Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

‘A 37-page guideline on conducting clinical trials involving pregnant women and breastfeeding women avoids the use of women *Title edited at request of the OP*

9 replies

Cailleach1 · 26/02/2026 18:46

From Róisín Michaux: https://nitter.net/RoisinMichaux/status/2026651719321424009#m

‘A 37-page guideline on conducting clinical trials involving breastfeeding women does not mention women even once. From the European Medicines Agency.’

Mind you, apparently a rogue reference to ‘mother’ (as in mother’s milk) got through on page 27 without being expunged. They’ll probably take that out now. Will there be a witch hunt for the heretic who sneaked it in, I wonder?

www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/ich-e21-guideline-inclusion-pregnant-breastfeeding-individuals-clinical-trials_en.pdf

OP posts:
EdithStourton · 26/02/2026 18:50

I'm so sick of this shit.
They want to take everything away from us. Being a mother is a massive part of my identity, but apparently we can't have that any more.

MyAmpleSheep · 26/02/2026 18:56

For information, in that document the word "mother" appears 15 times, "breastfeeding individual(s)" 28 times, "participant(s)" 101 times, "pregnant participant" 25 times, "maternal" 19 times, and "women" and "woman" zero times.

BunnyBunbunbun · 26/02/2026 18:59

Long-time lurker here, finally taking the first step to spending even more time online!

This isn't really an EU-specific thing. It's part of the consultation for the International Council for Harmonisation. The UK is even in on the act, with the MHRA also being part of the consultation. In fact, this wasn't the final guideline but a draft released for consultation. I wonder what kind of feedback they got!

"The MHRA is consulting with UK stakeholders to gather feedback and comments on a new international guideline for the appropriate inclusion and/or retention of pregnant and/or breast-feeding individuals in clinical trials of medicines.
"This consultation ran from
12:01am on 3 July 2025 to 11:59pm on 5 September 2025"

MHRA link:
Consultation on the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E21 Guideline on the Inclusion of Pregnant and Breast-feeding Individuals in Clinical Trials

Consultation on the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E21 Guideline on the Inclusion of Pregnant and Breast-feeding Individuals in Clinical Trials

The MHRA is consulting with UK stakeholders to gather feedback and comments on a new international guideline for the appropriate inclusion and/or retention of pregnant and/or breast-feeding individuals in clinical trials of medicines.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-international-council-for-harmonisation-ich-e21-guideline-on-the-inclusion-of-pregnant-and-breast-feeding-individuals-in-clinica

lcakethereforeIam · 26/02/2026 19:33

'Breastfeeding individual' is that referring to the mother or the baby? It isn't clear.

Cailleach1 · 26/02/2026 20:03

MyAmpleSheep · 26/02/2026 18:56

For information, in that document the word "mother" appears 15 times, "breastfeeding individual(s)" 28 times, "participant(s)" 101 times, "pregnant participant" 25 times, "maternal" 19 times, and "women" and "woman" zero times.

Edited

Oh. Thanks for that. I hadn’t gone through it, and now think I may need to correct title. Hmm. Maybe I’ll just do correction here.

I see they mention child. Why not immature/juvenile individual? Or non adult individual? I also see that ‘fetus’ is used instead of foetus. Why not womb dwelling individual?

Page 3: 74, ‘mother-child linkage’.
Page 8: 229, ‘both the mother and the fetus’ (sic).
Page 21, ‘These studies include mother and infant’.
Page 21 (mother-infant pair studies).
Page 22: 623, using paired samples from mothers and their breastfed infant’ (sic).
Page 22: 628, ‘considerations for benefit-risk for both mother and the child.
Page 22: 643, ‘potential benefits for mother and infant’.
Page 23: 673, ‘health outcomes of mother and baby’.
Page 23: 675, ‘other medical conditions of the mother or infant’.
Page 24: 687, ‘when both the mother and infant are exposed’.
Page 27: 768, ‘exposure risk to the mother and infant’.
Page 27: 769, ‘mother and infant’.
Page 27: 780, ‘mother’s milk, and condition of their infant’.

Ok, I’ve found 13 mentions of mother. Haven’t done appendices. In these examples, mother seems to be only ever used when they mention the offspring, or milk for the offspring. I don’t see where an adult human female is given any dignity or respect of correct language.

OP posts:
Coatsoff42 · 26/02/2026 20:05

lcakethereforeIam · 26/02/2026 19:33

'Breastfeeding individual' is that referring to the mother or the baby? It isn't clear.

Yes. That description could go either way. Breastfeeding infant maybe is clear, but breastfeeding adult is a bit yukky.

Cailleach1 · 26/02/2026 20:30

Have these amazing scientists (sic) associated with the ICH given any indication in their guidelines as to how one could start to identify the individuals of childbearing potential? They seem to have no specific name, sex or classification, these individuals from whom every person ever on the planet was born.

Has it become acceptable for women (that’s the word) to be given less respect or dignity than a brood mare or breeding cow.

OP posts:
deadpan · 26/02/2026 21:04

If it was a research document about testicular or prostate conditions they'd use the word man. Tells you all you need to know really. Men would kick off, trans women would kick off but trans men don't make a fuss.

UtopiaPlanitia · 01/03/2026 01:18

Cailleach1 · 26/02/2026 20:30

Have these amazing scientists (sic) associated with the ICH given any indication in their guidelines as to how one could start to identify the individuals of childbearing potential? They seem to have no specific name, sex or classification, these individuals from whom every person ever on the planet was born.

Has it become acceptable for women (that’s the word) to be given less respect or dignity than a brood mare or breeding cow.

It confuses me that the medical field which struggles to achieve adequate trust from women, for so many reasons, thinks that referring to us as disembodied parts or bodily functions is respectful.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread