Pregnant woman, or pregnant person?

@BohemianBabe


Why do you think it's more accurate? And, why have you made the assumption that it doesn't hurt anyone? Who are you to decide what my hurt is over seeing terms like "pregnant person"? What if I feel that my femininity is being undermined and devalued?


It is not transphobia to say that only women can get pregnant.

@SW-User
It's more accurate because not all women can get pregnant, plus some trans men and non-binary people can get pregnant. So it's more accurate to speak of pregnant people.

The reason you're hurt by the term is because you hate trans people. So I guess I'm wrong there. It's like, if I say "gay people are human beings" that statement does hurt homophobes.
So I guess I should say, the term doesn't hurt sane people.


It is because it's ignoring trans men and non-binary people. It's like saying those people don't exist.

@BohemianBabe
If you can get pregnant, it means you have the female hormones necessary to get pregnant. A uterus is also necessary for pregnancy. It is true that not all women can get pregnant, but that doesn't negate the fact that *only* a woman can get pregnant. There does exist a minority of people who don't like to assign themselves a gender, but the reality is that IF they are pregnant they are a pregnant woman (hence why they've been able to get pregnant). A trans man can only get pregnant if they are still a woman or still have the female hormones and the womb needed for a pregnancy, in which case they are again still a woman. They stop being that once they fully transition.


I never said I was hurt, I asked what if I was hurt. I asked that because you assumed that women should not be offended by the use of the term "pregnant person", when in fact some are. They have their reasons for it, just like how someone who doesn't like the word "woman" has their reasons for that. If they can be hurt by the use of "pregnant woman", why can't someone else be hurt by use of "pregnant person"? Do you not see the hypocrisy?

I don't care to indulge your "you hate trans people" comment because it's genuinely one of the most stupid things I've ever read.


No, it's like saying only women can get pregnant...because only women can get pregnant.

@SW-User
See, this is why schools should be teaching gender theory. So many Americans still don't know what gender is.
So biological sex is based on genetics, that's male, female, and intersex.
Gender is cultural and based on arbitrary traits that society assigns to people at birth, that's boy/man, girl/woman, and non-binary. Trans men have changed their gender, not their sex. They are still genetically female or at least intersex. That's why trans men can get pregnant.


Absolutely not, because they are hurt for different reasons.
People who are offended by the term "pregnant people" or "child-bearing people" are offended because society is acknowledging trans people as valid. If you have a problem with that, you're kinda a piece of shit. Same goes for people who say we shouldn't use the term "marriage" for gay people, we should just let them have "civil unions." The implication is that gay relationships aren't valid.
Imagine if someone was doing this based on race.

@BohemianBabe
Duh, I'm aware that gender and sex aren't exactly the same. However, where do you think gender comes from? We have gender because we have sexes, and those sexes are male and female. Gender is and always has been almost entirely influenced by sex. Even for people who have transitioned or are in the process of transitioning, their idea of gender is intrinsically connected to our idea of gender. The only slight deviation comes from people who choose to identify as non-binary, but even they are influenced by gender norms.


So, I'm a piece of shit for wanting to read literature that refers to me and other women like me as "pregnant women"?

Marriage is a totally different thing because it applies to both sexes. I don't care if people belonging to the same sex get married, but I do see it as problematic when we start saying that anyone other than a woman can get pregnant.

@SW-User
If that was true, then gender traits wouldn't have changed throughout history, and they wouldn't be different depending on the society. Gender traits are partially based on sex, but for the most part, they're arbitrary. It used to be the norm for children, both girls and boys, to wear dresses. Eventually, the culture changed, and now boys don't wear dresses. Also, while every society has males and females, many societies have always recognized three genders going back to ancient times. We'll always have biological sex, but gender changed with the weather.


Sure, that's how society conditions us. The same goes for ethnicity and race. It's just how culture works.


No, but if you have a problem acknowledging that trans men are men, then yeah, that is pretty shitty. You're saying that people should respect your identity, but you don't have to respect theirs. And that's really what this is about. You don't like terms like "child-bearing people" because it acknowledges that trans men are men.

@BohemianBabe you don't know what intersex is , that is a birth disorder.

@Chickie Yes, but people can become intersex through hormone treatments and surgery.

@BohemianBabe intersex is someone born with both male and female sex characteristics

@Chickie I know. And a person can achieve those characteristics with hormone treatment. It's not only possible through hormone washes in the womb.

@BohemianBabe their not intersex if they had to achieve that through hormones and surgery.

@Chickie So what would you call them? They would have the genetic traits of both sexes. The only difference is that they became that way later in life.

@BohemianBabe mental disorders

@Chickie That doesn't determine biological sex.

