FENLON TO THE RESCUE
- Author Minsos
- Jul 1
- 13 min read
Updated: Sep 4
Why the Expression “Pregnant People” Alarms Me
Myth, Language, and the Return of Civil and Cultural Erasure and the End of Social Acknowledgement of Feminine Power
Brodie Fenlon is head of the taxpayer-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
Fenlon: It is reductive to question the explanation offered you [for the use of the phrase pregnant people] because the writer is male.
Minsos: :) Holy shit, that's nasty. When men tell women not to be concerned about the expression “pregnant people,” they enact an old-timey gesture of privilege—the privilege of ignorance, which Shakespeare (of course) tells us is completely characteristic of the culturally powerful: Without lived experience, the powerful one decides how the less powerful should feel.
In King Lear, for instance, the Fool scolds the king for the king’s lack of insight—aka, Lear’s figurative blindness—because a royal personage is necessarily blind to lesser beings' sufferings and tribulations.
The Fool (in today's society, often played by a woman) reminds us of an important fact: A man in the role of privilege does not know what barriers a "lesser" female being has endured in her career, say, as an abused academic.
In any case, Fenlon cheats. Calling a legitimate philosophical point reductive is a fancy way of his being dismissive as well as condescending. Fenlon does not wish to engage with a woman on contemporary and historical female-gestation erasures––not even for a second. Clearly, NOT engaging with a philosophical point reduces the point to nothingness. Who, in this instance, is being reductive? Fenlon!
Fenlon: It [the use of the noun phrase pregnant people] is an act of inclusion, not an act of erasure.
Minsos: (Tell your pal AI not to start so many sentences with "it.") Concerning the CBC's choice of language, the noun phrase, pregnant people, erases mention of women. You say the phrase, pregnant people, does not erase women. That's pure gaslighting. Because whoa, I am looking at a phrase that literally does not mention women. You could use the expression, pregnant women and (checks notes) a pregnant trans man . . . that's inclusive, but the additional tag is likely to be costly ––what with the investigative reporting involved to check out the gender of the pregnant female (does she feel like a man?)––, to say nothing of the cumbersome wordiness.
Still, on the gaslighting, sticking with Shakespeare as illustration ––Then, there’s the famous lord and mansplainer, Petruchio. In The Taming of the Shrew, Petruchio insists on renaming Kate, reshaping her identity, even denying her experience of hunger and cold, declaring: “It shall be what o’clock I say it is.”
Drawing upon the contemporary power dynamics with a brutal display of dominance (much to the satisfaction of the twentieth-century's US Republican men, men as secure in their role as protectors as Little Iodine's pop, Henry Temblechin), Shakespeare allows Petruchio to break Katherina's will. Will the CBC break our will? As you see from our exchange (below), Fenlon declares the CBC will continue to use the "inclusive" term “pregnant people” and not the factually accurate “pregnant women.”
Fenlon denies reality; he is a gaslighter, just like Petruchio. Fenlon, the Lear of CBC, tells me and the entire female sex, whose biology is made for gestation, you matter far less to your culture than the (very!) few pregnant women who feel like men. Fenlon: “It shall be what o’clock I say it is.”
CBC chooses speech erasure. Erasure is cheaper and certainly less cumbersome than adding a tag reference to include trans men (women who feel like men). Talk about reductive––one sex is reduced to the name of the species. The lioness is just another lion. The actress is just another actor. The hostess is just another host. The pregnant woman is just another person. Because no one exhibiting a modicum of basic logic stops him from claiming men are women, Fenlon gleefully waves Petruchio's gaslight in front of the Canadian public. Humbug!
WOMEN ARE WARNED: Look at Project 2025
Don’t believe this is a serious issue? Look south. Project 2025, backed by the Heritage Foundation and Trump’s former cabinet, lays it bare. This project is not theoretical. It’s funded. It’s detailed. It’s ready.
Here’s what Project 2025 proposes:
A nationwide abortion ban
Legal personhood starting at conception
Restrictions on IVF and contraception
A federal return to enforced sex roles (A vague threat, enough to alarm the gay population as well women, –– put women back into the Flintstones' keep-your-hubby-happy kitchen)
This is Christian nationalism (Christo-fascism) with a policy manual.
And if the screaming righteous left won't allow us to use the word woman when fighting for our reproductive rights, how exactly are we female centrists supposed to resist the right-wing patriarchy? Right-wingers have glommed onto the trans issue like flies on Ferdinand, delighted when left wingers call us bigots or TERFS––all because we want simply to protect ourselves from cultural erasure. I, personally, if anyone cares to know (?), have no issue with trans people ––what they wear, where they use washrooms, what medical treatment they need and receive–– all those things are none of my business. Sports, language, cultural erasure, and that horrifying Project 2025, do have me concerned about where the trans business is pushing us.
