Biases towards scientific and biological accuracy?
>I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive.
Assuming anyone other than biological women can get pregnant is not "being more inclusive". Who exactly are you being more inclusive towards here? The masses of previously excluded pregnant men out there? What is that if not an agenda?
You see, this is why people hate and distrust the BBC and left leaning MSM in general and swung a lot to the right. Because they're picking the weirdest purity test hills to die on when people have other way bigger problems right now they want covered.
What people want from media is to poke politicians on how are they gonna fix: the economy, their jobs market, their housing market, their public health system, inflation, immigration, public school and childcare spots, rising CoL, addressing corruption scandals and false political promises, not to focus on making the word pregnancy more inclusive.
> They're picking the weirdest purity test hills to die on.
There is no "purity test" hill. There are simple reporters who are trying to use words that are inclusive. You're turning this into a "purity" discussion about who is or isn't a "real woman".
> What people want from media is to poke politicians on how are they gonna fix: the economy, their jobs market, their housing market, their public health system, inflation, immigration, public school and childcare spots, rising CoL, not to focus on making pregnancy more inclusive.
These things are not mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure why you seem to think they are.
Woman = all members of the female sex of reproductive age capable of child bearing in the context of pregnancy discussions, no need to be pedantic about the age and turn it into a girl versus woman argument, since if someone says "pregnant women", the pregnant teenage girls out there won't feel excluded and request to be addressed by "pregnant people".
Why you are so offended by the term "pregnant people" that you insist it extends to pregnant minors?
I assume you are aware that anti-gender and gender-critical people assert that "woman" means specifically "adult human female"? Where have those people said that pregnant girls are also included as women? Which law says 16 year pregnant girls and mothers are adults?
For example, Trump's Executive Order 14168 declares that women and girls refer to "adult and juvenile human females, respectively"? Following EO 14168, in the US federal bureaucracy, "pregnant woman" only refers to "pregnant adult human females". A military doctor following this EO, in the scenario you described elsewhere here, is supposed to refer to a pregnant 15 year old in ER as a pregnant girl, not a pregnant woman, even if the treatment is identical.
I don't know about you, but "pregnant people" sounds better to me than "pregnant females" as the latter seems to strip away humanity, while sounding like a bad science fiction film.
The bad faith argument is to insist that "woman" means "adult female woman" while also insisting that "pregnant woman" also somehow includes pregnant 15 year old girls.
This applies very narrowly. A GRC allows "acquired gender" to replace sex when sex is ascertained by birth certificate, which is only done in limited circumstances. This is distinct, in law, from actually being that sex.
Irrelevant, we are talking about gender, which is distinct from sex. It remains that “pregnant people” is a plainer and more accurate way of talking about people that are pregnant.
Socially it depends on how well they manage to disguise themselves as male. Being visibly pregnant is a very obvious indicator that a woman who is attempting to present herself as a man is not actually a man.
Who would go to the trouble of transitioning, against the vicious judgement of some people, if not to try to live a more authentic life? I am (visibly) non-binary, and I can tell you, I don’t do this just for the hell of it.
Are you having a nice time repeatedly misgendering one of my trans siblings? I see what you’re doing. A bit of basic social respect costs nothing, you know.
And “visibly” as in I get funny looks and sometimes shouted abuse from passing cars. Is that enough for you?
So is looking unusual in some undefined way is what "visibly non-binary" means? I genuinely do not have any reference point for this description, and certainly couldn't tell if someone is or isn't based on looks.
My male colleague who self-describes with a "non-binary" identity has no obvious visual markers of this.
Discussion was about the made up pregnancy "inclusivity" bs, when only owners of a functioning uterus can get pregnant, and those would be biological women by an overwhelming majority.
You are free to call yourself whatever made up gender you want in public and social life, but to the doctor treating you at the ER or to the forensic specialist examining your skeletal remains, you are still a biological woman according to science.
No such thing as a “biological woman”. I’ve only ever heard medics in the UK use careful and restricted terms when discussing sex - “male” and “female” at most, and only when relevant. Clearly it is sometimes relevant and no-one is disputing that. The whole purpose of inclusive language is to cover everyone, not just an “overwhelming” majority. It harms no-one to say “pregnant people”; it is a plain and clear term.
>The whole purpose of inclusive language is to cover everyone, not just an “overwhelming” majority.
Science and medicine deals in absolute details, not in blankets covering everyone. When a doctor needs to treat you, they need to know your sex, weight and age, since the dose or treatment is highly specific on those variables, there's no such thing as an inclusive thing to cover everyone the same. Inclusivity here would get you killed.
> It harms no-one to say “pregnant people”
It also helps no-one now, and it also harmed no-one in the past to say "pregnant women", since no-one other than women can get pregnant. So why did it have to be changed other than for virtue signaling?
“Woman” is not a biological sex, it simply isn’t. You are ignoring that trans men (legally and socially not women), along with some intersex people (neither biologically male or female, by definition, and legal gender varies), and cisgender girls of a sufficient age can all get pregnant. Not to mention some non-binary people. So there are plenty of people other than women that can get pregnant.
> Biases towards scientific and biological accuracy?
Why do you care so much about someone's biological gender?
Seriously, it comes off with the same sort of creepy vibes as someone who cares way too much about someone's skin color, or height, or some other biological characteristics.
Biases towards scientific and biological accuracy?
>I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive.
Assuming anyone other than biological women can get pregnant is not "being more inclusive". Who exactly are you being more inclusive towards here? The masses of previously excluded pregnant men out there? What is that if not an agenda?
You see, this is why people hate and distrust the BBC and left leaning MSM in general and swung a lot to the right. Because they're picking the weirdest purity test hills to die on when people have other way bigger problems right now they want covered.
What people want from media is to poke politicians on how are they gonna fix: the economy, their jobs market, their housing market, their public health system, inflation, immigration, public school and childcare spots, rising CoL, addressing corruption scandals and false political promises, not to focus on making the word pregnancy more inclusive.