Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Language changes. There's been lots of inclusive changes that people have adopted without even knowing.

Police officer and firefighter are pretty ingrained now, but those weren't the dominant terms just 30 years ago



The difference is that police officer and firefighter are roles that can be occupied by people of either sex, so the change of language from policeman and fireman made sense in that context.

By contrast, pregnancy is a state of being that is by its very nature female-only. Males cannot become pregnant, as by definition they lack a female reproductive system.

The "pregnant people" terminology implies that pregnancy is something that affects all people, male and female alike. But this is of course not true at all.

It's also not inclusive - consider that much of the sex-based oppression women experience goes back to the ability to conceive children. "Pregnant people" discards and downplays all of that.


Some people have unusual chromosomes, ie. Not women or men's, and they can still get pregnant. Other people transition but still have kids. Sex or gender; the language can apply just fine to anyone who gets pregnant and is appropriately vague. I am fairly certain the term isn't one of disrespect to women's rights or accomplishments.


Regardless of sex chromosome aneuploidies or a desire to be the opposite sex, everyone who is, who could be, or who has ever been pregnant is female.

Another point against using the phrase "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women" is that it leaves no way to talk about women who aren't pregnant. "Non-pregnant people" includes every man and every prepubescent child.


Yes there is, it's "non-pregnant woman". You can still say pregnant woman if you want to or need to, it's not banned.


But my point was about situations where the term "pregnant people" is being mandated or strongly recommended instead of "pregnant women".


> Regardless of sex chromosome aneuploidies or a desire to be the opposite sex, everyone who is, who could be, or who has ever been pregnant is female.

That is _your_ definition, and it is very debatable.


Do you have a counterexample to illustrate your point?


>Regardless of sex chromosome aneuploidies or a desire to be the opposite sex, everyone who is, who could be, or who has ever been pregnant is female.

Nature disagrees with you. There are many animals out there that can change sex. Sex, gender, etc etc don't have a perfect universal definition because nature doesn't work that way. The scientific literature is trying to capture the observed variety we see in humans and it will continue to evolve as our understanding evolves.

This whole line of argument reminds me of the history of pi and the governments that tried to legislate it to fixed values. Just because you want things to be simple doesn't mean that reality backs you up.


We're talking about humans. That some other animal species have a reproductive strategy of sequential hermaphroditism is not relevant to the conversation.


It's relevant to language, since we use the same terms for a lot of different thing.


Which non-human species do you believe are being referred to when the term "pregnant women" (or "pregnant people") is used?


very wrong!


How so?


Language changes ... when you get to call anyone not going along with your desired changes a "bigot" or worse.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: