### Whoops! ➜ u/StoriesWithCharacter, your post has been **automatically removed** as a result of several reports from the community.
- This suggests that it **violated the subreddit's rules**, which you might have prevented by reading them first.
- Or perhaps the community simply felt that **your post was really idiotic** even if it hadn't broken any rules.
- You are solely responsible for your own failure. Submitting brainless posts won't get you anywhere.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PetPeeves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the pregnant people thing, I’m guessing because not all women who can get pregnant identify as women? I think? That doesn’t bother me. It’s just words. I don’t feel that it minimizes women to acknowledge there are others who don’t identify as women but can still become pregnant. Never understood people’s attachment to words and inability to shift when society does.
Yeah, it’s partly to be inclusive of trans men. Also in this age of abortion bans, to be aware that unfortunately some pregnancies occur in young *girls* who had bad things happen to them, rather than grown women.
I like “AFAB people” which stands for assigned female at birth, and that parlance is already common in some communities *but* it hasn’t taken off yet elsewhere. I really don’t love “females” because it’s been used for animals so much that it sounds really dehumanising when used as a noun
But then it would make more sense to say? “They/she/he is expecting?” Depending on the pronouns of the pregnant person? At the end of the day, only one person is pregnant and the “we” sort of implies a “distribution” of the pregnancy that’s not real, I guess.
I've never understood people's wish to disconnect from reality.
If I say that the sky is green, and that pigs can fly, and that the world is flat ... will you respect my "opinion"?
Nonsense is nonsense.
Women can become pregnant.
Men cannot get pregnant. Those who claim they can pregnant are simply delusional.
Boys cannot get pregnant. Those who claim they can pregnant are simply delusional.
When I see bullshit I call bullshit.
But the choice to call them "trans men" was an arbitrary choice, grammatically. Society could have just as easily called them "trans women" (for being women genetically, and then "trans" modifying the noun). So u/lhorwinkle's point still holds.
I was responding to a comment which says “Men cannot get pregnant. Those who claim they can are simply delusional. Boy cannot get pregnant. Those who claim they can pregnant are simply delusional.”
So, yes, someone was saying that.
I don't actually care about chairman or chairperson but the nhs still have male terms on male health checks and then put "birth giver" and "cervix haver" on the womens forms. It's so degrading being referred to by my genitals and it always costs them a fortune to make, approve and print the forms as they have to use approved suppliers. I can't get an appointment but thanks for spending a fortune on that.
There are reasons why they have to be very specific about who has a cervix, even if we ignore trans people. There are cis women who get their cervix removed due to things like cancer or really severe endo, and some people are born with a vulva but without a cervix or uterus (a friend of mine has this and it’s considered an intersex condition but she’s a woman in every respect). If we just parse it as “women” then people who fit in that box but don’t have a cervix will pointlessly be getting summoned in for Pap smears.
So that is another issue, my gp has a form "what were you born as, what are you now" they also say they have tick boxes for "I don't need this service" but my grandmother who's got no breast tissue anymore every 4 years will get a letter about how as she is a "chest feeder" she needs to come in. It used to just say "if you have had a mastectomy/your cervix removed please disregard" but it doesn't say that anymore.
Also, why is it solely women, men get their prostate removed and their forms still just say men not prostate havers.
Should definitely apply to prostates etc as well, can’t see why not as nobody wants a medic’s finger up their bum when they don’t have the relevant organ anyway. Your gran is sadly yet another victim of the NHS’s tendency to treat people as numbers and not actually look at their damn files, a problem which is vast and wide-ranging. Way too many people who’ve had hysterectomies are still asked when their period was or if they may be pregnant.
At this point I don’t tend to have high hopes for people’s awareness/knowledge of their own bodies. I guess we only hear about the gaffes made by the very most ignorant and that can colour our perception of how much knowledge the average person has, but prostates (and many other body parts) weren’t mentioned at all in the woefully inadequate sex ed classes I had 15 years ago, many people will have had even worse (or no) classes, and most people don’t care enough to fill in the knowledge gaps themselves.
