A functioning uterus is definitely required to carry a pregnancy, sure. But even a uterus that can’t carry a pregnancy is still functioning in many ways in the body of the infertile or postmenopausal person who has it.
So treating the phrase “a functioning uterus” as synonymous with “a reproductively capable uterus” seems somewhat imprecise and reductive to me. Just as it would seem imprecise and reductive to equate “functioning testicles” with “reproductively capable testicles”.
But the OP is specifically talking about a pregnant person.
So it HAS to be “a reproductively capable uterus”.
And the only things on the planet that have those are female mammals.
From the OP’s linked article, here’s what strikes me as a classic example of the way that traditional usages are often less clear and accurate than the alternative phrasings suggested to replace them.
While I completely agree that “Hospital for Women and Newborns” is an innocuous name, it strikes me as actually a lot less “straightforward” than, say, “Hospital for Labor and Delivery”.
(Or, to use a truly old-fashioned term, what used to be called a “Lying-In Hospital”, because “lying-in” meant the process of having a baby.)
I mean, if this hospital is specifically for labor and delivery, then why not use those words? Just call a spade a spade, as Velocity put it.
I completely agree that a pregnant person by definition needs to have a reproductively capable uterus. I’m just pointing out that “functioning” is a more general term that isn’t exactly synonymous with “reproductively capable”. Not even for uteruses. Or testicles, for that matter.
Not in my opinion but my opinion is a literally dangerous one to hold.
That annoys me, although i suppose I’ll have to get used to it, as many of my younger friends are saying it. I even tried gently suggesting “we’re expecting”, which is completely accurate, and well-understood to mean “expecting a baby”.
I’m fine with “people who are pregnant”, or “pregnant people”. They say exactly what they mean. I’m also fine with referring to “pregnant women” or “pregnant girls”, or “pregnant teens” (a non-gender-specific term that’s rather old) in appropriate contexts.
I have enough non-binary friends that I’d probably default to “pregnant people” not “pregnant women”. But I’m not going to police anyone else’s language unless it’s directly relevant, like in an article about transpeople having babies or something.
Following up on the nomenclatural choices of the Alexandra Cohen Hospital, here’s what their website says:
Which is a perfectly reasonable and informative description, but kind of points up how their name is more ambiguous.
You are supposed to be able to figure out that the name “for Women and Newborns” includes pregnant people who are not (cisgender) women, and also that it excludes (cisgender) women who are not pregnant. A postmenopausal woman might see the phrase “for Women” in the name and assume that that means she can get a GYN exam at that hospital, but AFAICT she can’t.
I don’t think that that ambiguity is offensive, as some people mentioned in the OP’s linked article apparently do, but I do find it a bit irritating. Just clearly label it a “Hospital for Pregnancy and Birth”, and skip the having to figure out exactly what is meant by “Women” in this context.
The modifier “pregnant” makes it exactly precise. If the point is to identify those humans who are pregnant, using “pregnant people” is exactly the right term to include everyone on that group.
I know people have complaints about having to change terms, but imprecision is not an accurate complaint about this one.
And for those complaining, no one can make you use it. You can choose to do so or not. Some people who have chronically been marginalized will appreciate the change.
It is simple–some “uterus owners” can get pregnant while all “non-uterus owners” can’t.
For precedent, see:
I submit I have shown in this thread that ONLY biological females can be pregnant.
So “people” is imprecise language. While not “wrong” it is inclusive of a larger group. “Women” is more precise language. It denotes a minimum age where having babies is possible (we usually refer to pre-pubescent females as “girls”) and specifies a gender.
“People” is every human on the planet.
I think the point is that neither is wrong. I think one is better language than the other but it’s not a hill I will die on either. Both ways of saying it are fine. The problem is people complaining that “pregnant women” is somehow demeaning or wrong.
Again, I’m not seeing such a “significant alteration” here as you seem to think. If someone says “pregnant people”, I know exactly what they mean: they mean people who are pregnant.
