TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.midwife.org/ACNM/files/ACNML ... 202012.pdf

Pregnant woman is no longer the correct term. It is now "birthing individual". Just so you know.

The PC emasculation of western civilization continues... If folks don't step up to turn this around, there is only one eventual end -- the Dark Ages version 2.0.

Let me add to this thread:

I frequently hear - "We're pregnant"

No, No, WE'RE not pregnant, your wife or girlfriend is...you, the male, cannot get pregnant. You may not be a man, but you are male, wimpiness not withstanding.

Is that clear enough?

Males, don't get pregnant!

This ridiculous bit of PC nonsense drives me batty, alright battier...

Now, I don't know if this particular bit of PC puffery was dreamed up by some wacky feminist or some liberal college professor (possibly both...?) or some latte drinking metro-sexual, but it's certainly something that makes males who use this term sound like they have more estrogen influence vs. testosterone in their bloodstream, assuming it is blood in their circulation...

We are doomed.

Abraham wrote:Let me add to this thread:

I frequently hear - "We're pregnant"

No, No, WE'RE not pregnant, your wife or girlfriend is...you, the male, cannot get pregnant. You may not be a man, but you are male, wimpiness not withstanding.

Is that clear enough?

Males, don't get pregnant!

This ridiculous bit of PC nonsense drives me batty, alright battier...

Now, I don't know if this particular bit of PC puffery was dreamed up by some wacky feminist or some liberal college professor (possibly both...?) or some latte drinking metro-sexual, but it's certainly something that makes males who use this term sound like they have more estrogen influence vs. testosterone in their bloodstream, assuming it is blood in their circulation...

Abraham, I agree no male can correctly state "we're" pregnant, but you got me thinking! A woman could say that since it's her and her baby!

Puma Guy,

Are you saying the "baby" is also pregnant?

I appreciate that sounds daffy, but how else can I interpret what you stated as "we're" as it can't include the baby.

Or...?

Thanks!

Lets look at the situation from a scientific perspective.
We have three sets of people, male (M), female (F) and LGBT (X). We know only the F subset can be biologically pregnant and the M subset can not. Now lets look at subset X, it consists of F and M members.
Still, only F in subset X can be biologically pregnant but not an M of the same subset.
In order to make this statement politically correct we just need to change the word pregnant to birth giving, create a super set (Y) with F,M and X as a member and we are conform. In order to not to exclude or discriminate against the traditional thinker we just leave the original sets in coexistence.

Walking on PC egg shells is an act of verbal cowardice.

I like to keep things simple.

However, if you care to twist yourself into a verbal pretzel by all means, do so.

It's at least worth a laugh for it's sheer absurdity.

Abraham wrote:Puma Guy,

Are you saying the "baby" is also pregnant?

I appreciate that sounds daffy, but how else can I interpret what you stated as "we're" as it can't include the baby.

Or...?

Thanks!

Maybe semantically it could be wrong, but without the baby she can't be pregnant! Of course there's always the possibility the mom is schizophrenic.

Puma Guy,

See that crack in yon noggin?

It's me old gray head about to detonate!

I for one appreciate these updates on PC language so I know what phases to continue to use the most. I'll make sure to keep using "pregnant" just like I make sure to use the accurate term "illegal alien."

I was spitting out food laughing at the term "gender variant individuals".

Abraham wrote:Puma Guy,

See that crack in yon noggin?

It's me old gray head about to detonate!

Sorry! Just feeling a little bored today. I'm going to quit now and go look at some guns!

puma guy,

It's been fun.

OneGun,

"gender variant individuals" another PC prolix pretzel.