Line managing someone who talks about "pregnant people" - how to gently tell her to use "woman"?

[LittlePrecious]

I am line managing someone on a project about pregnancy.

She keeps using the phrase "pregnant people" and it turns my stomach.

What I want to say is "Pull yourself together, get a fucking grip, and use the word woman". But I feel I need to be slightly more tactful than that. But I'm not sure what to actually say because its such a blindingly obvious thing to have to say.

I work in academia where things are fraught. I don't want this backfiring on me.

Please do you have any suggestions for how I can phrase "just fucking say woman, its not a dirty word" tactfully and without putting myself at risk? I may need to commit this phrase to writing as well so there may be a paper trail.

Thank you!

Absolutely not, it's nonsensical. " Women and pregnant people" turns "woman" into a perceived identity rather than a sex. So hardly inclusive but rather a full-blown capitulation to the Butler Youth.

They can call them pregnant people if they wisĥ . They arent doing anything wrong other than you don't like it. It's not a thing to be line managed

The world has gone mad. Tell her woman find this alienating and use the term pregnant women. We should not live in fear of being shamed for this.

I think a lot depends on why she is using the phrase 'pregnant people' herself. Some have been told (or had it drilled into them) that is the fair and inclusive way to speak. I know I've struggled with work because of being pulled up for using 'non inclusive language'. If your colleague has been through something like that in the past, it may be that she's scared to use 'women' instead.

Best thing to do there though is to keep using 'women' yourself so she knows it's safe to say it. It could take some time before she is comfortable with it though.

OP, do you yourself use "women" in everyday discussion about the project, and in more formal communication (ie agenda and minutes)?

I work in a university STEM department which currently has a couple of projects relating to pregnancy; the lead academics use "women", "mothers" and "maternal" confidently and casually. They are however male and senior though.

If you are publishing papers you should be clear and consistent from the start that you will add a disclaimer about different identities, but refer to research subjects as women thereafter. The Australian paper mentioned upthread about the C19 research that deleted the offensive term "women" and replaced it with "people" is a shocking example of scientific accuracy being trashed by well-meaning ideology.

Every time they mention 'pregnant people' I'd just reply like you're agreeing but always answer back using women. For example 'this will be good for the pregnant people' you can be like 'yes I think you're right pregnant women would like that well done' you can just feign ignorance then if it gets brought up to someone else.

Will the research by published? I think there a few issues.

This terminilogy disadavantages women with learning disabilities or whose first language is not English. It is not inclusive.

It is getting increasingly hard to come by information pertaining to women if we have to search online for "women, girls, people, menstruator, uterus haver," etc. It makes it hard for women to find up to date information on issues affecting them.

It is bad marketing for her research and might influence how successful the research project will be.

Non-binary people and trans men are still biologically women.

@Peonies12 Good for you, but I know women and girls who struggle with pronouns and this terminology. This kind of language language negatively impacts people who find processing language difficult. Why do you think your view is more important than their real life struggles and disadvantage?

If it's a serious research paper, use the term 'pregnant woman' and if it's a nonsensical, ideologically driven end-of-year waste of surplus funding, 'pregnant people.' The second option, however, still has major professional repercussions on all involved because even if female erasure is still somehow popular in certain groups it won't be for much longer and adhering to it will negatively affect reputations.

(As an aside, the word 'mother' is child-centred terminology used to define their relationship with others. It is extremely inappropriate and narcissistic to replace it with 'birthing parent' as though special identities are to be treated as more important than the baby)

Hi everyone

Sorry for the silence - signed off for the evening and just back at work today! So many responses, thank you!

Sorry I can't address all the questions. The funder is quite hands-off. They fund all kinds of research focused on all kinds of things using all kinds of language. The original application used 'pregnant women'.

I like the idea of adding a footnote to be clear what 'woman' means in the work 🙄I'll recommend she does that supported by RCOG guidance and the Gribble paper. Thank you.

Who am I to compel her speech? I'm the project leader, the budget holder, the person who successfully bid for the money. My name will be on all documents, articles, papers, press releases associated with the research, and I won't have my name attached to work which talks about 'pregnant people'

I couldn't get riled up about a collegue saying pregnant people if I tried.

I wouldn't micromanage people to this degree.

I'm not going to tell you how to gently get her to speak how you want her to. I'm going to say you need to get over it.

