This applies very narrowly. A GRC allows "acquired gender" to replace sex when sex is ascertained by birth certificate, which is only done in limited circumstances. This is distinct, in law, from actually being that sex.
Irrelevant, we are talking about gender, which is distinct from sex. It remains that “pregnant people” is a plainer and more accurate way of talking about people that are pregnant.
Socially it depends on how well they manage to disguise themselves as male. Being visibly pregnant is a very obvious indicator that a woman who is attempting to present herself as a man is not actually a man.
Who would go to the trouble of transitioning, against the vicious judgement of some people, if not to try to live a more authentic life? I am (visibly) non-binary, and I can tell you, I don’t do this just for the hell of it.
Are you having a nice time repeatedly misgendering one of my trans siblings? I see what you’re doing. A bit of basic social respect costs nothing, you know.
And “visibly” as in I get funny looks and sometimes shouted abuse from passing cars. Is that enough for you?
So is looking unusual in some undefined way is what "visibly non-binary" means? I genuinely do not have any reference point for this description, and certainly couldn't tell if someone is or isn't based on looks.
My male colleague who self-describes with a "non-binary" identity has no obvious visual markers of this.
Discussion was about the made up pregnancy "inclusivity" bs, when only owners of a functioning uterus can get pregnant, and those would be biological women by an overwhelming majority.
You are free to call yourself whatever made up gender you want in public and social life, but to the doctor treating you at the ER or to the forensic specialist examining your skeletal remains, you are still a biological woman according to science.
No such thing as a “biological woman”. I’ve only ever heard medics in the UK use careful and restricted terms when discussing sex - “male” and “female” at most, and only when relevant. Clearly it is sometimes relevant and no-one is disputing that. The whole purpose of inclusive language is to cover everyone, not just an “overwhelming” majority. It harms no-one to say “pregnant people”; it is a plain and clear term.
>The whole purpose of inclusive language is to cover everyone, not just an “overwhelming” majority.
Science and medicine deals in absolute details, not in blankets covering everyone. When a doctor needs to treat you, they need to know your sex, weight and age, since the dose or treatment is highly specific on those variables, there's no such thing as an inclusive thing to cover everyone the same. Inclusivity here would get you killed.
> It harms no-one to say “pregnant people”
It also helps no-one now, and it also harmed no-one in the past to say "pregnant women", since no-one other than women can get pregnant. So why did it have to be changed other than for virtue signaling?
“Woman” is not a biological sex, it simply isn’t. You are ignoring that trans men (legally and socially not women), along with some intersex people (neither biologically male or female, by definition, and legal gender varies), and cisgender girls of a sufficient age can all get pregnant. Not to mention some non-binary people. So there are plenty of people other than women that can get pregnant.