Yes, the fact that people get pregnant is indeed an unchangeable biological reality (unless and until we get those sci-fi exo-wombs that Whack-a-Mole mentioned).
Wrong, as I pointed out in my post #4. Rowling got criticized for complaining about a newspaper article’s descriptive and accurate use of the phrase “people who menstruate” to refer specifically to people who menstruate.
(It was a silly complaint in particular because using “women” as a synonym for “people who menstruate” is way more inaccurate than using “pregnant women” as a synonym for “pregnant people”. It’s not just that there’s a tiny minority of people who menstruate who don’t identify as women (or girls), it’s that the vast majority of women stop menstruating a little more than halfway through their adult lives and never menstruate again.)
Woman and biological female is not the same thing. Not everyone capable of being pregnant identifies as a woman. Using “women” in this phrase is not more accurate, and it’s not the same as saying “biologically female.” And yes, people who are still girls and not women definitely get pregnant.
I don’t think anybody is disputing or has disputed the claim that “only biological females can be pregnant”. (Although I don’t really think you did anything more in this thread to “show” that fact than what everybody already knew.)
The ambiguous part is whether and to what extent the term “women” is supposed to imply exclusively “biological females”.
Nope, it isn’t, unless we’re completely conflating sex and gender.
“Biologically female reproductively mature people” is more precise language than “people” if we’re specifying who can get pregnant. But “women” doesn’t necessarily mean only “biologically female reproductively mature people”.
People who claim not to care about this stuff seem to spend an awful lot of time arguing about it.
ISTM the issue is about people who identify as another gender than “female”.
That’s fine.
But if that same person who identifies as male (or whatever) is pregnant then they are biologically female.
So, go to the OP which specifically is asking about language surrounding a pregnant person we know that person MUST be female.
If that person wants to be identified as something else fine. But they are not being oppressed because most articles/books on pregnancies talk about females. Those publications do not need to change their language surrounding this.
People is “imprecise” because not all people can get pregnant? I have news for you. An enormous fraction of women can’t get pregnant, either. I just looked up the population by age
And almost exactly half of “females 20 and older” are over 50. So… Just from menopause, about half the women in the US can’t get pregnant. And there are a lot of other reasons why women can’t get pregnant.
On the other hand, many non-binary people can get pregnant.
But really, “imprecise” is a silly criticism. Once you add the word “pregnant”, “pregnant people” covers exactly the people who are pregnant, and exactly no one else. It’s extremely precise if that’s what you want to talk about.
So what?
The ONLY people who can get pregnant are biologic females (not self-identified females who are not biologically female).
Period. Full stop.
And the only women who can get pregnant are those who are fertile. Yet we don’t usually take about “pregnant fertile women”. Because that’s superfluous. It’s also superfluous to prefer “pregnant women” to “pregnant people”. If you ignore non-binary people and transmen who have fertile female parts, they cover exactly the same group.
(And it’s imprecise to ignore those groups, even if they are small.)
I mean, I’m not going to complain if you prefer to say, “pregnant women”. Nothing wrong with that, is approximately right. But i sure as hell am going to complain if you criticize my more precise and accurate language of “pregnant people”.
Yup, undisputedly.
Distinguo: we know that person must be biologically female, as you said.
If we want to avoid ambiguity around the difference between biologically female sex and female gender identity, we have to be more precise than just saying “female”.
Mind you, as I said, I don’t have a problem with most traditional uses of words like “women” and “female” as colloquial shorthand for “cisgender women” and “biologically female”. But if some people prefer to be more terminologically precise in order to avoid linguistic ambiguity, that’s fine by me too.
The OP is specifically about pregnant people.
As in, carrying a baby.
That is what I am discussing.
Not people who are not pregnant for whatever reason.
Yup.
This discussion has really taken off. Must not be anything good on TV tonight. Carry on.