@BohemianBabe a trans person isn't intersex.

@Chickie Not all of them. But the ones who take hormones or get surgery can become intersex.

@BohemianBabe
Sureee. Well, shall we start by defining gender?

Gender


So, this definition states how gender is typically associated with sex. So, if you are a female you will in all probability identify as a woman and act like a woman, and if you are a male you will in all probability identify as a man and act like a man. If gender was meaningless and was not typical to a sex, then it wouldn't be the case that most trans people dress and act in ways according to the sex they would like to be. And, they also wouldn't bother transitioning. People aren't going to undergo such extensive and potentially very harmful medical treatment in the form of prolonged hormone therapy and surgery in order to change their gender, if they don't want to be the sex that this gender is strictly associated with. Females represent women, and that is a reason why trans women want to not just identify as a woman but actually become a woman.

As for boys wearing dresses in the past, this was mainly done for practical reasons. It was not related to any exploration of identity, and was not a purposeful deviation from one's gender or sex. Males and boys wearing dresses still identified as men.


😂


The only thing I have a problem with is the term "pregnant woman" being replaced with "pregnant person". That is what this post is about, and it has nothing to do with a failure to respect anyone's identity on my part.

@SW-User
Yes, because at birth, we're assigned a gender based on our biological sex. However, because these genders aren't actually based on biology, and the traits associated with them are arbitrary, a female can identify as a man. Nothing will be lost here, since you don't need a female body to live as a man.

You pretty much proved my point. Genders are just cultures that are commonly associated with, but not limited to, biological sex.


The point is that the traits associated with gender are arbitrary and have nothing to do with biology.


It does, because by saying only women can get pregnant, you're saying that trans men and non-binary people aren't what they identify as.

@BohemianBabe Biology does not make a distinction between sex and gender. We become a sex in the very early days of our mother's pregnancy, and remain that sex when our mothers give birth to us. When a doctor or a sonographer tells us, as women, what our baby's sex is we know whether that baby is a girl or a boy. Their gender is intrinsically connected to that sex, because gender comes from sex.


If we are going to go by the biological approach, which is basically science, we will conclude that sex and gender are intrinsically connected and not distinct from the other. You are, very naively, only employing the social approach. The social approach tells us that gender is a purely social construct that is very different to sex. This approach fails to consider the biological differences between men and women, and how they shape our attitudes and behaviors. Fortunately for us, our ancestors took note of these differences and this is why humans have been able to thrive.

@SW-User
No shit, because gender isn't biological. This is like saying "biology does not make a distinction between height and language." Sex is a biological category, gender isn't.


If that was true, then gender traits would be the same in every society and in every historical period. If gender and sex are intrinsically connected, how come every society recognizes two sexes, but some societies have three genders? How come every society uses the same metrics to determine sex, but different societies have different concepts of gender traits? How come our own concepts of what it means to be a man or a woman have changed throughout history?

@BohemianBabe No. I said it didn't make a distinction because as far as biology is concerned, gender comes as a result of sex.

I told you that boys in some societies wore skirts for practical reasons. It wasn't because they wanted to experiment with their gender or pretend that they are women.

Those societies are not many lol. Above all else, they still refer to pregnant women as pregnant women. As for our own concepts, they have not changed much. This is again because gender is largely if not entirely influenced by sex, most of the time. So, what is your point? Do you think you have one left?

I guess you'll have to try harder.

@SW-User
Not the point. The point is that dresses weren't seen as a girl trait, they were seen as a child trait. Then the culture changed and now dresses are connected to the girl/woman identity. If gender was always just part of sex, then things wouldn't become or cease to be gendered traits.
Also, lots of cultural signifiers come from practical reasons. Short hair being a "man trait" comes from men working in steel mills where they needed to keep their hair short so it didn't get caught in the machines. Now, the culture is changing again as more men have long hair, and it's no longer being seen as a strictly woman thing.

@BohemianBabe "child trait". Rofl

Men have short hair for several reasons actually. Nonetheless, this discussion around gender norms cannot be compared to the discussion around calling pregnant women pregnant women. We don't call them that because of gender traits. Pregnant women are referred to that way because of a woman's biological capacity to be pregnant.

@SW-User Yes, but trans men and non-binary people can also get preggers. So it's more accurate to say pregnant people or child-bearing people.

@BohemianBabe Yes, they can get pregnant because they are still biological women. Beyond that, the vast majority of women identify as women so why would we also refer to them as pregnant people? It's not inclusive because it fails to recognize them as women.

If both males and females could get pregnant, "pregnant person" would be appropriate to use but pregnancy is only something that can happen in the context of womanhood.

And again, why would you change a term that correctly describes almost all women who identify as women, to appease the very select few who don't?