Pregnant woman, or pregnant person?

Block that idiot. He talks out of his ass in circles, and like a lawn sprinkler full of diarrhea he liberally swivel shits everywhere. @SW-User

@BohemianBabe far less, it's clearly a mental health issue

@SW-User As opposed to the party that sold its soul for Trump? If nobody votes for Republicans either, we’re good.

@RedBaron An alternative to both would be nice. It appears to be unlikely given the present framework but I still think it could happen at some point with the right candidate and a daring vision.

@DffrntDrmmr And also make sure to vote against any republican that still stands united with trump. Those are the ones all Americans should be fearful of. We've already seen the lengths they will go to to hold on to power.

What majority am I ignoring?
You admit your examples weren’t good but yet you judge all trans women because of them. You can just say you don’t view trans women as women and leave it at that. You don’t have to pretend to be standing up for cis women. I can’t show empathy because cis women simply aren’t in danger because of this. You know who is, though? Trans women. People like you and your little crooked nosed pal here are the actual danger to all women. @Turtlepower

@Imsleepy not nessiceraly.

Not necessarily what? @TheSentinel

@Turtlepower
I think it's more that society is just acknowledging the differences. It used to be that only sociologists and biologists acknowledged these concepts, since it's what they studied. Whereas now, we're starting to realize that, for example, by dressing baby males in blue and dressing baby females in pink, we're assigning gender to people who, at that moment, have none.


Well, it depends. Lots of sports leagues have rules where trans women can't compete against cis women unless they've been on hormones for a long enough time that they no longer have an advantage. That's why no trans women have won gold in the Olympics yet.
But yeah, if Tyson just came out as trans tomorrow, I'd acknowledge him as a woman, but I'd say he shouldn't be allowed to box against cis women.

@BohemianBabe The incorrect part is by saying women rather than some women because to me that implies all women and then an extra group. Simply stating pregnant people is way more efficient at that point. I'm not trying to be pedantic here but if you read the article and the tone it's about females or people that can get pregnant but the author uses women clearly referring to cis women for most of the article. Either way, I think gender stereotypes are wrong. What we used to call tomboys aren't trans men perse they just didn't need conform to societal norms. My wife hates "girly stuff" but still identifies as a woman. I find and take issue with equating it to wearing a dress (I know that was your version of Mike Tyson to simplify the conversation). I guess I see this movement/change taking away from biological females. I have no problem with trans people etc. Anyways I'll let it go. Appreciate the non aggressive discussion.

@Turtlepower Yeah, that's why I prefer terms like "pregnant people" or "child-bearing people."


I totally get that. I think the goal should be a society without gender roles. But for now, the reality is that we're stuck with gender for a while. The best thing we can do is just respect gender identity, use the names that people want, and so on. If someone identifies as a woman, I'm not going to be like, BUT YOU WEAR JEANS!!
I don't think the trans rights movement harms women, but I do hope that at some point we move past gender.

@Budwick omg waste portal 🤣

@BohemianBabe Gay marriage is irrelevant to this subject and I actually support it, so you don't need to raise it as an issue. Instead of approaching this discussion with the view of "oh, she doesn't want to erase the term pregnant woman so therefore she must be against gay marriage!", why don't you try thinking critically about it? I have no problem with trans acceptance, but I do have a problem with removing the identities of women when they are doing the most womanly thing a woman can do, which is to get pregnant and give birth. If I wanted to stop trans people from getting what they want, I would advocate for them not having children. I'm not doing that though. What I am doing is saying that language pertaining to women when they are pregnant should not be changed. When you really think about it, what is the problem with that?

@SW-User I didn't say you're against gay marriage. I said that you're using the exact same logic that homophobes use. You're worried that by an oppressed minority group getting what you have, you're somehow going to lose what you have. It's the exact same thing in both situations.
Nobody is removed the identities of cis women. TBH, this sounds like the "cultural appropriation" argument too. It's the idea that by other people doing something, you somehow can't do that thing anymore.


So maybe this will help you understand.

During the Civil Rights movement, a common form of protest by black men is they would carry signs that say "Am I not a man?" Now there's nothing sexist about that phrase, but given racism affected black women too, it just would have been more accurate to say "Am I not a person?" Neither phrase is wrong, but the second one is simply more accurate. And if someone was against the second phrase, the only reason would be if they didn't think black women were people.

You can say "pregnant women," it's not a big deal. But if you're against phrases like "pregnant people" then the only reason would be if you didn't recognize the validity of trans identity.

@BohemianBabe No. You've demonstrated here that you don't understand my position at all, or have intentionally misinterpreted it. I don't care if trans people have children and have "what I have". If this was about me wanting to deny trans people what I have, I would say that a.) they should never get pregnant, and b.) they should never get to have children. Not once have I said anything like that, so you have no point. My only argument is that they should accept and live with the term pregnant women in mainstream literature, as opposed for asking for all of this literature to be changed going forward.

As for your second point, both men and women can be affected by racism, but only women can be affected by pregnancy. The term is not more accurate because only women, who are human females, can get pregnant.

That’s my opinion based on the evidence. I really don’t care what you believe. I gave you a source. Watch or don’t watch. It makes no difference to me. @BohemianBabe

@Carissimi Do I have to wear a tin foil hat while I watch?

@BohemianBabe the only beta here is you belgian boo.

@SW-User AP (Associated Press) publishes the AP Stylebook that is the guide for news journalists.

A recent update instructs news media to refer to women who identify as men not as such, but simply as men. So, when a woman as that is pregnant, the result you'll see in mainstream news media is — a man is pregnant.

@SW-User Then why the obvious passive aggression? Or are you going to now repaint your previous responses as if they were all purely logical without a hint of bias, insulting tone or condescension on your part? Hmm? Which will it be?

@QueenOfZaun You're strange.

@SW-User Lmao take care

@CrazyMusicLover "person" is as inclusive as it gets.

@Carla Not when you consider that only a woman can get pregnant.

@SW-User a word on a form. That's all.

@Pherick So, you're asking for evidence that medical professionals are not changing previously accepted and scientifically correct terminology to appease trans activists? Is there something wrong with you?

This isn't a debate, as it is more akin to a forum post. This means that I'm under no obligation to provide sources. One would think that the reason for this change in terminology would be blatantly apparent, because why else would it have occurred? If trans activists were happy with the term "pregnant woman" being used, then there would be no need to change it and all medical authorities would still be using that term. I am right, and if you have any sense you will know that. Stubbornly asking for evidence of the obvious isn't going to make your position any more correct. Nonetheless, for the sake of indulgence...here's some sources:

[1.] https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-dads-tell-doctors-you-can-be-man-have-baby-n1006906

[2.] https://nypost.com/2021/12/22/transgender-man-who-gave-birth-slams-docs-who-called-him-mom/

[3.] https://metro.co.uk/2017/01/30/doctors-warned-not-to-say-expectant-mothers-in-case-it-offends-transgender-people-6415394/

[4.] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4167632/Don-t-call-pregnant-patients-mothers.html

Other articles that are relevant to the subject:

[5.] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/27/trans-lobby-pressure-pushing-young-people-to-transition

[6.] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/women-gender-aclu-abortion.html

[7.] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/pregnant-people-gender-identity/620031/

@SW-User
The only thing wrong with me is that I demand evidence when someone makes a claim. Crazy huh? Its crazy to think I might want some evidence to back up your outlandish claims. You posted quite a few sources there, and after checking them, of course none of them prove anything even remotely like you are claiming.

Number 5 could come the closest, it refers to an NHS doctor who resigned after stating he thought children were being fast-tracked through the system to gender changes. However other sources talking about the same thing, don't paint it in quite the same light. Even then, that has NOTHING to do with using gender-neutral language in pregnancies.

You came to a forum and made a claim, of course its a debate, the fact you can't see that says much about you. You dislike something and came here to whine about it, making claims that you cannot back up.

Your "know it all attitude" is common on the right its various bigots. Since all you obviously want to do here is make personal attacks and whine, I will say goodbye. You take care.

@SW-User Nature doesn't speak English, or any human language.
What it means to be a "man" or a "woman" is different in different times and places.
Today there are thousands if not millions of people with wombs, who know themselves as men and are seen as men by those who know and love them. It isn't your business to tell them differently. Nature doesn't. Nature is silent about all these human concerns.

@SW-User
This is pure trash. Say something rational or don't respond to me at all.

I am only interested in facts, not what your personal beliefs or weird persuasions are.

@SW-User Then wake up and acknowledge that trans people exist and that thinking about sex and gender has evolved considerably since the 1950s.

@Ravens80 Nope.... i just found out trans men do ..well some ...i know right

🫃🫄🏻 @Strictmichael75

@SW-User tbh, I just edited my comment to include that transmen are mostly still capable of getting pregnant though I doubt many of them are interested in doing that but this may be who is being targeted by the term "pregnant person"???

@spjennifer It is mostly trans men and non-binary people. If they wish to be referred to in a certain way by their medical practitioners or midwives, that is their choice and I am not advocating for them to be denied that.

When it comes to medical literature that pregnant women need to read, though, only "pregnant woman" should ever be used.

@SW-User Agreed, I think the segment of originally genetic women (transmen) who still possess the organs to conceive and choose to give birth is pretty small and agree, if they choose to get pregnant, then they can ask to be called whatever they please.

@Adogslife YES!!

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Not to mention the raving insanity

@CountScrofula
What about the need of a pregnant woman to read material that describes her as a pregnant woman? Needs ought to only be accommodated if there is a practical purpose to doing that, or if it suits the majority. There is always a greater need when there is a majority, because there is a much larger percentage of people to consider. I suspect that the majority of people across the world are quite happy with the term "pregnant woman" (obviously in their respective languages), and would rather see that in their literature.

