7 ms·

I guarantee you that the vast majority of people talk about "pregnant women", not "pregnant people" like the BBC. I could quote many other small indicators like

by lucasRW 11mo ago

I guarantee you that the vast majority of people talk about "pregnant women", not "pregnant people" like the BBC. I could quote many other small indicators like that which demonstrate that the BBC is NOT unbiased at all.

elric 11mo ago
Focusing on their attempt at inclusive language seems a bit trite, and certainly exposes your own biases. It's not perfect, and we'll see how it evolves, but I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive. You're welcome to be offended by that, but it seems like a silly thing to be offended by.
- jack_tripper 11mo ago
  > exposes your own biases Biases towards scientific and biological accuracy? >I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive. Assuming anyone other than biological women can get pregnant is not "being more inclusive". Who exactly are you being more inclusive towards here? The masses of previously excluded pregnant men out there? What is that if not an agenda? You see, this is why people hate and distrust the BBC and left leaning MSM in general and swung a lot to the right. Because they're picking the weirdest purity test hills to die on when people have other way bigger problems right now they want covered. What people want from media is to poke politicians on how are they gonna fix: the economy, their jobs market, their housing market, their public health system, inflation, immigration, public school and childcare spots, rising CoL, addressing corruption scandals and false political promises, not to focus on making the word pregnancy more inclusive.
  - dwb 11mo ago
    Trans men are men, socially and legally. Describing them as women is simply incorrect.
    - marliechiller 11mo ago
      Not in the UK
      - dwb 11mo ago
        Wrong https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate
    - jack_tripper 11mo ago
      Discussion was about the made up pregnancy "inclusivity" bs, when only owners of a functioning uterus can get pregnant, and those would be biological women by an overwhelming majority. You are free to call yourself whatever made up gender you want in public and social life, but to the doctor treating you at the ER or to the forensic specialist examining your skeletal remains, you are still a biological woman according to science.
      - dwb 11mo ago
        No such thing as a “biological woman”. I’ve only ever heard medics in the UK use careful and restricted terms when discussing sex - “male” and “female” at most, and only when relevant. Clearly it is sometimes relevant and no-one is disputing that. The whole purpose of inclusive language is to cover everyone, not just an “overwhelming” majority. It harms no-one to say “pregnant people”; it is a plain and clear term.
        jack_tripper 11mo ago
        >The whole purpose of inclusive language is to cover everyone, not just an “overwhelming” majority. Science and medicine deals in absolute details, not in blankets covering everyone. When a doctor needs to treat you, they need to know your sex, weight and age, since the dose or treatment is highly specific on those variables, there's no such thing as an inclusive thing to cover everyone the same. Inclusivity here would get you killed. > It harms no-one to say “pregnant people” It also helps no-one now, and it also harmed no-one in the past to say "pregnant women", since no-one other than women can get pregnant. So why did it have to be changed other than for virtue signaling?
  - elric 11mo ago
    > They're picking the weirdest purity test hills to die on. There is no "purity test" hill. There are simple reporters who are trying to use words that are inclusive. You're turning this into a "purity" discussion about who is or isn't a "real woman". > What people want from media is to poke politicians on how are they gonna fix: the economy, their jobs market, their housing market, their public health system, inflation, immigration, public school and childcare spots, rising CoL, not to focus on making pregnancy more inclusive. These things are not mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure why you seem to think they are.
    - jack_tripper 11mo ago
      >There are simple reporters who are trying to use words that are inclusive. To whom are they inclusive? You haven't answered who exactly is the phrase "pregnant women" supposed to be excusing that it needs more inclusivity? You keep repeating yourself while beating it around the bush not answering the question.
      - eesmith 11mo ago
        Do you believe that a pregnant 15 year old girl is a pregnant woman? If so, what makes her a woman? If not, should she ignore advice targeted to pregnant women?
        jack_tripper 11mo ago
        Woman = all members of the female sex of reproductive age capable of child bearing in the context of pregnancy discussions, no need to be pedantic about the age and turn it into a girl versus woman argument, since if someone says "pregnant women", the pregnant teenage girls out there won't feel excluded and request to be addressed by "pregnant people". Such a bad faith argument.
        eesmith 11mo ago
        Why you are so offended by the term "pregnant people" that you insist it extends to pregnant minors? I assume you are aware that anti-gender and gender-critical people assert that "woman" means specifically "adult human female"? Where have those people said that pregnant girls are also included as women? Which law says 16 year pregnant girls and mothers are adults? For example, Trump's Executive Order 14168 declares that women and girls refer to "adult and juvenile human females, respectively"? Following EO 14168, in the US federal bureaucracy, "pregnant woman" only refers to "pregnant adult human females". A military doctor following this EO, in the scenario you described elsewhere here, is supposed to refer to a pregnant 15 year old in ER as a pregnant girl, not a pregnant woman, even if the treatment is identical. I don't know about you, but "pregnant people" sounds better to me than "pregnant females" as the latter seems to strip away humanity, while sounding like a bad science fiction film. The bad faith argument is to insist that "woman" means "adult female woman" while also insisting that "pregnant woman" also somehow includes pregnant 15 year old girls.
  - LexiMax 11mo ago
    > Biases towards scientific and biological accuracy? Why do you care so much about someone's biological gender? Seriously, it comes off with the same sort of creepy vibes as someone who cares way too much about someone's skin color, or height, or some other biological characteristics.
- lucasRW 11mo ago
  Again: that's not how people speak. So just own it and assume your bias. Don't make up words or expression, to then say that people NOT using your stuff are the one with the bias...
  - elric 11mo ago
    You're basically getting offended at BBC reporters speaking too politely. Next thing you're going to expect them to talk like run of the mill chavs because that's how people actually speak, innit bruv?
    - lucasRW 11mo ago
      Again, don't turn the table. You are offended by "pregnant women", and you push for subtle dictionary changes. Changing the words, to change ideas (i think Lenin created that concept). Just assume it, instead of constantly doing psychological projections on others.
- greenchair 11mo ago
  Speaking of calling out bias, your twisted definition of "inclusive language" indicates you refuse to acknowledge elementary biological concepts.
- mangodrunk 11mo ago
  You claim inclusivity but it comes at the expense of women. Men aren’t women. Men aren’t able to get pregnant. What this type of language is doing is erasing women and excluding them.
eesmith 11mo ago
A pregnant 15 year old girl is not a pregnant woman but is a pregnant person.
- socrateswasone 11mo ago
  [dead]
iso1631 11mo ago
The presenter was quoting a report which had written "pregnant people", and decided to change that to "women" - which is not what the report said. Even worse than the Trump edit (which was bad -- for want of a flash of white to make it clear the second part of the quote was from later in the same speech, not directly after)

