - sad for them but they should have realised that their opinion didn’t have any more weight than anyone else’s.

The tone of your post, Holly60 - I’ve read some patronising rubbish in my time but that really trumps it all. Off you go and do a bit of critical thinking and come back when you’ve made some progress, there’s a love. See, two can play the patronising game.

but I think you just need to accept that this is where society is at the moment.

Scientifically illiterate you mean? Lol.

I think you need to accept that not everyone has such low standards as you Hols. 😉

@Holly60 If you think that historically cultural and societal shifts have left people disenfranchised and angry, can you give examples? Although I think screwing over half the population (women) isn't a good idea, for obvious reasons.

👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼

all of this!

Actually Holly60's argument would apply equally to the tras. So, let's see 'em try it out with the pampers.

@TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross put it perfectly.

But only women can get pregnant.

What @TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross said.

@Holly60

What about transgender men who are pregnant? They presumably would rather not be referred to as a woman.

I guess it's also including non-binary people who are female sexed and therefore able to be pregnant, but who don't identify as a woman

I am soooo fed up with this.
Being a woman is not an option.

It is not an identity, it is a reality.

And it goes both ways - you cannot become a woman, and you cannot stop being one.

I think you just need to accept that this is where society is at the moment.

No, I think you'd just like to think that this is where society is at the moment. Most of society doesn't agree with this crap at all.

They should have been factual. Only women can get pregnant, if you are pregnant then you are a women. I'm sorry if you think your another gender or no gender, but it's just not correct, and to change it from pregnant women to pregnant people to 'not offend' 3% is ridiculous. They don't care not to offend the 97% of pregnant women that cannot be called thier actual sex.