So what’s wrong with “pregnant female”?

Views:15687|Rating:4.90|View Time:2:13Minutes|Likes:921|Dislikes:19
Magdalen Berns remarks on the recent UK Government call for pregnancy terms to be made gender neutral at the United Nations. Magdalen also gives a short answer to the closing question which YouTuber, Bearing posed in his video: “Pregnant woman” is now an offensive term!’: So what’s wrong with “pregnant female”?

No, it doesn’t make you a bigot if you want to be called a pregnant ‘woman’ rather than ‘person’

Call expectant mothers ‘pregnant people’, the Government suggests 

Is transgender the new civil rights frontier? – BBC Newsnight:

Germaine Greer: Transgender women are ‘not women’ – BBC Newsnight

“Pregnant Woman” is now an offensive term!

Coleen Feels That Banning the Term ‘Pregnant Woman’ Is Taking Gender Neutral Too Far | Loose Women

To support my channel and see even more content like this, please like, subscribe, follow, share and donate using the links below:

You may also like...

22 Responses

  1. Crystal Kinistino says:

    That's mental. There are laws in language and in reality that these trans characters don't seem to comprehend or respect at all.

  2. hihihihihi739 says:

    왜 계속 여성을 해체하려 드는가?

  3. ASMRyouVEGANyet? says:

    18th century is when the stork started delivering babies

  4. Yamamanama says:

    That's Bearing, you dumbass! Pull your head out of your goddamn ass!

  5. Pinecone111 says:

    It honestly just makes me really sad that you're having to defend the concept that pregnancy is something that only happens to women, something which every single person on the planet knows to be true, just because a tiny, tiny group of people have decided that "identity" is now more important actual biological realities. I wish you the best, I really do, but this entire situation is completely ridiculous.

  6. Ya Boi says:

    What if someone is a trans man and pregnant?

  7. S says:

    What's wrong with 'pregnant person'?

  8. 2126Eliza says:

    Calling women "females" is disgusting. I don't like it when bros do it and we certainly don't need educated people in leadership positions to be doing it.

  9. danilax says:

    CN Lester has bachelors and masters in Music, that's how she must have learned no one knew about biological sex before the French

  10. Kimmy Sunshine says:

    OMG OMG OMG!! Why is this an issue! why are we catering to this madness!! Trans population is 1% of the population when using generous numbers. and not all trans people are delusional about their biology. So Why is this affecting something as serious as the UN!! FFS! I just can't.

  11. Rin Michaelis says:

    This is a GREAT video. We should stick by pregnant woman to make it clear that we're talking about a human being.

  12. Stefan Minkey says:

    I should, as a man be sympathetic to the simple, measurable scientific argument you make because it's true. I am not however because you are a radical feminist who believes in patriarchy – a Marxist theory trying to argue against a theory based on intersectionality – a post modernist theory which is a successor Marxist theory designed to be value free – so there is NO credible argument you can make. As a parent, and a straight white male who believes in democracy and capitalism – I can debunk all this Marxist nonsense based on victim diatribe because my views are backed up by history. F MARXISM – THEIRS OR YOURS.

  13. scoobydisney says:

    That woman with glasses demonstrates how the secondary meaning of "academic" – irrevelant, useless, impractical, unrealistic – was arrived at from the primary one. Also, she's not convincing anyone but herself that anybody else perceives her as a man. If anyone does "treat" her like one, it is surely because they are too afraid to "trigger" her or face the repercussions of a PC faux-pas to do otherwise.

  14. Dead Horses says:

    Exactly gender is a species specific term for sex, just like a mare means a female horse a woman is a female human being…

    I really don't understand how anyone could not understand that

  15. chichi and fnaf says:

    "My academic speciality": if our best and brightest were like this a few hundred years ago, The Enlightenment would just be something that happened to other people…

  16. aitch dubbya says:

    Magdalen have you read this? TITLE My body, my choice: why are trans women denied technology that could help them carry a child? by Christin Scarlett Milloy

    AS A LIBERAL AND A FEMINIST, I am fiercely pro-choice. I believe each individual has an inalienable human right to autonomy of their body, a right that should be protected. I find it reprehensible that patriarchal legislators, overwhelmingly men, would use the power of law to limit a person's access to modern reproductive health technologies (such as birth control and abortion).