by lucasRW 11mo ago

elric 11mo ago

Focusing on their attempt at inclusive language seems a bit trite, and certainly exposes your own biases. It's not perfect, and we'll see how it evolves, but I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive. You're welcome to be offended by that, but it seems like a silly thing to be offended by.

jack_tripper 11mo ago
> exposes your own biases Biases towards scientific and biological accuracy? >I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive. Assuming anyone other than biological women can get pregnant is not "being more inclusive". Who exactly are you being more inclusive towards here? The masses of previously excluded pregnant men out there? What is that if not an agenda? You see, this is why people hate and distrust the BBC and left leaning MSM in general and swung a lot to the right. Because they're picking the weirdest purity test hills to die on when people have other way bigger problems right now they want covered. What people want from media is to poke politicians on how are they gonna fix: the economy, their jobs market, their housing market, their public health system, inflation, immigration, public school and childcare spots, rising CoL, addressing corruption scandals and false political promises, not to focus on making the word pregnancy more inclusive.
- dwb 11mo ago
  Trans men are men, socially and legally. Describing them as women is simply incorrect.
  - marliechiller 11mo ago
    Not in the UK
    - dwb 11mo ago
      Wrong https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate
  - jack_tripper 11mo ago
    Discussion was about the made up pregnancy "inclusivity" bs, when only owners of a functioning uterus can get pregnant, and those would be biological women by an overwhelming majority. You are free to call yourself whatever made up gender you want in public and social life, but to the doctor treating you at the ER or to the forensic specialist examining your skeletal remains, you are still a biological woman according to science.
    - dwb 11mo ago
      No such thing as a “biological woman”. I’ve only ever heard medics in the UK use careful and restricted terms when discussing sex - “male” and “female” at most, and only when relevant. Clearly it is sometimes relevant and no-one is disputing that. The whole purpose of inclusive language is to cover everyone, not just an “overwhelming” majority. It harms no-one to say “pregnant people”; it is a plain and clear term.
      - jack_tripper 11mo ago
        >The whole purpose of inclusive language is to cover everyone, not just an “overwhelming” majority. Science and medicine deals in absolute details, not in blankets covering everyone. When a doctor needs to treat you, they need to know your sex, weight and age, since the dose or treatment is highly specific on those variables, there's no such thing as an inclusive thing to cover everyone the same. Inclusivity here would get you killed. > It harms no-one to say “pregnant people” It also helps no-one now, and it also harmed no-one in the past to say "pregnant women", since no-one other than women can get pregnant. So why did it have to be changed other than for virtue signaling?
- elric 11mo ago
  > They're picking the weirdest purity test hills to die on. There is no "purity test" hill. There are simple reporters who are trying to use words that are inclusive. You're turning this into a "purity" discussion about who is or isn't a "real woman". > What people want from media is to poke politicians on how are they gonna fix: the economy, their jobs market, their housing market, their public health system, inflation, immigration, public school and childcare spots, rising CoL, not to focus on making pregnancy more inclusive. These things are not mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure why you seem to think they are.
  - jack_tripper 11mo ago
    >There are simple reporters who are trying to use words that are inclusive. To whom are they inclusive? You haven't answered who exactly is the phrase "pregnant women" supposed to be excusing that it needs more inclusivity? You keep repeating yourself while beating it around the bush not answering the question.
    - eesmith 11mo ago
      Do you believe that a pregnant 15 year old girl is a pregnant woman? If so, what makes her a woman? If not, should she ignore advice targeted to pregnant women?
      - jack_tripper 11mo ago
        Woman = all members of the female sex of reproductive age capable of child bearing in the context of pregnancy discussions, no need to be pedantic about the age and turn it into a girl versus woman argument, since if someone says "pregnant women", the pregnant teenage girls out there won't feel excluded and request to be addressed by "pregnant people". Such a bad faith argument.
        eesmith 11mo ago
        Why you are so offended by the term "pregnant people" that you insist it extends to pregnant minors? I assume you are aware that anti-gender and gender-critical people assert that "woman" means specifically "adult human female"? Where have those people said that pregnant girls are also included as women? Which law says 16 year pregnant girls and mothers are adults? For example, Trump's Executive Order 14168 declares that women and girls refer to "adult and juvenile human females, respectively"? Following EO 14168, in the US federal bureaucracy, "pregnant woman" only refers to "pregnant adult human females". A military doctor following this EO, in the scenario you described elsewhere here, is supposed to refer to a pregnant 15 year old in ER as a pregnant girl, not a pregnant woman, even if the treatment is identical. I don't know about you, but "pregnant people" sounds better to me than "pregnant females" as the latter seems to strip away humanity, while sounding like a bad science fiction film. The bad faith argument is to insist that "woman" means "adult female woman" while also insisting that "pregnant woman" also somehow includes pregnant 15 year old girls.
- LexiMax 11mo ago
  > Biases towards scientific and biological accuracy? Why do you care so much about someone's biological gender? Seriously, it comes off with the same sort of creepy vibes as someone who cares way too much about someone's skin color, or height, or some other biological characteristics.
lucasRW 11mo ago
Again: that's not how people speak. So just own it and assume your bias. Don't make up words or expression, to then say that people NOT using your stuff are the one with the bias...
- elric 11mo ago
  You're basically getting offended at BBC reporters speaking too politely. Next thing you're going to expect them to talk like run of the mill chavs because that's how people actually speak, innit bruv?
  - lucasRW 11mo ago
    Again, don't turn the table. You are offended by "pregnant women", and you push for subtle dictionary changes. Changing the words, to change ideas (i think Lenin created that concept). Just assume it, instead of constantly doing psychological projections on others.
greenchair 11mo ago
Speaking of calling out bias, your twisted definition of "inclusive language" indicates you refuse to acknowledge elementary biological concepts.
mangodrunk 11mo ago
You claim inclusivity but it comes at the expense of women. Men aren’t women. Men aren’t able to get pregnant. What this type of language is doing is erasing women and excluding them.

eesmith 11mo ago

A pregnant 15 year old girl is not a pregnant woman but is a pregnant person.

socrateswasone 11mo ago
[dead]

iso1631 11mo ago

The presenter was quoting a report which had written "pregnant people", and decided to change that to "women" - which is not what the report said. Even worse than the Trump edit (which was bad -- for want of a flash of white to make it clear the second part of the quote was from later in the same speech, not directly after)