To address your wheelchair example, adjustments made for wheelchair users fulfill the first need mentioned above. There is a practical reason some people require such adjustments. Nonetheless, a lot of places don't provide those adjustments at all.

@SW-User

> There is a practical reason some people require such adjustments.

Yeah and there are practical reasons for these adjustments as well.

Hospitals have staff. They have procedures. All of these staff are trained and or educated to follow procedures and do their jobs.

The recent shift in our culture to be kind and inclusive to trans and nonbinary people means that we have to adjust shit like our medical protocols. Part of that is the language we use because language informs everything.

If you believe only women can get pregnant, and someone who does not want to be called a woman EVER shows up while pregnant, how do you think hospital staff will treat that person?

I work at a university and have colleagues who write papers on this. The answer is: not well.

We are at a social crossroads. We have a lot of trans and nonbinary people now. We either include them or not and including them requires that we amend our language -especially- in a medical context.

@CountScrofula


What as, a janitor? 😂

.

lol. Of course.

There are negative implications to changing medical literature aimed at informing and educating pregnant women about their pregnancies, and this is why some medical authorities are choosing not to change this term. I am not saying that trans men and non-binary people should not be referred to differently by their doctors if there is an agreement to do that, and I am also not saying that trans men and non-binary people should not be represented at all in medical literature pertaining to pregnancy. What I *am* saying is that the term pregnant woman should not be replaced by pregnant person.

@CrazyMusicLover
To me, this is no different to the attempt to normalize the terms "pregnant person" and "pregnant man". They are equally as illogical. Only a woman can menstruate, in the same way that only a woman can be pregnant. It is that very cycle itself that enables a woman to get pregnant.


Me neither. It's beyond deranged.

@MalteseFalconPunch No.

@MalteseFalconPunch They are a minority, and an extreme one at that. Because only women are capable of pregnancy, the term used to describe them should be "pregnant woman". It is also the case that the vast majority of pregnant women across the world view themselves as women. You do not take away the identity of many to appease a few. It is not logically sound and is actually insane in the context of biology, which is the only thing that enables pregnancy.

@Jungleman I know. It's kind of tragic really 😪

@jehova never heard about that... Seems suspicious that's real

@jehova Give me an example of a biological male who has got pregnant. If you can't, then the "objection" (as you call it) still stands and it remains the case that only women can get pregnant. I am aware of the case you are referring to, but this person was a biological woman and not a biological man. Clearly she was still able to ovulate, hence why she got pregnant.

@SW-User He's full of shit. I've heard of two female mice being able to produce offspring together...they both had partially male DNA though. It's a long story but they were essentially mutants. Obviously this had to be totally facilitated by scientists because it's not naturally possible.

@SW-User Did you go and knock up another "people"? 😁

@CestManan tf

@CestManan bun in the oven 😀

@DffrntDrmmr
Must've been a slow day at his job. His last name hints at the motivation.

@DffrntDrmmr Ru Paul invented gender identity.

Plus, you seem really obsessed with this whole trans thing, why is that?

@CestManan More than likely because he tried to date a trans girl and got rejected, the poor little dear 🤪

@EvilEmily I miss Yahoo Answers

@EvilEmily Thanks for laughs 😂🤣🤣

@nedkelly "Bleeding hearts" also known as people living in the real world.

@BohemianBabe "real world" 🤣

You're hilarious.

@SW-User And sexy.

@SW-User it's feasible! Meaning that it could "possibly" be done. Not saying anything else. Yet language almost always prepares itself for the inevitable.

I this one is off topic yet it explains the changes in language. Saying hello now days I have noticed is sort of passe. The yonger generation will say whatsup. It's the same thing really. Yet it's prepping up for other things to come. So whatsup will also eventually become passe.

Your forms are no different. It will happen.

@DeWayfarer
Except I'm not talking about possibilities. My only consideration is what is possible now. As things stand, only a woman can get pregnant. It's extremely unlikely that men will ever be able to get pregnant, but that is beside the point.

.

It is off-topic, and not relevant to anything I have said.

@SW-User I said it was off topic, yet it's totally relevant. Heck you in your replies referred to this same thing to others. Just in a negative light.

@CestManan true. So typical for a woman to say ffs. Took the words right out of my mouth. 😆 jk

@CestManan In this case it is instigated by them.

By "them", I mean trans activists. If they were to accept the term pregnant woman, there wouldn't be a problem. Pregnancy is a female thing, and females are women.

@SilkandLace2 Triggered?

@Entwistle
What a laughable and deeply hypocritical statement that is.

@SW-User You choose what words hurt or offend you.

@Entwistle Does the same apply to trans men or people who identify as non-binary? Do they also choose the words that hurt or offend them?

@ChipmunkErnie Walking incubator

@CrazyMusicLover Or perhaps "organic incubator" to avoid confusion with those artificial wombs on wheels?

@black4white

Birthing person.