    My philosophical position on choice is certainly informed by my experience as a woman, but it is not determined by that experience–I know this because I've been pro-choice since I was a young man. As a trans woman, just like any woman who finds she is physically unable to carry a pregnancy, the question of choice–as it pertains personally–has remained a purely academic matter of ethics and morality. Because I can't get pregnant, my "personal stake" in this fight has been limited to just satisfying my activist compulsion to do right and help others. So far.

    As it happens, in the matter of choice, my own choice for my body and myself would be to carry a pregnancy–if I could.

    I've always felt parenting a child was an important goal in my life, one that I must strive for. And while I do think adoption is wonderful, I would really like to try bringing life to my own genetic offspring first. But, until recently, my options were limited by my biology. Never having ovaries or eggs, my only access to reproductive cells from my body would be sperm. Because the various medical treatments of my transition cause sterility, it was necessary for me to freeze sperm samples, which I undertook at great expense: a reproductive insurance policy, so I could make the necessary changes to my body and its chemistry without letting my potential for parenthood slip away.

    I did it, despite knowing that my only chance to eventually have my child would be if I ended up with a partner who could and would carry, or if my partner and I ultimately found a willing surrogate (which is legally complex in Canada, in yet another example of legislative limits placed on personal bodily autonomy). I did it knowing that, barring some magical development in medical technology occurring within my childbearing years, I could certainly never be pregnant, and that has always been a source of great personal anguish.

    To be clear, the ability to carry a pregnancy (or lack thereof) has no bearing on the legitimacy of any woman's identity. I am no less a woman today, nor would I be moreso if I could somehow be pregnant: My mere existence justifies my female identity and if you don't believe that, then go piss up a rope.

    My desire to commence motherhood via pregnancy rather than by other means is not about what I am, it's about who I am. An important part of who I am is the desire to create life with a partner I love, and raise a new person into the world. And for reasons beyond my awareness or control, I live with a powerful, visceral emotional imperative to physically create and hold that life safely inside me, as part of me, until it's ready to become a person.

    But that desire always stood in painful contrast to the fact I've known that pregnancy was impossible for me: until now.

    The reason I can't carry a child is that I have uterine-factor infertility (UFI). Specifically, the absence or non-function of the uterus, a condition I share with many women both cis and trans alike. Heretofore, UFI represented a hopeless and permanent barrier against gestation to all afflicted.

    Enter Uterine Transplantation (UTx): With a transplanted uterus, I and other women suffering UFI can theoretically experience gestation. UTx has long been science fiction, and yet for me it has represented a tangible thread of hope to which I secretly clung in my mind for more than a decade. Fast forward to now, and science fiction has become reality; scientists have now tried human UTx.

    In fact, in the hope to finally bring fertility to women suffering UFI, there have been a number of experimental trials. After disappointing failures in Saudi Arabia (2000) and Turkey (2011), a team of doctors in Sweden (led by Professor Mats Brannstrom) finally succeeded with a new technique in 2013, and have reported three uneventful live births with more on the way.

    So, it exists.

    I can have a baby.

    Well, maybe.

    This is precisely the point at which trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs, who call themselves feminists but hate trans women and call us men) will say that I'm trying to appropriate women's bodies, to steal and own and use parts of them for myself to satisfy a sense of male entitlement, like some kind of pregnancy Dracula. For what it's worth, I promise never to take anyone's uterus without their consent.

    Anyway, my desire for UTx is as a means to the end of my desire to carry–not motivated by some bewildering nefarious compulsion to spoil that ability in someone else. Still, while synthetic alternatives will someday appear, it's unavoidable at this early stage that the donors be women (or trans persons designated female at birth, who by the way are considered women by TERFs).

