# "Pregnant People" v. "Pregnant Women"?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [September 17, 2021, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848 "2021-09-17T23:15:30Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/62 "2021-09-18T02:00:49Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> you need one to be pregnant and to do that you absolutely must be a female.
If what you mean by that is “you need a reproductively capable uterus in order to be pregnant, and that requires that you be anatomically female”, then I don’t think anybody here is disagreeing with that in the least.
But you’re gratuitously clinging to unnecessary verbal ambiguity and then complaining when anybody points out that that makes your statements potentially ambiguous.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/63 "2021-09-18T02:01:44Z")
> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> But you’re gratuitously clinging to unnecessary verbal ambiguity and then complaining when anybody points out that that makes your statements potentially ambiguous.
Ok…
What are you arguing?
I do not think I was ambiguous.
Maybe it would be better to ask:
What question do YOU think the OP is posing for debate? (no wrong answer here)
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/64 "2021-09-18T02:05:38Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> What are you arguing?
That it’s okay to use factually accurate and specific terminology, even if it’s also generally okay to use more ambiguous imprecise terminology as a shorthand approximation for it.
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> What question do YOU think the OP is posing for debate?
“Is all gender-specific language now on the way out?”
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/65 "2021-09-18T02:12:08Z")
> [@Velocity](#):
>
> Sigh…society goes yet once more, into a 100-page debate about whether a spade should be called a spade.
[Trans men](https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F20%2F2019%2F03%2Fwyley-simpson-3-1-2000.jpg) [getting pregnant](https://www.todaysparent.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/this-trans-man-gave-birth-and-shared-photos-of-the-experience-online-1280x960.jpg) [is a thing](https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article19004580.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_embedded4326319.jpg) [that happens](https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170608104043-01-trans-man-pregnant-trnd.jpg). Stop trying to tell reality it has to conform to your views.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/66 "2021-09-18T02:15:12Z")
There are roughly [3.75 million births per year](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm) in the US.
How many are by trans men? (really asking)
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/67 "2021-09-18T02:17:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> To be clear:
>
> Having a functioning uterus or even having a uterus does not define being a female.
>
> But to the OP, you need one to be pregnant and to do that you absolutely must be a female.
And this statement is false. It denies that trans men are men. Trans men can and do get pregnant. If someone can be a woman without a uterus, then someone can be a man with one.
Even talking about biological sex as having only two options is incorrect. What medical science calls sex is actually a grouping of several biological traits. And, while there is usually a certain correspondence in these traits, not everyone has only “male” traits or only “female” ones. The most widely known example are women with Androgen Insensitivity syndrome. These women have XY chromosomes, but their body cannot process the androgens, and thus have nearly all other female biological traits–though they are usually (possibly always) infertile.
It’s not known if this mosaic of traits also is why some people assigned female at birth ultimately identify as male or vice versa, or if this is the reason for non-binary gendered people. But it is known that our old way of dealing with these things is incorrect. Upwards of 1 out of 100 people do not have all the “female” or “male” biological traits. And a similar number of people identify as trans or nonbinary.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/68 "2021-09-18T02:20:54Z")
> [@BigT](#):
>
> And this statement is false.
It literally is not:
* * *
fe·male
/ˈfēˌmāl/
_adjective_
1. of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
- [SOURCE](https://www.google.com/search?q=female&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS956US956&oq=female&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i67j0i433i512j46i512j0i433i512j69i60l3.1463j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/69 "2021-09-18T02:21:30Z")
AIUI, there doesn’t yet exist data that would answer that question for the US. For comparison, there were apparently [about 311,000](https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/68429bae-ebcd-4edb-9861-73d5fbdc258c/20210.pdf.aspx?inline=true) births in Australia in 2014, and [54 of those were to transgender men](https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-dads-tell-doctors-you-can-be-man-have-baby-n1006906).
Which puts transgender men at approximately a whopping 0.017% of all people giving birth. Still, y’know, those 54 guys are people too. And if they’ve gone to the trouble and trauma of coming out as transgender and living as male because male gender identity is important to them, then I’m not really comfortable with insisting that they be called “women” just because I know they gave birth.
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/70 "2021-09-18T02:34:03Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> It literally is not:
Not in the sense of anatomically/biologically female, as your dictionary definition clarifies (and as we’ve all agreed on right from the get-go in this thread, how many times does it need to be repeated?).
But “female” can also be used in the sense of having a female gender identity: e.g., a female name, female pronouns, etc., which don’t necessarily correlate with what kind of reproductive organs you have.
This is what I was talking about when I said that you insist on using ambiguous language and then complaining when people object that it’s ambiguous.
To say something like Being pregnant requires being anatomically female is not ambiguous. But to say something like Being pregnant requires being female is ambiguous, unless you’re assuming that “female” automatically implies “anatomically female”.
Which a lot of people do not assume, for the reasons articulated by BigT and other posters above.
You can’t alter reality by appealing to the dictionary. And the reality is that some people with anatomically female reproductive systems identify as male when it comes to their gender identity, and present and live as male. Some of them even get pregnant and have babies, but that doesn’t change the fact that their gender identity is male.
So if you insist on referring to them as “female” without qualification, because what you mean is that they have anatomically female reproductive organs, you come across as saying that your rigid classification scheme for their anatomy is more important than their personal gender identity.
