Readers Respond: An Argument Against “Pregnant People”

I challenge Therese Bottomly’s arguments relating to “pregnant people” (“Letter from the Editor: Inclusive Language Enlightens Change in Society,” December 19). It doesn’t matter how some people “identify”. If they are pregnant, they are women, it is only a biological fact. Biology is a science; it is not based on personal identification, but on scientific facts.

Bottomly’s argument that “1.2 million Americans identify as non-binary” does not make sense. It doesn’t matter if it’s “more than the population of the city of Seattle or San Francisco.” It represents less than 0.4% of the American population. And to compare the adoption of Mme with the adoption of “pregnant people” (soon to be “pregnant men”?) Is a slight exaggeration. One refers to stopping the immediate reference to a woman’s marital status, the other to a biological impossibility.

The fact that a government document refers to pregnant people is irrelevant in today’s ultra-politicized atmosphere. I can almost guarantee that if one “ultra-progressive” person in government used this expression, few would have the courage to point out the absurdity of it; they would be afraid of being labeled with all kinds of unappealing adjectives.

Gabriel Farkas, Portland