Woman

FannyCornforth

Doodledog
Year 10 pupils ie GCSE students, not 10 year olds!

Bloody hell, it’s hard enough getting them to read ‘Goodnight Mr Tom’, let alone ‘The Wife of Bath’!

?

That makes a lot more sense!

Just as an aside, when we read Chaucer’s Prologue, we used to chant these lines and quite a lot of the rest of the verse about ‘ his sone, a yong squier, a lovyere and a lusty bacheler’, saying them the way they were spelled. They still stick in my mind now.

The other thing that really really irritates me is the modern way a man says ‘we are pregnant’ no ‘*we*’ aren’t pregnant we are expecting a baby but only the woman IS pregnant

Doodledog
Year 10 pupils ie GCSE students, not 10 year olds!

Bloody hell, it’s hard enough getting them to read ‘Goodnight Mr Tom’, let alone ‘The Wife of Bath’!

when the same old arguments are repeated ad nauseam.
Well change the record then? Or at least answer when people ask questions about things you post? I’d still be interested to hear how we can simultaneously not be theoretical and read more before we post, for instance.

I’m delighted to hear that the Eng Lit canon remains intact. I’m surprised that 10 year olds read Chaucer though. Quite apart from the language difficulties the content must be a struggle for them.

I think that’s probably why the other thread was removed and I agree GagaJo that the threads are boring, with the same arguments about discrimination against women are repeated ad nauseam.

Doodledog

I honestly don't think that either Shakespeare or Chaucer has been 'cancelled'.

They haven't been cancelled. I still have to trawl through the same old texts, year in, year out with years 10 to 13 at school, poor devils (I mean, I love them really, but what 15 year old is interested in Chaucer's cherries?)

I honestly think these transphobic threads are designed to bore us into submission / tolerance of the exclusion of trans people in our societies. Sadly, for me at least, it's working. I don't have the energy to fight the discrimination when the same old arguments are repeated ad nauseam.

The world has gone completely and utterly barking mad ?‍♀️

I may be being dim, but I can't work out what the lives of these literary chaps have to do with calling women 'pregnant people'.

that was Byron.
Wordsworth was more an emotional dependence.
Byron wasn't dependent on anyone, emotionally or otherwise.

I meant the affair with the sister MOnica but I might be wrong.

Both have critics who would do so.

welbeck

reproductive system is part of the human body, male and female. basic biology. men have a reproductive system, so they most of them, have reproductive capacity.
the form is not correct, either logically or biologically.
and as for chest-feeding, sounds like midnight feasts in dorm from tuck boxes.

Quite right, welbeck, the description made no sense. The first question, concerned the age you had your first period, and others asked whether you’d had a hysterectomy and how many pregnancies you’d had, so it was aimed just at women without mentioning the word.

I honestly don't think that either Shakespeare or Chaucer has been 'cancelled'.

I don’t understand the need to ‘cancel’ people like Shakespeare and Chaucer etc. Surely it’s about context and they were products of their environment at the time. They’re part of our past and denying them doesn’t make that any less true.

Lemongrove said: In case anyone is scratching their head wondering why anyone would want to use the term ‘pregnant people’ when clearly it is only people of the female sex who can get pregnant, it is to protect the sensitivities of pregnant women who identify as male.

Maybe I've led a sheltered life but I can't understand why a woman who identifies as male would be, or want to be, pregnant.

As Longfellow put it, whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

@Doodledog. I was talking about wider issues. If we carry on in this aggressive and intolerant vein I really do fear for free speech in the future.

reproductive system is part of the human body, male and female. basic biology. men have a reproductive system, so they most of them, have reproductive capacity.
the form is not correct, either logically or biologically.
and as for chest-feeding, sounds like midnight feasts in dorm from tuck boxes.

So if for example, I had had a hysterectomy and therefore do not have ‘reproductive capacity’ I would also have to leave the form blank. Reference to maggiemaybe post earlier. This is completely mad. Also I agree with what other posters have said if a pregnant woman is identifying as a man fine call them people if that’s what they feel comfortable with but why change when the majority of pregnant women are female.

Transwomen can’t give birth even if they identify as women, because they’re actually men. Transmen can give birth because they’re actually women.
Pregnant women should be allowed to be called pregnant women, but a minority are against that.

I wonder if anyone keeps records of these things? There are cases where transgender men have given birth but are there enough of them to justify the removal of the term "pregnant woman"? They seem to mainly be in relationships with transwomen who obviously can't have children. Presumably if a trans man was living with a cis woman she would probably want to be the one having the babies so the numbers of "pregnant men" must be pretty low. Just wondering.

MOnica wasn't that Wordsworth?

I always feel like singing "I am Woman" by Helen Reddy when I see the term pregnant people and people who menstruate.

Women from the past have fought long and hard to be recognised and now we are just people to appease a few.

Shakespeare has not been 'cancelled' ?

It would have been surprising if Chaucer hadn't been racist and sexist by modern standards as he was around in the 14th century.

Byron may well have been sexually incontinent, but what has any of that got to do with the thread?

A pregnant woman is a woman
A pregnant man is an impossibility
A man wishing to live as a woman is fine by me but he is not a child bearing woman