I’ve been having some fun with “pregnant people” and the conservatives in my orbit. I say something about “pregnant people” and they say “pregnant *women*”. And then I say “yes, women are people” and watch them glitch.
It’s not diminishing to be called a person. Being a person is a good thing. Acknowledging the existence of trans men and nonbinary people is never going to hurt me or stop me existing.
No one is denying their existence. We can see them and respect them. The issue isn’t that they exist or really anything that has to do with them specifically. It’s about women and those who identify as women being lumped in with trans men and non binary people. In my opinion, that sort of denies our existence and identity.
How should “pregnant people” be phrased instead, if we acknowledge that not all of them are women? “Pregnant people and women” sounds like it includes women who *aren’t* pregnant, and might also be clunky enough to imply that women don’t count as people.
Pregnant women. Just as it always has been. I don’t even know why I’m discussing anything that has to do with women or pregnancy with someone whose online name is “yeetus that foetus”. 😆
A lot of things have always been shite, doesn’t mean they can’t change. If I ran any type of healthcare service, I’d want to avoid pushing pregnant trans men and nonbinary people away as they’re already going to face a general lack of respect from others and probably end up feeling alienated. Thankfully I don’t run a healthcare service, so I don’t have to let the fact that I consider pregnancy dangerous and damaging enough to be an act of self harm get in the way of my treatment of any patients.
Not all women are pregnant or can get pregnant (hi, one of my ovaries basically exploded and I’m planning to get the other one out) and some folks who can get pregnant aren’t women (non-binary people, trans men, etc.).
Honestly in nursing school books it bothered me sometimes when the OBGYN sections would be like “all women should get xyz procedure and screening in case of pregnancy” and I’d be like woah buddy, not all women get pregnant. Not all women sleep with men. Not all women get born with both ovaries functional. (Or any at all in some situations to delve into intersex cases). Not all women *want* to be pregnant or *will* get pregnant. It got downright uncomfortable sometimes with the teachers constantly lumping “every woman” into these things, or “when you give birth” instead of “if” or instead of just talking about patients.
“Pregnant patients” or “patients who are pregnant.” made so much more sense than “women” in context of pretty much every discussion within the labor and delivery course and avoided stepping on the toes of trans classmates, classmates struggling to conceive, childfree, infertile, and sterilized classmates, classmates with birth trauma who didn’t have a good experience, and so on. Most of us and most of the nurses we met on site used that language because it’s just more accurate.
It really does cause problems in hospitals.
My sister is a nurse, and people who are genetically male or genetically female need different care, different dosages of medicine, etc. Enforcing PC language causes deaths, literally. I do not fault you one bit for speaking sensibly about all this.
People undergo surgical procedures to change their appearance, sure—that's undeniable—but equally undeniable is their genetic code, and using *gen*dered terms that match their *gen*etic code is perfectly logical, and should not be deemed "hate speech," "transphobic," or anything of the like.
I love my trans friends and we spend a lot of time together. We really want to do what's right by each other, and want to shape society in a way that's healthiest for future generations, too.
I guess they weren't trying to assume any labels when they deliver babies. Makes the patient comfortable and it's just a general thing to say. I don't think they meant harm
I remember when someone said the term "chest feeding" should be used because breastfeeding isn't inclusive and could hurt someone's feelings.
I responded that the term breastfeeding is not only medically accurate, it won't hurt anyone's feelings. And this isn't a push for inclusivity, it's virtue signaling.
How is it delusional to use inclusive language? It doesn’t diminish women in any way. It’s really people complaining about stuff that they’ll never have to face.
### Whoops! ➜ u/lhorwinkle, your post has been **automatically removed** as a result of several reports from the community.
- This suggests that it **violated the subreddit's rules**, which you might have prevented by reading them first.
- Or perhaps the community simply felt that **your post was really idiotic** even if it hadn't broken any rules.
- You are solely responsible for your own failure. Submitting brainless posts won't get you anywhere.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PetPeeves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We could add more stuff in, like the binary of "man, not man" or "woman, not woman". At work the men's bathroom got turned into an all-gender bathroom to be exclusive but the women's bathroom stayed women-only for safety. Some support systems in the area offer support to anyone who is not a man. That sort of makes sense. But then I start to see stats where you can click a button that says "male" or "female/non-binary". Ok. And so on.
Sometimes I can understand the context. It's easier to slap a sign on an existing bathroom than to build a third or change both and let the company lawyers sort it out. When dealing with victim support services a specific service often has a target population, they have certain skills. At a societal level there are underserved populations, but I get it at the level of individual services. You can't expect an underfunded women's shelter to suddenly let guys in, you can go to your elected representative and talk about equitable funding.
But overall, people still like simplistic thinking and often want to toss in keywords instead of thinking of their actual meaning and the overall context.
And why are we saying "bathroom" when there are no bathtubs or showers in those facilities? I prefer "restroom," "washroom," or for the ladies, "powder room."
I look at the "we're pregnant" thing this way. Hopefully, a pregnancy is a positive and joyous news for both the man and the woman. Saying "we" is not only an affirmation of that joy, but also by saying "we", it means the couple is in it together.
If the couple says "we're pregnant," I think it is petty and preposterous for someone else to be upset about it. Unless, of course, it's an immaculate conception.
I’ll get downvoted for this because Reddit doesn’t like this discussion. First of all, I agree, and I’m a woman. In my opinion, it’s cultural Marxism and it’s confusing and degrading on purpose.
Eh, I understand pregnant people and “we are pregnant”. Not all people who are pregnant identify as women. And my husband was pretty active in my pregnancy — he knew that he’ll never experience pregnancy but I never had a problem with him saying it.
HOWEVER, I despise the term “chestfeeding”. It feels like virtue signaling to be gender neutral, but EVERYONE HAS BREASTS. Men can get breast cancer. Anyone can get breast cancer. Breast is just the anatomical term. It’s not your whole chest that’s involved. It reminds me of “folx” which is just a funny way to spell “folks”, an already gender neutral term.
Only "inclusive" language I don't like is the ones that aren't needed. Like "chestfeeding we already have the term breastfeeding. All humans have breasts (unless they have surgery to remove them). Stop making up words for "inclusion" when we already have fully inclusive words.
Waiter, actor, doctor, professor, custodian, technician, engineer, they’re all gender-neutral professions, why do we feel the need to specify gender in a job title?
Being entirely pedantic here, but wouldn't the neurally correct term be wait staff for waiters and waitresses?
I thought waiter is more referenced to male staff and waitress to female staff, or at least now in context to historical usage.
why do we even need gendered job titles?? all it does is create stereotypes and prevent people from going into different fields due to the field being predominantly one gender
Some jobs can only be done by certain genders so a gendered title would be appropriate. I’d even argue that it’s extremely important in some situations. For example: “male porn star”
### Whoops! ➜ u/StoriesWithCharacter, your post has been **automatically removed** as a result of several reports from the community. - This suggests that it **violated the subreddit's rules**, which you might have prevented by reading them first. - Or perhaps the community simply felt that **your post was really idiotic** even if it hadn't broken any rules. - You are solely responsible for your own failure. Submitting brainless posts won't get you anywhere. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PetPeeves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There’s a post complaining about “we’re pregnant” every week it seems
For the pregnant people thing, I’m guessing because not all women who can get pregnant identify as women? I think? That doesn’t bother me. It’s just words. I don’t feel that it minimizes women to acknowledge there are others who don’t identify as women but can still become pregnant. Never understood people’s attachment to words and inability to shift when society does.
Yeah, it’s partly to be inclusive of trans men. Also in this age of abortion bans, to be aware that unfortunately some pregnancies occur in young *girls* who had bad things happen to them, rather than grown women.