YMMV, but I don’t think your artificial ideal of classificatory consistency is worth that.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/71 "2021-09-18T02:35:20Z")
> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> …then I’m not really comfortable with insisting that they be called “women” just because I know they gave birth.
So, a person who identifies as a man, has a vagina and was inseminated by a male and then carried a baby to term and gave birth but you think he is not a female biologically?
> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> This is what I was talking about when I said that you insist on using ambiguous language and then complaining when people object that it’s ambiguous.
Who is being ambiguous? (see above)
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/72 "2021-09-18T02:41:05Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> So, a person who identifies as a man has a vagina and was inseminated by a male and then carried a baby to term and gave birth but you think he is not a female […]?
[ETA: Your edit of the quoted post after I had begun to answer it added the adverb “biologically” before the question mark, which wasn’t there in your original version of the question. I think my answer below is sufficiently clear as a response to either version.]
As I’ve already said approximately a thousand million times in this thread, and which everybody else in this thread totally agrees on as well, I absolutely recognize the incontrovertible biological fact that he is anatomically female in the sense of having female reproductive organs. Which he obviously must have, because he gave birth to a baby.
But I would not say “he is a female”, unqualified, because of the potential ambiguity about whether I’m referring to his birth anatomy or to his gender identity. I would say “he is a man” or “he is male”, and if I had to clarify that in the context of his giving birth, I would specify that he is a transgender man, or transgender male.
ISTM that that’s a perfectly reasonable solution for both accurately stating biological facts and respecting someone’s personal identity.
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> Who is being ambiguous?
Anyone who insists on using a multivalent word like “female”, unqualified, to imply only one restricted meaning when it can actually have different meanings. For example.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/73 "2021-09-18T02:45:09Z")
I would submit changing language to accommodate these edge cases is a bridge too far.
I’m not sure where the line is drawn. One case. A hundred, a thousand, a million. I dunno.
I do not think it is enough today.
---
### Author:  [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/74 "2021-09-18T02:45:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> Oh, and I don’t think that “biologically female” is the proper term for “has a uterus, ovaries, etc.”. Psychology is part of biology, too, after all. Maybe “somatically female”, or “anatomically female”?
Yeah, that one will get complicated quickly. Is a woman who has had a complete hysterectomy no longer biologically or anatomically female? Or not fully so?
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> That if you are a person who can carry a baby to term but identify as male (or at least not female) you are somehow being oppressed by saying only “women” can have babies.
And you’re saying only females can be pregnant and that female = woman. So you think it’s fine to refer to everyone who is (or can be?) pregnant as women, but you’re aware that some of them identify as men. And then you complain that just calling them pregnant people is what’s imprecise. Do you oppose other “people first” terminology?
There is a lot of goalpost shifting and term conflation happening. No one here is saying that using the term pregnant female is wrong. It seems odd to me, but not wrong.
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> Hm. People who’ve never had a uterus seem to do OK with supporting their internal organs. I guess it’s just that, since all the other innards are shaped around there being a uterus there, that the lack of a uterus causes those shapes to not work as well?
This seems dismissive, but maybe that was unintended? Also, as mentioned, it plays a role in sex and orgasms. Also some other female anatomy is different.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/75 "2021-09-18T02:49:43Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#):
>
> And you’re saying only females can be pregnant and that female = woman. So you think it’s fine to refer to everyone who is (or can be?) pregnant as women, but you’re aware that some of them identify as men. And then you complain that just calling them pregnant people is what’s imprecise. Do you oppose other “people first” terminology?
What?
I am saying pregnant people need female parts (e.g. a uterus).
It does not matter how a person identifies themself. If they can carry a baby to term and give birth they are biologically female.
No two ways about it.
---
### Author:  [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/76 "2021-09-18T02:50:56Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> I am saying pregnant people need female parts (e.g. a uterus).
Literally no one has disagreed with this. You are defending the term “pregnant women.” How does your point relate to that term if you are not conflating women with female?
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/77 "2021-09-18T02:51:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> I would submit changing language to accommodate these edge cases is a bridge too far.
Again, it’s not really “changing language”. When I speak of a “pregnant transgender man”, you know exactly what I mean. It’s still the same language.
What language is for is to give us ways of talking about reality. If the reality is that some people who identify as men (and present as men, perhaps with beards and chest hair and all, as in Little\_Nemo’s linked photo) get pregnant and have babies, then language needs to be able to accommodate that reality.
Which do you think is the more descriptive and comprehensible statement about such a case: “that woman got pregnant and had a baby”, or “that transgender man got pregnant and had a baby”?
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/78 "2021-09-18T02:51:59Z")
You are confusing the issue:
> And you’re saying only females can be pregnant and that female = woman. So you think it’s fine to refer to everyone who is (or can be?) pregnant as women, but you’re aware that some of them identify as men.
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/79 "2021-09-18T02:52:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> If they can carry a baby to term and give birth they are biologically female.
Literally no one has disagreed with this, either.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/80 "2021-09-18T02:53:38Z")
> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> Again, it’s not really “changing language”. When I speak of a “pregnant transgender man”, you know exactly what I mean. It’s still the same language.
When you are explicit then fine.
The OP is about being vague.
---
### Author:  [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/81 "2021-09-18T02:54:14Z")
It is?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848.md?page=5)