Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

not on this thread that i have seen. perhaps you could quote the posts?

Whatever drives an insistence that, whenever birth is mentioned, regardless of the context it's necessary to use language that emphasises that only some people can give birth, it's not a commitment to science.

In my case, it's a commitment to women's rights, and I've explained why it's a very important distinction IMO.

I used to think it didn't matter either (ah sure just be kind, let them think that if they want to) but now we have trans women like India Willoughby insisting that they are actually cis women, I've decided that staying silent when language is abused like that is no longer an option for me. Women's rights are being eroded, and for you to say that someone pointing out that only women get pregnant is "trolling" shows just how pernicious it is and how women are put under pressure - usually by men -to stay silent.

Well I won't. I'll continue to point out that males do not get pregnant and that it is disingenuous to pretend that talking about "pregnant people" is merely an acknowledgment that women are people. That's not what's going on there.

As for your attempt at the end there to make out that this distinction is an opinion rather than a fact, that's frankly dishonest. By the same logic, presumably you think it's just personal opinion whether India Willoughby is a cis woman or not, and just trolling to point out that she is not and can never be a cis woman?

Words matter. Meanings matter. Using language like Humpty Dumpty does in Alice in Wonderland is not appropriate for adults, and not devoid of consequences.

You may well not care. I'm guessing you're male though.

I don't think you're really competent to tell me that it's harmless for men to appropriate pregnancy as though it were a joint process, still less to inform me that I should "just ignore" a high profile transgender journalist who claims to be cisgender female. Because, as predicted, it turns out it's no longer enough for women to have "given" the word "woman" to trans-identifying males (or rather allowed it to be taken from us) on the assurance from trans activists that the prefix "cis" was still available for whenever the distinction was important. Such as concerning pregnancy or abortion.

When men appropriate pregnancy like that, it devalues the whole notion of pregnancy (because pregnancy for the man literally is just sitting around waiting for nine months), and particularly the specificity of women as the only humans who can get pregnant and therefore who have to deal with the consequences.

Anyway, I agree that this is limit off-topic - but if posters hadn't started insisting that objecting to phrases like "people get pregnant" was mere pedantry, or disguised religiosity, or even more disingenuous, was denying the humanity of women, I wouldn't have jumped in to explain why language that erases women is not harmless at all.

there is no implication in the simple use of the term, without more, that men can become pregnant. Unless someone is asserting that men can become pregnant,

But I have given a quote from this very site (and there are many others) where people are saying exactly that - and that is what is really meant by the expression.

It's frankly bizarre to (pretend to) believe that it is some sort of acknowledgment of the humanity of woman. It is not. It is an implied claim that men can also be pregnant. Which is a lie, despite some people trying to say it is true. As I have shown with quotes.

Apart from anything else, why would you even need to say "people can get pregnant" in order to affirm the humanity of women? Can't we be human without being the same as men in all things?? Just because men can't get pregnant does not make pregnancy any less of a human thing.

To think that erasing the concept of functions specific only to women makes them seem somehow more human seems like very sexist reasoning to me.

I've heard it from men, but it was back when I was still in "be kind" mode. Not any more. I would not hold back now. And TBH if I heard a woman saying it, I would point out, gently but firmly, that she was minimising her role in order to "big up" her partner's. I suspect it's from fear of the partner feeling left out of the whole event. But IMO such men just need to grow up.

Very good point about abortions. "We're having an abortion" is not something I ever expect to hear - even though it is at least as much a shared experience for a couple as a completed pregnancy is.

"Very good point about abortions. "We're having an abortion" is not something I ever expect to hear - even though it is at least as much a shared experience for a couple as a completed pregnancy is."

You're assuming the male partner is still around, of course.

Well obviously. Isn't that a given here? (The context was someone saying "we are pregnant" which I don't imagine happens much when the male partner is not around).

The serious point here is that even when an abortion is carried out for medical reasons such as the foetus having serious or fatal anomalies, the man doesn't tend to say "we" had an abortion. Not that I think he should - but I would actually understand the mental anguish of such a decision being potentially as great for the man there as for the woman. Whereas even an "uneventful" pregnancy is uneventful only for everyone else: it's the equivalent of running a marathon for the woman.

But I literally quoted other posters who did and do. You said that "nobody" was saying it. I proved that not only are people saying it, they are saying it on boards.ie. And other posters are defending them, agreeing with the statement.

You then added a new demand, ie that they say it on this thread. That's moving the goalposts.

Of course it's my interpretation. You're the one accusing me of just looking for an argument, ie of not really believing what I'm saying. I haven't said anything of the sort about you. I'm sure lots of people who use the expression don't mean any harm by it. That doesn't actually change my point - that it does tend to diminish the role of the woman and that therefore women are entitled to find it offensive.

The fact that not all women object to it doesn't change that either. Lots of women were actively against giving women the vote - did that mean that women suffragists were just trouble makers / looking for an argument? (Plenty of people thought exactly that at the time.)

Other posters said "male partner" - I replied accordingly. I don't know what your point is about lesbian couples - are they more/less likely to say "we are pregnant"? I have no idea but perhaps you have some data for us? If not, I think we can ignore it in this context.

I mean, I quoted the post, with the link. What more do you think I should have done?

Did I say that? Where??

Wasn't it you who talked about BS straw man arguments?

Presumably you were looking in a mirror when you said it.