I work in a large commercial organisation. They absolutely compel my speech at work. I'm expected to be 'on brand'. The people who hold the purse will always prefer certain language.
I also think it's important that the word woman is not erased. Footnotes are perfect in this instance.

Ok, I'm back to correct myself. I didn't realise it was going in a publication. I thought it was the spoken word. I'd refer to the corporate guidelines on language and use what has been agreed at policy level.

The original application used 'pregnant women'.

Then you would be at risk if you published anything that isn't funded by this project. Anyone could put a claim in that the funding wasn't being used for that project and if I was the fund manager that had given you the money [which was my last job before retiring] then I'd potentially not pay you for anything that wasn't spent on the project for pregnant women during a quarterly audit.

So you have a cast iron reason for everything relating to the funding you have been given to refer directly to the wording in the bid.

I'd probably put this in my risk log, and my mitigation would be to always refer to the funding wording when producing any documentation and when promoting the project.

Definitely 'women' then. You make the project vulnerable if you don't.
You can't (and shouldn't) stop her saying 'pregnant people' verbally, but you can absolutely make your position on the written/published material clear.
Verbally, I'd continue using 'woman' yourself.

I think I would bring it up in terms of accuracy. If, for example, you state that 10% of people struggle to get pregnant, when you mean women - it isn't accurate. By default 50% of people will never get pregnant, they are men.

I would ask why she is using vague language though and if she states concern about trans men, then give her a side note to create by herself about "people" and stick it in an appendix. It might just say "there were no pregnant trans men in the study," then you can bin it or put it briefly in the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

If the funder is interested in women's health and about women then I would just say that you don't want to get caught up in the trend of avoiding saying women and that you will start doing so when testicular cancer etc stop saying men.

She is as entitled to her beliefs as you are. But you are in a position of power. Don't abuse that position to enforce your beliefs on her.

but her belief is that some women who may be pregnant would prefer to be referred to or addressed as trans men or non binary. I don't think OP disputes that. This is about how, in the publications, those women are referred to. For the sake of clarity and brevity it is more appropriate to use 'women' throughout, and use a footnote early on to say that 'woman' includes all adult females however they identify.
Sorted.

The OP doesn't have a 'belief' that the word 'woman' is accurate when talking about someone who's pregnant. This is fact.

Thats what pregnant people covers. All of the above.

If this research is being published in your name, I would persist in referring to women when talking to her (she would probably say you can't compel her speech just as she can't compel yours), try not to let it get to you, but ensure that all the wording of the report/paper/article refers to women where she would be using people, NBs, TM etc.

KarenOH

Men are people too.

The study is about pregnant women. There is no reason to include people who can never be pregnant, or who can never be women, for that matter, in a study about pregnant women. A woman claiming a special identity is a woman. If there is a reason to analyse different challenges or health needs of women with identities, I am sure those will be addressed. No men will be involved, however they identify.

Who am I to compel her speech? I'm the project leader, the budget holder, the person who successfully bid for the money. My name will be on all documents, articles, papers, press releases associated with the research, and I won't have my name attached to work which talks about 'pregnant people'

Good for you, @LittlePrecious I don't think some postdocs realise sometimes just what work goes into being a PI.

If it's with one of the UKRI funding councils, they may have guidance on this, but there's been such useful advice on this thread, that you've got a lot of strategies now.

MN hive-mind at its best.

If you haven't previously seen it this is the reference you need:

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856

Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language

"Regardless of the approach taken, we would recommend that clarity in terminology and avoiding conflation of terms are important. In particular, when sex is meant, refer to “sex”; when gendered expectations of the sexes is meant, use “gender” and clearly define the term; and when “gender identity” is meant, ensure the phrase is distinguished from both gendered expectations of the sexes and from sex itself. We suggest consideration of the following questions: How can I be clear? How can I include the people who should be included and exclude the people who should be excluded? How can I ensure that people understand what I mean and can readily recognize themselves? How can I avoid dehumanizing language? Does it make sense to apply a gendered understanding of words or a sexed understanding? Am I engaging in cultural imperialism or improper use of privilege by requiring others to use language in a particular way? How does language usage support or undermine the rights of women and children? "

Tell her she is engaging in cultural imperialism or improper use of privilege and see how she come back from that.