We’ve done plenty of posts on the adoption of the term “pregnant people” by everyone from members of Congress to the Centers for Disease Control. We like this tweet by Brown University’s Emily Oster, though, because of the way she argues that “pregnant people” doesn’t diminish the experience of women because … “women are also people!” Congratulations, women; you’re also people!
I am not sure why this bear noting but:
When I write "pregnant people" (which is also the language the CDC uses), I am not intending to diminish the experience of pregnant women.
Women are also people!
— ProfEmilyOster (@ProfEmilyOster) October 14, 2021
Could you please explain why you've decided to start using "pregnant people," rather than "pregnant women"? I don't understand why someone in your position would make such a dramatic shift away from biological reality.
— Ginny Gentles (@ginnygentles) October 14, 2021
I shifted because a number of people wrote to tell me that they would feel more included in the community if I used pregnant people, because they identified differently. I thought it seemed non-controversial.
I was wrong, obviously!
— ProfEmilyOster (@ProfEmilyOster) October 14, 2021
By changing the language from "pregnant women" to "pregnant people," the CDC is, by definition, replacing the term "women." I am not against being inclusive of pregnant people who don't identify as women, but why can't we add an "and" instead of erasing the term "women"?
— Kelsey Bolar (Harkness) (@kelseybolar) October 14, 2021
I have thought about this. "Pregnant women and people" seems awkward as it seems to imply women are not people.
— ProfEmilyOster (@ProfEmilyOster) October 14, 2021
“Pregnant women” is much less awkward.
You need to push back on the "birthing people" nomenclature. It's one more ding against you guys. Why should we ever trust what the health regime says about "science" when they won't acknowledge the absolutely basics about biology. More science, less eggshell walking.
— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) October 14, 2021
We should use precise language in scientific matters. Did the CDC change the term to "pregnant people" to more precisely explain the biological processes of reproduction, or was it to appease a dozen activists intent on sanitizing our language beyond all comprehension?
— Hutch Pundit (@hutch_blog) October 14, 2021
Definitely the latter
— PoliticalDrek (@PoliticalDrek) October 14, 2021
The CDC is now a political body so using them as a medical reference is pointless.
— henry campbell (@ChuckieX2) October 14, 2021
That the CDC is also using this pretentious language contortion is part of the problem. Behind it is the absurd belief that (biological) reality could be changed by sociolinguistic manipulations.
— Reiner Wilhelms. 雨男 (@rewtoetzi) October 14, 2021
I don’t really care what you use, but the CDC probably isn’t the pillar for which to aspire. Just sayin’
— Pajamas It Is (@HeckofaLiberal) October 14, 2021
The CDC also thinks vaping is an epidemic
— Richard Campo (@RichardJCampo) October 14, 2021
Personally, I find it upsetting when the word "woman" is erased from discussions around an issue where women have had to fight for better treatment due to misogyny.
— Magdalen Dobson (@DobsonMagdalen) October 14, 2021
Potential compromise: use "woman" and "person" proportionally to the population frequencies of pregnant women vs pregnant trans men and nonbinary people?
— Magdalen Dobson (@DobsonMagdalen) October 14, 2021
Women don't want the word women to be replaced by the word people. Women are asking for their unique experience to be respected. I wonder why you are only listening to a tiny group who choose to exclude themselves from the word that describes them.
— Mollscroll (@mollscroll) October 14, 2021
“We’re not erasing women, we just want the word ‘woman’ replaced with menstruator or birthing person or vulva owner.”
I am not sure why this bears noting, but:
Only women can be pregnant. It is what it is.
— Amy (@ScreaminEaglet) October 14, 2021
To see women using/endorsing language that is designed to intentionally dilute and remove them from a natural process that only biological women can experience is bizarre.
— DM (@dmot01) October 14, 2021
You’re not sure why it bears noting? 🤡 why not just call us breeders and get it over with.
I love people that contribute to their own extinction.— Fynn-derella (@Fynnderella1) October 14, 2021
I love this pattern of being erased for a small minority of the population. It’s not like women haven’t fought for literal centuries to be seen, only to be erased by a fringe fad movement that just popped up within the last 10 years. So stunning and brave.
— Rayen (@rayengroves) October 14, 2021
"When I say "All lives matter", I am not intending to diminish the experience of Black people. Black lives are included into all lives!"
Professor Oster, would you say that a person saying this is right or wrong?
— Friend of the Talking Bird (@DrugGovoruna) October 14, 2021
Whatever you say, Professor.
— Mister Freely (@MisterFreely) October 14, 2021
We truly live in the most stupid of times. Bring on the asteroid.
— Sheree Swanson (@ShereeSwanson) October 14, 2021
It really can't get here soon enough.
— Citizen (@indytmarquez) October 14, 2021
This argument has been made many times, but we like the take that since women are people too they shouldn’t have any concerns about the word “women” being replaced.
Related:
CDC strongly advises that 'pregnant people' get vaccinated and you can trust them because they follow The Science https://t.co/EUny6bRVv9
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) September 30, 2021
Join the conversation as a VIP Member