# "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:** 5
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/82 "2021-09-18T02:56:07Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> The OP is about being vague.
It is?
In general, I’m against being vague. Although, as I’ve repeatedly said, I don’t mind tolerating a certain amount of vagueness as a shorthand approximation for accuracy and precision.
But I don’t buy arguments that vagueness is better than accuracy and precision.
---
### Author:  [@Somethingwitty1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Somethingwitty1)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/83 "2021-09-18T03:01:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> Is there a word, in English, for “a person who has female reproductive organs”? It used to be presumed that “woman” was that word, and also presumed that “woman” was the word for “person who identifies as female”, because it used to be presumed that those were the same thing.
>
> Now that those two definitions are not regarded as equivalent, and the word “woman” is considered to have the latter meaning, but not necessarily the former, should we have a new word for “person with female reproductive organs”?
I’m all for inclusive language, but it isn’t a hot button issue for me. Someone wants me to us he/him or her/her I have no problem with that. I understand some men get pregnant. Some woman get prostate cancer.
But since I don’t really keep up with the language wars, it is hard to keep up with some times.
My understanding, last I looked, was that gender and sex were two different things.
But I do think there should be a word for “homo sapian with xy chromosomes” or “homo sapian with a prostate” “homo sapian that can carry a fetus”. Homo sapian that menstrates" that isn’t as clunky as those.
at least for biological/medical discussion.
As for the specific us of Pregnant People, I agree that sufficiently narrows it down to homosapians with XX chromosomes post puberty/pre menopausal and any other qualifiers you might add.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/84 "2021-09-18T03:03:07Z")
Good greif.
Ok…ITT…
Should we say:
Pregnant People or Pregnant Women?
We have established that there are more people than women (about twice as many).
We have established that ONLY females can be pregnant no matter how much someone claims to be male or whatever.
This is some really weird parsing of language. We know what “women” means and we know what “people” means and, while subtle, I am not willing to give up this fight.
I think these words mean something and are important.
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/85 "2021-09-18T03:15:02Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> Should we say:
>
> Pregnant People or Pregnant Women?
Almost everybody here that you’re arguing with (not sure about BigT) has been saying all along that we personally prefer the term “Pregnant people” as being more accurate, inclusive and supportive, but we don’t have a problem with the more traditional term “Pregnant women” being used as a colloquial approximation for “Pregnant people”.
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> We know what “women” means
On the contrary, there is substantial disagreement about the meaning of the term “women”.
Some people, such as you, insist that it must mean all those and only those reproductively mature people with anatomically female reproductive systems.
Others, such as most of the rest of us in this thread, consider its meaning to be more about gender than about anatomical sex. So we prefer to say, for example, that a transgender man who gets pregnant while identifying as male, despite the fact that he has biologically female sex organs, is a “pregnant man” rather than a “pregnant woman”.
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> I am not willing to give up this fight.
Evidently. But I don’t think you have a chance of winning it. Insisting that reality needs to conform to existing linguistic usage instead of the other way around is typically a hopeless rearguard action.
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> I think these words mean something and are important.
I’m reminded of all the people twenty years ago and more who similarly insisted that a man couldn’t be another man’s “husband” and a woman couldn’t be another woman’s “wife”, because that was contrary to the traditional meanings of those words, and “words mean something and are important”.
Well, guess what: the words “husband” and “wife” still mean something and are important, but their meanings are mostly no longer restricted in the way that those no-hopers were stubbornly insisting on.
---
### Author:  [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/86 "2021-09-18T04:05:52Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> We have established that there are more people than women (about twice as many).
>
> We have established that ONLY females can be pregnant no matter how much someone claims to be male or whatever.
>
> This is some really weird parsing of language. We know what “women” means and we know what “people” means and, while subtle, I am not willing to give up this fight.
>
> I think these words mean something and are important.
The term under discussion is “pregnant people” vs “pregnant women.” You don’t have to parse that term by narrowing the groups down in an inversely sequential manner, as you are parsing it. I.e., from “women” to “pregnant women.”. If you do, though, you wind up being unnecessarily imprecise. You’ve left out a few people who don’t identify as women. You can choose to do that, though. No one is going to force you to say the words that make you unhappy.
But there’s no way that “pregnant people” is somehow vague. It is as precise as you could be if you want to identify the subgroup of humans who are pregnant. It includes all who are pregnant, and excludes no one. You’re just wrong about this.
---
### Author:  [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/87 "2021-09-18T04:11:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> I would submit changing language to accommodate these edge cases is a bridge too far.
Referring to “pregnant people” isn’t “changing language”, though. That’s literally a phrase that my great grandparents would have understood the same way i do. It’s a completely cromulent English phrase.
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> Pregnant People or Pregnant Women?
Most of us think both of those are okay.
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> We have established that there are more people than women (about twice as many).
And we have also established that there are about twice as many women as there are women of childbearing age.
And we’ve also established that girls, non-binary people, and transmen can give birth.
Yes, words matter. “Pregnant people” is more accurate than “pregnant women”. But for most purposes, either will get the right meaning across.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/88 "2021-09-18T04:12:46Z")
> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> Almost everybody here that you’re arguing with (not sure about BigT) has been saying all along that we personally prefer the term “Pregnant people” as being more accurate, inclusive and supportive, but we don’t have a problem with the more traditional term “Pregnant women” being used as a colloquial approximation for “Pregnant people”.
Weird thing. I myself have said in this thread, more than once, that I felt either phrase was fine. I think I was pretty clear about it. I am less clear that you and “everybody here” has been as explicit.
> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> Some people, such as you, insist that it must mean all those and only those reproductively mature people with anatomically female reproductive systems.
>
> Others, such as most of the rest of us in this thread, consider its meaning to be more about gender than about anatomical sex. So we prefer to say, for example, that a transgender man who gets pregnant while identifying as male, despite the fact that he has biologically female sex organs, is a “pregnant man” rather than a “pregnant woman”.
How many transgendered men who are pregnant are out there? How many “conventionally” pregnant people are out there? Please compare and contrast that difference.
> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> I’m reminded of all the people twenty years ago and more who similarly insisted that a man couldn’t be another man’s “husband” and a woman couldn’t be another woman’s “wife”, because that was contrary to the traditional meanings of those words, and “words mean something and are important”.
What do you think I am arguing against? The people I love most in this world are my brother and his husband. I was Best Man at their wedding shortly after it became legal in the US. They each only invited one family member. Truly a highlight in my life.
---
### Author:  [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/89 "2021-09-18T04:21:32Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> How many transgendered men who are pregnant are out there?
I’m going to guess that both pregnant girls and pregnant non-binary people outnumber pregnant men.
🤷♀️
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/90 "2021-09-18T04:24:28Z")
I note you skipped the second part of what I wrote/asked in that same paragraph you quoted.
---
### Author:  [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/91 "2021-09-18T04:25:16Z")
You wrote an awful lot of things. Which “second part” did i skip?
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/92 "2021-09-18T04:25:52Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#):
>
> You wrote an awful lot of things. Which “second part” did i skip?
> How many transgendered men who are pregnant are out there? **How many “conventionally” pregnant people are out there? Please compare and contrast that difference.**
---
### Author:  [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/93 "2021-09-18T04:27:04Z")
I don’t care. I’m trying to be accurate in my language, so I’m not excluding the girls, non-binary, and male pregnant people, even if there aren’t a huge number of them.
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/94 "2021-09-18T04:27:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> Weird thing. I myself have said, more than once, that I felt either phrase was fine.
Then what exactly are you talking about when you declare in post #84 that you are “not willing to give up this fight” because you think “these words mean something and are important”?
If you are fine with referring to “pregnant people”, then what on earth do you think you’re fighting about?
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> How many transgendered men who are pregnant are out there? How many “conventionally” pregnant people are out there? Please compare and contrast that difference.
I already told you the available numbers (for Australia in 2014) back in post #69. But what does it matter, since you have declared that you’re fine with referring either to “pregnant people” or to “pregnant women”, irrespective of what percentage of pregnant people are women?
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> What do you think I am arguing against?
I don’t think you have any clear idea, frankly. You apparently have some ill-posed resistance to using traditional gender and sex descriptors in any way that’s inconsistent with the strict binary sex classification traditionally associated with them, but so far you haven’t managed anything like a coherent argument for that position.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/95 "2021-09-18T04:31:58Z")
You are conflating accuracy with precision. And you are doing neither really.
ISTM you are suggesting as long as there is ONE example then you are being more precise by being vague. You suggest that as long as you can find one exception you have been more clear in your language.
I think that is bogus reasoning.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/96 "2021-09-18T04:37:20Z")
> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> I already told you the available numbers (for Australia in 2014) back in post #69. But what does it matter…
Indeed. What does it matter? By your numbers in Australia:
> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> 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).
311,000
vs
54
That is a difference of : 0.00017%
Why do you think that is a significant number? Why do you think that is sufficient to change our language?
---
### Author:  [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/97 "2021-09-18T04:50:15Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> you are being more precise by being vague.
I am not being vague. I am naming exactly those people who are pregnant, no more, no less.
You seem to have some weird idea that if you use a noun that describes fewer people, you are being “more precise” even if the adjective completely describes the relevant limitation, and the noun doesn’t quite fit.
I’ll also point out that you keep harping on the small number of pregnant transmen, quite ignoring the rather large number of pregnant girls.
(And i have no idea how many pregnant non-binary people there are at any moment, but I’ve known a few, and i bet it’s many times more than the number of pregnant transmen.)
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/98 "2021-09-18T04:51:50Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#):
>
> I’ll also point out that you keep harping on the small number of pregnant transmen, quite ignoring the rather large number of pregnant girls.
Huh?
(I really don’t follow what you are saying here…see post just above yours)
Honestly, I really don’t get it. 100% on me (really).
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/99 "2021-09-18T05:08:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> That is a difference of : 0.00017%
My bad:
0.017%
---
### Author:  [@Somethingwitty1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Somethingwitty1)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/100 "2021-09-18T05:09:30Z")
I don’t agree with Whack a Mole.
But in the [Do women wear pads and tampons all the time, or only during menstruation, or what?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-women-wear-pads-and-tampons-all-the-time-or-only-during-menstruation-or-what/946996) thread, gendered language is used freely.
Nobody challenges the use of “women” to describe “people who menstruate”. There isn’t long arguments about teaching your “son” how to use a tampon.
It’s just an informative thread for those of us who don’t know the finer points of menstruation and hygiene products that we didn’t learn in junior high sex class.
So without agreeing with Whack a Mole. I think there should be a simple non qualified word for Homo Sapians who bear children that doesn’t discriminate against Homo Sapians that don’t bear children but acknowledges the difference when it comes to medical or biological discussions.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2021, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848/101 "2021-09-18T05:11:19Z")
Disagree all you like.
ANY person who can bear a child menstruates.
**MADE-UP EXAMPLE**
No matter how convinced your son is that he is a woman he will never menstruate. He will never get pregnant.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pregnant-people-v-pregnant-women/950848.md?page=6)