    But as long as the practice of organ donation happens within an ethical framework of informed consent, it's morally acceptable. Isn't it? Well, from under the shadow of Sweden's emerging success came Canada's far less illustrious contribution to this field of study.

    In 2012, three doctors (all men) from the Faculty of Medicine at McGill University in Montreal published a paper called 'The Montreal Criteria for the Ethical Feasibility of Uterine Transplantation: A set of proposed criteria required for a woman to be ethically considered a candidate for a uterine transplant." Wherein, they propose a series of restrictions for the application of UTx technology when it ultimately becomes available as treatment in a clinical setting.

    Some of the requirements were quite reasonable: age should be considered for health reasons, and steps must be taken to ensure the recipient isn't being coerced by a partner or family. Indeed, each requirement proposed by the doctors was unpacked, explained, and justified in granular detail. All save for one: "[Recipient] must be a genetic female." No explanation given.

    That ugly statement, that trans women should not be allowed to receive UTx, plainly made and left boldly undefended. As if it should be self-evident–as if it should go without saying (except let's just say it anyway, to make sure, since we're making the rules).

    Some of their peers must have been as upset and confused as I was, since a year later in 2013 they published an update to their paper: "Uterine transplant offers the same promise of a solution for males or trans individuals wishing to gestate a child as it does for genetic females with UFI. Nevertheless, the Montreal Criteria require that the recipient be a genetic female. This warrants both justification and discussion." Why yes, it does. So then, what were their reasons for proposing to ban trans women from UTx?

    They suggest the hypothetical possibility of complications in vascularization (properly connecting the blood vessels, so the uterus receives enough oxygen and doesn't die). However, the primary element of success in the new Swedish procedure was a novel method of achieving vascularization, which may not depend on sexual dimorphism and so this could be a non-issue.

    They were also concerned about narrow hips, and the "placement of uterus in a non-gynecoid pelvis." Well you've got me there, I do have narrower-than-average hips: Just like every other woman with narrower-than-average hips who has ever not been banned from getting pregnant. Side note, births from UTx in experimental trials are achieved by caesarian. So delivery through my "non-gynecoid pelvis" wouldn't be a concern.

    The Montreal doctors also pointed out that trans women's hormone treatments would be "more complicated." Ha! What else is new. Still, why is it that more challenging must equal banned?

    The ultimate trump card in the Montreal Criteria for the exclusion of trans women from UTx is just that there is a lack of experimental data to go on, which renders any attempt at UTx treatment for trans women in a clinical setting technically unethical.

    As I see it, that leaves only one option: experiment.

    I volunteer.

    CHRISTIN SCARLETT MILLOY is an activist, writer, and journalist based in Toronto. Her work appears often in Slate and DailyXtra.

    "My body, my choice: why are trans women denied technology that could help them carry a child?" This Magazine, July-Aug. 2015,

  17. Phoenix Chastaine says:

    It shows how vindictive, mean, and spiteful transactivists behave when they block Greers Alma mater from giving her an award, and how submissive the university adminstrations have become too them*while simultaneously* acting aggressively against Women.

    And, sorry TRANSactivists but some of you may be TRANSwomen you are NOT Women. Women are Adult human females. If you're really about self acceptance, accept *that*.

  18. Ian Paling says:

    She / he (I think) requires the use of the gender / sex binary to define who she / he is not to mention through the entire transition process!

  19. Ian Paling says:

    Male / female very convincing on first appearance!

  20. Ian Paling says:

    "Economic speciality" ermmmmmm…. sounds a tad Marx inspired?

  21. Ian Paling says:

    "Neither male or female, so by that standard cannot be transgender as by definition requires the use of the gender / sex binary!

  22. Jade Grenade says:

    Well stuff me full….. I was impregnated. I didn't give a damn, yall label lovers are attention seekers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *