[LeapingLennie]

I lost a bit of respect for them when they did an episode about the placenta and had an apology at the start because the episode contained the word "mother" rather than "pregnant person".

I feel if you want to be a great science communicator you can't also insist on using postmodern language which will either confuse or put-off much of your audience.

[AlecSchueler]

What's confusing about the term "pregnant person?" It seems very clear to me and has the benefit of being more inclusive.

[f6v]

Because the identity politics has no meaning when we talk about biological phenomenon like pregnancy. We know that only members of female sex can get pregnant. The word “mother” is defined as female parent in a dictionary. So there’s nothing wrong with the term mother in the first place.

[AlecSchueler]

So it's not confusing, you're actually just opposed to it on a political basis.

The word mother is fine but it isn't inclusive for trans men who can also give birth. It's better for their mental health if we use gender affirming language. This is supported by research and the health services of many countries support it.

Dictionaries change every year. I think it's better to consider the health and happiness of the people around you than to be slavish to dictionary definitions.

Apologies for making this political point on Hacker News, I know it's discouraged. Just felt the need to call out the assertion that the language used was "confusing" as I know we're all smart enough here to understand simple words.

[f6v]

I don’t think it’s political at all. It’s just that in my field trans people would very likely be outside of the scope of most studies. Genomics is still expensive and including someone on HRT is going to create outliers regardless whether you assign them to male or female group. It’s not terrific to exclude them, but that’s the realities of life.

So, when I’m at a conference and someone gives a talk on how live birth leads to microbiota transfer from mother to child, it’s clear who we talk about when we say “mother”. I’m not sure there’s a case for fighting for someone’s mental health here.

[Chris2048]

> it isn't inclusive for trans men who can also give birth

Do you consider trans-men to be male or female?:

female /ˈfiːmeɪl/ adjective

Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

[AlecSchueler]

It depends on the person. In the general case I consider them men with female reproductive organs.

I've already said I'm not interested in the dictionary. That's what the word female means in the simple definition, yes, but reality is more complicated. Some women are born without ovaries, or they later have them removed. What sex would you assign to them?

[Chris2048]

> I consider them men with female reproductive organs.

I'm not asking about other labels (man, woman, mother etc). I'm asking if a trans-man can correctly be described as "female".

Saying they have "female reproductive organs" i.e. those of a female, implies they are not female, yet the definition of a female is basically "has (female) reproductive organs", so it feels like redundant semantics / wordplay.

It's like being asked "is this a red bucket" and saying "No, its a bucket thats colour is red". If you aren't being deliberately obtuse then there some conflicting root of understanding you aren't just stating outright.

> I'm not interested in the dictionary.. reality is more complicated

word are convention of meaning. other than researching common usage, that's all they are. There is no a priori "true meaning" of a word beyond their definition, whether found in a dictionary, or elsewhere.

Does rejecting the "dictionary" mean you disagree with the definition I supplied; that you have your own alternative definition; or you don't care much about what word means (but do, nonetheless, care how it's used)?

> Some women are born without ovaries

Some women have ovaries removed, others don't yet never become pregnant. Conventionally they are still referred to as female.

The word "can" in the definition implies "capability", which allows a certain level of ambiguity in definition. They belong to a biologically class capable of, and distinguished by, reproduction. Perhaps there is a grey-area in how this definition is applied, but that aside: how does that affect a conversation of whether "pregnant people" are female? We bypass the issue of "who doesn't meet the condition(s)" entirely by presenting a group that absolutely meet the condition(s), without ambiguity.

> What sex would you assign to them?

This begs the question that all individuals have a unambiguous sex.

[fractallyte]

In mammals, only the biological female has a womb. That's not "political", it's reality.

It sounds like you have an axe to grind...

[AlecSchueler]

In humans, gender is a social construct created on top of sex. It comes with a heap of socio-political norms. Some people feel that the gender assigned to them on the basis of their sex doesn't match the feeling they have about themselves or the way they would like to relate to society. For these people gender affirming language is very important to their quality of life, and their quality of life is directly tied to the well-being of their children.

> It sounds like you have an axe to grind...

Could you explain what you mean by this?

[lllkml]

And here's how it was socially constructed -

Step 1: Take all the western cultural sexist stereotypes that apply to women (female) and men (male).

Step 2: Redefine "woman" and "man" in terms of all these sexist stereotypes, instead of by sex.

Step 3: Anyone who wants to adhere to the sexist stereotypes imposed upon women is now a woman. Anyone who enjoys the sexist stereotypes associated with men is now a man. Invent the term "non-binary" for people who don't want either set of sexist stereotypes to apply to them.

Step 4: Whichever category of sexist stereotyping from Step 3 an individual feels most comfortable with becomes their "gender identity".

Step 5a: Replace sex with "gender identity" in law and policy everywhere. Formerly single-sex spaces and services are no longer separated by sex, but by which set of sexist stereotypes a person feels most comfortable performing. For example, if a male human criminal enjoys wearing dresses and make-up, incarcerate him in the women's prison.

Step 5b: Replace any language that references anyone's sex with a sex-neutral term instead, so that those who enjoy performing sexist stereotypes feel comfortable and unchallenged in their beliefs. For example, replace "expectant mother" (a term implying the female sex) with "pregnant person", just in case a female human who aligns herself with the sexist stereotyping associated with men bears a child.

[Chris2048]

> gender affirming language

Do the words "male" and "female" affirm gender (as opposed to sex)?

If there's some contradiction there, it seems an inherent property to being trans;

since in this context "pregnant person" is suggested to be fine, why doesn't the same problem arise there too?

[fractallyte]

You're on the attack over some commenters who affirm the reality of "female" vs "male".

Social constructs are abstractions, not necessarily based on reality. Feelings do not change facts; nor can facts be changed to fit one's sensibilities.

[AlecSchueler]

Consider also that in the case of lesbian couples both parents will be mothers but only one of them will go through the process of giving birth, so it's useful to have language which can account for this distinction.

Lesbian couples can become pregnant through co-parenting arrangements, sperm donation and sexual assault.

[sangnoir]

Sex and gender are not the same thing. I just checked a couple of dictionaries for "mother" and got a 2:3 mix of variations of "parent who is female" and "parent who is a woman."

You selected a definition that aligns with your worldview and make it sound like an unimpeachable, universal truth.

[f6v]

It’s not my world view, it’s the context of my area of interest, where it’s unlikely to be an issue.

People can be whatever they want, have my blessing. It’s just the whole “pregnant person” vs “mother” debate started from the scientific podcast. Mixing identity politics and biological phenomena seems a bit excessive. Nobody is trying to offend anyone when they write a Nature paper and use the world “mother”. I don’t think that the attitude of getting triggered by words is a constructive one.