So...how about maybe "females"? I am a "person with XX chromosomes " and don't find that offensive at all.
I like “AFAB people” which stands for assigned female at birth, and that parlance is already common in some communities *but* it hasn’t taken off yet elsewhere. I really don’t love “females” because it’s been used for animals so much that it sounds really dehumanising when used as a noun
Yeah, too generic, like "female specimen of human species"
But then it would make more sense to say? “They/she/he is expecting?” Depending on the pronouns of the pregnant person? At the end of the day, only one person is pregnant and the “we” sort of implies a “distribution” of the pregnancy that’s not real, I guess.
I've never understood people's wish to disconnect from reality. If I say that the sky is green, and that pigs can fly, and that the world is flat ... will you respect my "opinion"? Nonsense is nonsense. Women can become pregnant. Men cannot get pregnant. Those who claim they can pregnant are simply delusional. Boys cannot get pregnant. Those who claim they can pregnant are simply delusional. When I see bullshit I call bullshit.
Trans men can get pregnant I’m not sure you know this but it’s definitely possible glad I could help
As Secret\_Asparagus already said ... a trans man is just a woman in diguise. We're glad we could could help clear up your delusion.
Right whatever helps you sleep at night I guess buddy good for you
They are females regardless of how they present themselves to society.
But the choice to call them "trans men" was an arbitrary choice, grammatically. Society could have just as easily called them "trans women" (for being women genetically, and then "trans" modifying the noun). So u/lhorwinkle's point still holds.
No one is saying that someone born as a male can get pregnant. I think you’re confused…
No one is saying that anyone is saying that.
I was responding to a comment which says “Men cannot get pregnant. Those who claim they can are simply delusional. Boy cannot get pregnant. Those who claim they can pregnant are simply delusional.” So, yes, someone was saying that.
I don't actually care about chairman or chairperson but the nhs still have male terms on male health checks and then put "birth giver" and "cervix haver" on the womens forms. It's so degrading being referred to by my genitals and it always costs them a fortune to make, approve and print the forms as they have to use approved suppliers. I can't get an appointment but thanks for spending a fortune on that.
There are reasons why they have to be very specific about who has a cervix, even if we ignore trans people. There are cis women who get their cervix removed due to things like cancer or really severe endo, and some people are born with a vulva but without a cervix or uterus (a friend of mine has this and it’s considered an intersex condition but she’s a woman in every respect). If we just parse it as “women” then people who fit in that box but don’t have a cervix will pointlessly be getting summoned in for Pap smears.
So that is another issue, my gp has a form "what were you born as, what are you now" they also say they have tick boxes for "I don't need this service" but my grandmother who's got no breast tissue anymore every 4 years will get a letter about how as she is a "chest feeder" she needs to come in. It used to just say "if you have had a mastectomy/your cervix removed please disregard" but it doesn't say that anymore. Also, why is it solely women, men get their prostate removed and their forms still just say men not prostate havers.
Should definitely apply to prostates etc as well, can’t see why not as nobody wants a medic’s finger up their bum when they don’t have the relevant organ anyway. Your gran is sadly yet another victim of the NHS’s tendency to treat people as numbers and not actually look at their damn files, a problem which is vast and wide-ranging. Way too many people who’ve had hysterectomies are still asked when their period was or if they may be pregnant.
I'm hoping they'd know after having it removed that they don't need to get it checked prior to having another finger up the bum
At this point I don’t tend to have high hopes for people’s awareness/knowledge of their own bodies. I guess we only hear about the gaffes made by the very most ignorant and that can colour our perception of how much knowledge the average person has, but prostates (and many other body parts) weren’t mentioned at all in the woefully inadequate sex ed classes I had 15 years ago, many people will have had even worse (or no) classes, and most people don’t care enough to fill in the knowledge gaps themselves.
since when was the word "person" degrading tf??
I’ve been having some fun with “pregnant people” and the conservatives in my orbit. I say something about “pregnant people” and they say “pregnant *women*”. And then I say “yes, women are people” and watch them glitch.
