zzrzzr

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

Do you have a counterexample to illustrate your point?

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

How so?

I mean it's a matter of opinion as to whether any male who says he's a woman actually is a woman.

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

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.

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.

That is of course a matter of opinion.

That's because male-on-male violence, including sexual violence, is endemic in many male prisons. How any particular male victim may identify is secondary to this safeguarding failure within the male prison system.

Please consider reading the 4W article I linked above. It explains the problem.

You may find this enlightening also: https://womensliberationfront.org/news/wolf-attends-prelimin...

A relevant extract:

"The four witnesses for the prosecution gave detailed accounts of two horrible rapes and the efforts by the alleged perpetrator to dissuade one of the victims from seeking justice, even after she was moved to a new facility for her safety.

"One of the witnesses cited SB132 as the reason why Carroll was being housed in the women’s facility in the first place. He also noted that only males can rape females and that, until these past few years, there were no prisoners physically capable of rape."

Rape is endemic throughout the prison industrial complex, protections for prisoners are nowhere good enough.

The most effective safeguarding measure against this for female prisoners is the segregation of inmates by sex.

SB132 has demolished this protection for women in Californian prisons and, as the linked articles discuss, we now see the awful and entirely avoidable consequences of this law, within just a few years of it being enacted. Exactly as women's rights advocates made legislators aware would happen in their unfortunately futile efforts to halt SB132 from being passed.

I wouldn't take anything they said seriously. Also I clicked two of those links and found no allegations of rape,

See https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-....

This is the inevitable consequence of SB132, and similar laws elsewhere.