Martine Croxall - Pregnant Person?
Comments
-
Not me :)
0 -
I have an idea for toilets signs.
Born with testicles for men toilet sign.
Born without testicles for ladies. Simple.
1 -
Love it.
0 -
That’s such a nice perspective, Kookee. I think that’s what makes these conversations so interesting, we all come at them from our own angle. For me, pregnancy was simply the vehicle to motherhood, not something that made me feel more like a woman. My sense of womanhood has always felt separate from my reproductive capabilities.
I think much of the controversy around terms like “pregnant person” comes from people confusing biology with language. No one is denying biological facts. Inclusive language simply recognises that not everyone who experiences pregnancy identifies as a woman. That isn’t a challenge to science it’s an effort to respect individual identities.
It reminds me of other language shifts we have embraced without much fuss, like moving from “fireman” to “firefighter” or “stewardess” to “flight attendant.” Those changes made space for more people without taking anything away from anyone else.
When we push pregnant people to the margins, we risk pushing their unborn babies there too.
2 -
I'll always respect individual gender pronouns, but for me using a broad term such as pregnant person/people is a step too far, only biological women can become pregnant so I shall carry on saying pregnant woman/women.
3 -
I just think it has all gone way too far, its getting past the point of stupidity.I am so glad my dad isn't around to see and hear the ridiculous things that 'have' to be said just to appease a certain few. I know exactly what his words would be.
1 -
The pronoun police are everywhere, have a care!
1 -
I look forward to being pointed towards a person who is pregnant, that is in fact not just your Common or garden woman.
1 -
They need to keep their opinions to themselves and leave the rest of us alone. I'll only be told once that I have spoken incorrectly…..even my 12 & 14 year old grandchildren think it's laughable 🙄
3 -
I can only imagine how bewildering all this would have been for both my grandmothers. Life is complicated enough.
This is hardly a thorough piece of research, but I asked the two ladies (late 60s) I live next door to on either side.
One threw back her head and laughed, and the other got angry and used very unladylike language!
1 -
It'll get to a point where it will be offensive to call someone anything at this rate and whereby we can't say anything to determine a title or pronoun.
*As i've felt like an alien all my life I now class myself as a Merflin, My new pronouns are: Merfinman Rubin. I shall write strong letters of disgust when my race isn't included.
**This is obvious a joke but you get the point.1 -
Trans men and non-binary people can and do become pregnant. That may not fit your idea of a “common or garden woman,” but it doesn’t make their pregnancies any less real. Pregnancy is a biological process, not a marker of gender identity. That’s medical fact.
Inclusive language like “pregnant person” isn’t a concession. It’s a necessity, ensuring that all who need care are seen, acknowledged, and supported. Their existence is not up for debate, even if it unsettles some or makes them feel such people should be excluded unless they surrender their identity.
This objection isn’t about science. It’s about control, a regressive attempt to erase trans and non-binary people from public consciousness, especially in moments as vulnerable as pregnancy. This isn’t a debate about tradition or semantics. It’s a push to force marginalised identities back into the shadows.
The language used in these arguments is not innocent. It is mocking, dismissive, and deliberately designed to delegitimise. Take away the reasoning, the appeals to nostalgia, the concern over what neighbours or grandchildren might think, and what remains is raw, unapologetic prejudice.
And when this language comes from a disabled community, people who have to fight for recognition themselves, it’s hard to take seriously. And even harder still to excuse.
3 -
Thank you for speaking up. I definitely support the queer community (or generally mostly everyone not being so-called mainstream), as I know how exclusion can cause hurt - in my case simply being a chronic and feeling left out.
I just don't understand how comfortable people feel to express othering, the world is difficult enough as it is. Why add to that? Why not shrug and say 'I don't understand' and leave it at that, why not agree to disagree without the pain, insults, ridiculing? Don't we all have experience feeling not being good enough?
3 -
I'm a staunch feminist and also a really avid supporter of trans rights.
I will absolutely call a trans man a man, whether they are pregnant or not, and if a person wants me to call them a pregnant person instead of a woman or any other term, again I will do so.
I follow an amazing man online who has been pregnant, given birth and is raising a child. I will absolutely always think of him as male, and the child's father. I know he doesn't talk for all trans people but his shared view on the subject is he would expect his medical team and people talking about him specifically, to refer to him as male and use the pronouns he prefers, but is not in the slightest offended by generalist terms or language.
He's of the mindset that the whole argument and discussion hasn't been brought to the table by trans people at all. In fact a lot of trans/nonbinary people that I know have voiced that they feel the subject is nonsical and intended to create further debate and discourse rather than being something they actually care about.
As a woman and a feminist, 'pregnant people' doesn't offend or upset me at all, and I'm more than happy to use the term.
That said, I understand the concerns of some people who feel uncomfortable with terms like "pregnant people." I don't think it’s helpful or fair to dismiss their feelings as simply being rooted in transphobia or a desire to “erase” trans people. I think it's far more complex than that.
I'm happy to be educated and always open to learn more, (I think everyone can always be more inclusive!), but I think it's okay to use generalist terms when talking about a broad group or when talking generally and not about specific people or individuals. Particularly in speech, language naturally generalises around the typical or majority case. In almost every other situation we don't force change to establised terms to include every possible exception. Imagine how long conversations would take?? There's a shared understanding that general terms are not meant to erase minorities, just to relay information in a simple and consise way.
I love linguistics and have always been interested in how language naturally evolves, and forcing new language or terms or change is far less succesful than natural changes that evolve due to changing need and social interactions. Forcing the issue is more likely to have people push back harder.
Hmm, while I agree with a lot of your points throughout this debate, I don't think the 'air stewardess' to 'flight attendant' etc examples are equivalent. Language was changed because it excluded and caused harm to around 50% of the population, and directly impacts the over 40% of UK flight attendants that are male. Or 35% of 'policemen' that are women. It also took one to two decades to be fully established (and even then people still regularly use 'policeman' and 'fireman'). By contrast, the trans population is believed to be 0.1% of the UK population. And with an even split between sexes, about 0.05% are people who could possibly get pregnant and would potentially be impacted by the term.
I think it's really unfair to say that any objections is just about 'control' or a 'regressive attempt to erase trans and non-binary people from public consciousness' as I don't think it's as simple as that at all. While not me, if some women are saying they feel pushed aside, offended by, ignored, or hurt by the term 'pregnant people' should that be ignored?
4 -
Thanks @Kookee, I went on a bit longer than I intended to 😅
1 -
Forest Euphoria: The Abounding Queerness of Nature by Patricia Ononiwu Kaishian is a wonderful book about biology, people, and wildlife.
1 -
I see your point about scale, but I don’t think numbers are what justify inclusion. Language evolves to correct exclusion, not because a group is large enough to merit change, but because the exclusion itself is unjust. The fact that trans and non-binary people make up a small percentage doesn’t make their reality any less valid, or their exclusion any less real.
When women pushed for terms like “firefighter” and “police officer,” the goal wasn’t statistical fairness. It was accuracy and respect. That same principle applies here. People other than women experience pregnancy. “Pregnant person” reflects that fact, just as “flight attendant” reflected the shocking revelation that men could, in fact, hand out drinks at 30,000 feet.
Inclusive terms don’t erase women. They exist alongside gendered ones, depending on context. In clinics, people are still addressed personally. The inclusive terms appear in policy to ensure no one is invisible. That’s a small, practical step toward fairness. Not an attack on anyone’s identity.
As for some women feeling sidelined, that reaction deserves empathy. But discomfort alone can’t dictate language. Social change has always brought unease before understanding follows. We’ve seen that pattern with every equality movement. The answer isn’t to silence one group to soothe another. It’s to keep explaining and educating why language matters, and how it protects everyone’s dignity.
In practice, inclusive language works quietly. At the antenatal clinics I’ve attended with my daughters-in-law recently, I’ve seen it firsthand. Everyone is addressed by name. No one is called a “pregnant person” in conversation. The term appears in policy and training, not to provoke but to protect. It ensures no one is made invisible. That’s not ideology. That’s care.
We all see things through different perspectives, and I respect that you may not view it as control. But I read the thread differently. Many were adamant that pregnant people must identify as women, because only women can get pregnant. To me, that’s not just a statement of fact. It’s a boundary.
The mockery didn’t feel like disagreement. It felt like a refusal to let others exist on their own terms. When people are asked to set aside their identity so others don’t have to think differently, that’s not neutrality. That’s control, cloaked in familiarity.
4 -
From Margaret Atwood's published Second Words (1960 - 1982)
"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them"
"Women are afraid that men will kill them"
😞
3 -
Oh the confusion if they cant tell the difference between man or women you have no human rights ??? Makes some sort of sense
0 -
🤔
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.6K Start here and say hello!
- 7.4K Coffee lounge
- 103 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 149 Announcements and information
- 24.6K Talk about life
- 6K Everyday life
- 462 Current affairs
- 2.5K Families and carers
- 886 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 553 Money and bills
- 3.7K Housing and independent living
- 1.1K Transport and travel
- 630 Relationships
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 873 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 934 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 40.8K Talk about your benefits
- 6.1K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 20K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.9K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.8K Benefits and income