because I would be linked with your argument. which I do not agree with.
Funny thing…
If you read this thread you’d see I agree with you.
I have no idea what your point is.
What is my argument? The one you disagree with?
It causes them to question their assumptions and the little boxes they try to force other people to live in.
Pregnant women ARE people. Personhood should be just as important as being pregnant. Saying “people” takes the person out of the little-box category of “woman” and all its baggage. “Oh, the woman is in a delicate condition and shouldn’t do X” vs. “One should not restrict the rights of a person in our society”. Oh, but that woman is pregnant! Sure - they’re also still a person with all the rights and privileges of any other person.
That in addition to the non-binary, transgender, and intersex people who are pregnant and for whom the label “woman” doesn’t quite fit. They’re just as pregnant as any other person, even if they aren’t women.
Sure. It’s why we don’t call amputees insulting and derogatory names any more - you know what I mean, the words like gimp and cripple. Those people are still missing a limb, that’s a biological reality, but we use different language these days.
Sometimes, if the issue is big enough to the minority it affects, the larger majority for whom it’s largely a non-issue should yield. A lot depends on the issue and context.
Whether or not “pregnant women” vs. “pregnant people” is one of those issues seems to be something society is trying to work out at present.
Nope.
There have been instances of inter-sex people with functional a uterus who have managed to use it to reproduce. Such people, with male as well as female traits, don’t really fit “woman” precisely.
Admittedly, it’s pretty damn rare. But it happens.
Uterine transplants are now a thing. (After the birth of the baby anti-rejection drugs can be discontinued and the donated organ discarded so the person in question doesn’t have to be on anti-rejection drugs for life) So far, they’ve only been transplanted into women, but in theory it could be done in someone not identified female at birth.
Which, technically, is still a functioning uterus but not original equipment.
The seahorses and monotremes might dispute that… maybe you should just stick to “human females” rather than dragging the rest of the critters into this.
Pregnant People v Pregnant Woman. Women are People
To the extent I dislike language police, you are not helping the cause.
Are you saying I implied pregnant women are not people?
I don’t think you have understood my point at all. Faaaar from it.
nobody has understood your point.
try to sum it up in a short, and I stress short, paragraph.
I have made many posts in this thread.
You are making a claim. It is on you to make a short, and for no reason except your own rule, short response to support your claim.
I stress short.
You made a lot rambling screeds…
Great…you have a lot to draw from. Loads of posts to show my stupidity. This should be easy.
So condense them for all of us.
That’s your job.
Do you expect me to work to show how dumb I have been?
that was my goal
You failed.
I expect you will fail more.
Get to work.
If I am the idiot you think I am this should be easy…
it is. just keep responding to every post.
So…you got nothing.
I am done. I expect the mods will stop this soon.
My apologies to them.
nice of you to admit defeat.
How about “reproductively female”?
Oh, yeah - forgot about those. Apparently you don’t absolutely have to have a uterus to get pregnant, although such pregnancies are insanely high risk to the pregnant person and the baby.
The edge cases are very important to the people affected by the edge cases. I can yield a bit if that would help those folks.
Yes. This is an internet forum. It’s what happens out here.
More edge cases - but some female people with a uterus have, actually gotten pregnant and had children. So no… you don’t actually need a uterus for pregnancy, it’s just a hell of a lot safer if you use one for pregnancy.
So… just ignore any biologically male traits an intersex person might have?
Yes, if a person becomes pregnant and gives birth to a baby that person has sufficient female reproductive organs to do the deed. That doesn’t speak to any other traits they might or might not have.
No. Only people with sufficient female reproductive parts to carry a fetus can be pregnant. Don’t leave out the intersex, who may have a mix or a lack of anatomical sex traits.