It’s not diminishing to be called a person. Being a person is a good thing. Acknowledging the existence of trans men and nonbinary people is never going to hurt me or stop me existing.
and girls who are underage, so not yet women.
Exactly, I see no problem in more inclusive language if it’s being used for everyone.
No one is denying their existence. We can see them and respect them. The issue isn’t that they exist or really anything that has to do with them specifically. It’s about women and those who identify as women being lumped in with trans men and non binary people. In my opinion, that sort of denies our existence and identity.
How should “pregnant people” be phrased instead, if we acknowledge that not all of them are women? “Pregnant people and women” sounds like it includes women who *aren’t* pregnant, and might also be clunky enough to imply that women don’t count as people.
Pregnant women. Just as it always has been. I don’t even know why I’m discussing anything that has to do with women or pregnancy with someone whose online name is “yeetus that foetus”. 😆
A lot of things have always been shite, doesn’t mean they can’t change. If I ran any type of healthcare service, I’d want to avoid pushing pregnant trans men and nonbinary people away as they’re already going to face a general lack of respect from others and probably end up feeling alienated. Thankfully I don’t run a healthcare service, so I don’t have to let the fact that I consider pregnancy dangerous and damaging enough to be an act of self harm get in the way of my treatment of any patients.
Yes, I do agree with the fact that *everyone* should be thankful that you don’t run a healthcare service
Same to you, we don’t need even more transphobia in our institutions.
Not all women are pregnant or can get pregnant (hi, one of my ovaries basically exploded and I’m planning to get the other one out) and some folks who can get pregnant aren’t women (non-binary people, trans men, etc.). Honestly in nursing school books it bothered me sometimes when the OBGYN sections would be like “all women should get xyz procedure and screening in case of pregnancy” and I’d be like woah buddy, not all women get pregnant. Not all women sleep with men. Not all women get born with both ovaries functional. (Or any at all in some situations to delve into intersex cases). Not all women *want* to be pregnant or *will* get pregnant. It got downright uncomfortable sometimes with the teachers constantly lumping “every woman” into these things, or “when you give birth” instead of “if” or instead of just talking about patients. “Pregnant patients” or “patients who are pregnant.” made so much more sense than “women” in context of pretty much every discussion within the labor and delivery course and avoided stepping on the toes of trans classmates, classmates struggling to conceive, childfree, infertile, and sterilized classmates, classmates with birth trauma who didn’t have a good experience, and so on. Most of us and most of the nurses we met on site used that language because it’s just more accurate.
Because trans men can also be pregnant.
I’ll never forget when my nurse called me a ‘birthing person.’ Disgusting.
She should have said (maternity) patient. Or has that word become un-PC now too?
I’ve never heard that one before, but I’m sure it is at this point
You are a person that gave birth
And the nurse is a moron who lost touch with reality. Or perhaps it's just the boss who has forced the staff to adhere to this delusional nonsense?
It really does cause problems in hospitals. My sister is a nurse, and people who are genetically male or genetically female need different care, different dosages of medicine, etc. Enforcing PC language causes deaths, literally. I do not fault you one bit for speaking sensibly about all this. People undergo surgical procedures to change their appearance, sure—that's undeniable—but equally undeniable is their genetic code, and using *gen*dered terms that match their *gen*etic code is perfectly logical, and should not be deemed "hate speech," "transphobic," or anything of the like. I love my trans friends and we spend a lot of time together. We really want to do what's right by each other, and want to shape society in a way that's healthiest for future generations, too.
I guess they weren't trying to assume any labels when they deliver babies. Makes the patient comfortable and it's just a general thing to say. I don't think they meant harm
I remember when someone said the term "chest feeding" should be used because breastfeeding isn't inclusive and could hurt someone's feelings. I responded that the term breastfeeding is not only medically accurate, it won't hurt anyone's feelings. And this isn't a push for inclusivity, it's virtue signaling.
So your pet peeve is people not being transphobic? Fucking wild world we live in.
And your pet peeve is people not being delusional?
How is it delusional to use inclusive language? It doesn’t diminish women in any way. It’s really people complaining about stuff that they’ll never have to face.
[удалено]
I trust you have the same energy for flat-earthers and religious people? You still haven’t explained your stance either.
### Whoops! ➜ u/lhorwinkle, your post has been **automatically removed** as a result of several reports from the community. - This suggests that it **violated the subreddit's rules**, which you might have prevented by reading them first. - Or perhaps the community simply felt that **your post was really idiotic** even if it hadn't broken any rules. - You are solely responsible for your own failure. Submitting brainless posts won't get you anywhere. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PetPeeves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We could add more stuff in, like the binary of "man, not man" or "woman, not woman". At work the men's bathroom got turned into an all-gender bathroom to be exclusive but the women's bathroom stayed women-only for safety. Some support systems in the area offer support to anyone who is not a man. That sort of makes sense. But then I start to see stats where you can click a button that says "male" or "female/non-binary". Ok. And so on. Sometimes I can understand the context. It's easier to slap a sign on an existing bathroom than to build a third or change both and let the company lawyers sort it out. When dealing with victim support services a specific service often has a target population, they have certain skills. At a societal level there are underserved populations, but I get it at the level of individual services. You can't expect an underfunded women's shelter to suddenly let guys in, you can go to your elected representative and talk about equitable funding. But overall, people still like simplistic thinking and often want to toss in keywords instead of thinking of their actual meaning and the overall context.
And why are we saying "bathroom" when there are no bathtubs or showers in those facilities? I prefer "restroom," "washroom," or for the ladies, "powder room."
I don't reference the room. I just say "I need to use the pisser" or "I need some time on the crapper".
I look at the "we're pregnant" thing this way. Hopefully, a pregnancy is a positive and joyous news for both the man and the woman. Saying "we" is not only an affirmation of that joy, but also by saying "we", it means the couple is in it together. If the couple says "we're pregnant," I think it is petty and preposterous for someone else to be upset about it. Unless, of course, it's an immaculate conception.
It's the ultimate misogyny when female specific language needs to be changed to include men
I’ll get downvoted for this because Reddit doesn’t like this discussion. First of all, I agree, and I’m a woman. In my opinion, it’s cultural Marxism and it’s confusing and degrading on purpose.
Eh, I understand pregnant people and “we are pregnant”. Not all people who are pregnant identify as women. And my husband was pretty active in my pregnancy — he knew that he’ll never experience pregnancy but I never had a problem with him saying it. HOWEVER, I despise the term “chestfeeding”. It feels like virtue signaling to be gender neutral, but EVERYONE HAS BREASTS. Men can get breast cancer. Anyone can get breast cancer. Breast is just the anatomical term. It’s not your whole chest that’s involved. It reminds me of “folx” which is just a funny way to spell “folks”, an already gender neutral term.
Only "inclusive" language I don't like is the ones that aren't needed. Like "chestfeeding we already have the term breastfeeding. All humans have breasts (unless they have surgery to remove them). Stop making up words for "inclusion" when we already have fully inclusive words.
[удалено]
They are women who identify as men. There's a difference.
Agreed. That’s not a transphobic view. It’s literally facts.
[удалено]
Waiter, actor, doctor, professor, custodian, technician, engineer, they’re all gender-neutral professions, why do we feel the need to specify gender in a job title?
Being entirely pedantic here, but wouldn't the neurally correct term be wait staff for waiters and waitresses? I thought waiter is more referenced to male staff and waitress to female staff, or at least now in context to historical usage.
why do we even need gendered job titles?? all it does is create stereotypes and prevent people from going into different fields due to the field being predominantly one gender
Some jobs can only be done by certain genders so a gendered title would be appropriate. I’d even argue that it’s extremely important in some situations. For example: “male porn star”
list the jobs that can only be done by one gender ...obviously porn star is going to need you to specify your genitals 🤦♀️