The CBC's Courteous Condescending Silencing
When I wrote to the CBC Ombudsman about "pregnant people," I received a civil, affirming, form-letter response. The advisor—a man—assured me the term “pregnant people” was inclusive and aligned with the broadcaster’s values.
But there was no acknowledgment of the asymmetry. No recognition only one sex is being asked to erase mention of their their biological power.
No progressive voice is asking men to stop body-building and desist increasing their upper-body strength to accommodate the needs of women, who may die after one punch to the head. Women can and do train hard, both in sports and fighting, aiming, for instance, to do better in Olympic contests or at self-protection, but we do not have the upper body strength, the gobs of testosterone, or the skeletal structure men have––that's simply a biological fact. The fastest woman in the world will never outrun the fastest man. If women are asked to give up mentioning our ONE winning power, why aren't men asked to give up something? Anything? Running? Weight-lifting?
I asked, genuinely: What are men being asked to relinquish in the name of progressive inclusion? What are men doing to make trans women (men who feel like women) and trans men (women who feel like men) feel more wanted in their masculine spaces?
Pregnant People = The People Van.
Ha! Men are not surrendering the name of the MAN VAN, a screening truck for prostate cancer, to accommodate trans folks' feelings. Prostate is a part of the male anatomy. (Just as a uterus is part of the female anatomy.) As per usual, there is nothing men will give up, especially when they feel their cockeyed playing fields are under attack. They're not stupid. Only women have to countenance the erasing expressions, like "pregnant people." Men, wisely, want no part of the gender explosion and the ensuing sex-rights erosion.
I Am Not Alone
Across generations and disciplines, many women feel the same: this language shift wasn’t debated. It wasn’t voted on. Change was implemented (passive voice) in an attempt to welcome a group whom settler society ostracized.
May one remind Euro-Asia-centric people of another long-past history: North American Indigenes accepted personal "genders" in their cultures without erasing an entire sex to accommodate gender diversity. Haudenosaunee stories about two-spirited and cross-spirited individuals co-existed with many wonderful creation stories about Sky Woman.
But someone has to say it. “Pregnant people” is nonsense. Pregnant people occupies the first page of a very old script. And it ends—just like it always does—with the cultural erasure of women's control over their biology and their bodies.
Language Manners are not always Progressive
Courtesy is not neutral (ask your bosses about the company's power structure when you don't offer them the appropriate deference). Language manners are not always progressive (ask Margaret Mitchell ---- Gone With The Wind---- about the language manners of the Confederate South and the polite erasure of an entire ethnicity). CBC's polite and inclusive editorial policies are not harmless (ask women how we feel about our biology being culturally removed from the lexicon). If we let this issue go—if we, the majority of the population, allow ourselves to be spoken over by the loudest factions on either left or right side—then yes, we will be written out again.
And this time, the signature at the bottom will be our own silence.
Tell CBC to cut it out. Tell the left to stop doing the right’s work for them. Tell the world that the phrase, pregnant people, isn’t progress. It’s nuts.
CHART
Male Gods Who Claim Creative/Birthing Power
Further Reading: Letter exchange with CBC top brass, Brodie Fenlon and Paul Moore. These exchanges are released for two reasons: CBC is a public broadcaster, owned by taxpayers; and most important, the language-choice issue needs a thorough public airing.
Dear CBC Ombudsman (or Ombud, as you now call yourself)
I am writing as a concerned Canadian viewer, app follower, and long-time supporter of public broadcasting. I would like to raise an issue about the CBC’s use of the term “pregnant people” in its reporting and public communications.
Before outlining my concern, let me be clear. Self disclosure: I support inclusion. I support unisex washrooms. I support the dignity and human rights of transgender Canadians. I also consider myself politically left-leaning and committed to equity.
Nonetheless, I cannot understand why CBC, in an effort to be inclusive, would adopt offensive terminology, that which effectively erases women from language in the context of one of the most defining, embodied experiences of female biology: pregnancy.
While a very small percentage of trans or non-binary individuals experience pregnancy, the overwhelming majority of people who become pregnant are, of course, women. To systematically replace the word “women” with “people” in this context may appear inclusive on the surface, but it inadvertently obliterates reference to the main function of an entire sex—and, I would argue, perpetuates a form of linguistic misogyny. It also risks alienating viewers and listeners—many of whom are women—who feel erased by this shift in language.
Language matters. If the CBC is committed to equity, I urge you to find language that balances inclusion with accuracy and respect for the reality of sex-based experiences.
I trust you will take this concern seriously. I would appreciate a response clarifying CBC’s editorial position on this matter, and whether any review of this practice is under consideration for a change. Let me remind you of a fun fact: Women who feel like men are biologically women. The rise in misogyny (men and some women who feel they hate women) is growing, world-wide, and responsible media outlets, world-wide, are recognizing how language contributes to the pain of ostracized women, who are silenced in far too many cultures.
Let’s hope and trust CBC will soon deem it editorially okay to respectfully refer to “pregnant women,” because, simply, that’s one way to prevent devastating cultural and linguistic erasure, which a majority of Canada’s women fear is happening globally.
Susan Minsos, PhD
Dear Susan Minsos:
I am the Senior Adviser for Journalistic Standards and Language at CBC News. I am writing to reply to your email sent on June 24, and copied below, to the CBC Ombud.
Part of my role involves ensuring that the language used by CBC News aligns with the principles of the CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices (JSP): fairness, accuracy, balance, impartiality and integrity. Brodie Fenlon, the General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, asked me to reply.
Our rigorous journalistic principles require use of language that is accurate to the particular circumstances of a story and that “we invest our time and our skills to learn, understand and clearly explain the facts to our audience.”The JSP also says that “all Canadians, of whatever origins, perspectives and beliefs, should feel that our news and current affairs coverage is relevant to them.” In other words, the language used by CBC News journalism must be clear, precise and inclusive.
When used in the context of describing anyone who may be pregnant, the term “pregnant people” meets all of those objectives of clarity, precision and inclusivity. As you referenced, it accurately describes and includes women, yes, but so too encompasses others who may be pregnant such as transgender men, people who are non-binary or intersex individuals.I would add that, contrary to your concern, the words “pregnant woman” or “pregnant women” are at no risk of being banned in CBC publications or broadcasts. That language would be entirely appropriate when describing a specific individual who identifies as a woman and is pregnant or, in the plural, to describe a group of people who all identify as women and are pregnant.
Again, I want to thank you for writing to us.
We constantly evaluate our use of language at CBC News, and your message was a helpful contribution to those conversations.
Paul Moore (he/him)
Senior Adviser
CBC Journalistic Standards and Language
Dear sir,
Thank you for your reply.
. . . . I feel compelled to respond further.
Language inclusion is a worthy and necessary goal. But it must be balanced with clarity, truth, and democratic legitimacy. Pregnancy is not a linguistically neutral phenomenon. It is a woman’s issue—biologically, historically, and socially. While a small number of gendered individuals may experience pregnancy, redefining the lexicon primarily through their lens risks erasing the majority it affects.
Critical mass theory teaches us that when even a small but well-organized group reaches sufficient visibility within institutions, that group can shift policy—especially if the broader population is hesitant to speak out, fearing reprisal or mischaracterization, especially on social media. This appears to be the case here: many women I know, from across all disciplines and generations, are deeply uneasy that such a profound shift in language has occurred without broad debate or consent, but they’re reluctant to face off with men such as yourself (or with some other right-wing women) who will certainly accuse them either of bigotry or woke-ness. I should add, during June our household hangs outside our Pride and Indigenous flags. Our family believes in inclusion, unisex facilities, and medical treatment for all in need.
But, re: the issue of balance and fairness, I ask: why us? What are men being asked to relinquish, linguistically, for the sake of inclusion and balance? One pregnant woman is a woman but a group of pregnant women is a “people”? Like one crow is a crow and a group of crows is a murder? We don’t speak this way about men. A group of men is just, you know, a group of “men.” The cultural male default is always at work.
Creating life is a female prerogative and one that “man” has been trying to usurp since Noah’s Ark.
Lastly, I must express disappointment that a man was selected to reply to a concern about pregnancy—a deeply woman’s issue. I had hoped that a woman, cis or trans, would engage with me directly, given the embodied, lived nature of the topic.
This is not a call for exclusion, but for balance. I am asking that women—who are overwhelmingly the ones who become pregnant—remain front and central in the lexicon used to describe that reality—thus a redo of the headline: “Pregnant women should take extra care in extreme heat.”
This particular lexicon issue is a woman’s issue, and honestly, you won’t find many women thrilled about how you at CBC are taking it upon yourselves to group-identify us as “people.”
Anecdotally, I offer this evidence: the left-leaning young women and girls I know are afraid to speak up, because as usual with women, they’ll be called every awful “bitch-type name” in the book. I feel bad for them. As you can tell, I don’t care. Nonsense is nonsense. And saying “pregnant people” defies reason.
By citing your journalistic standards, you are not convincing any woman I know that you’re right or reasonable on this issue.
Susan Minsos
Dear Susan Minsos,
Thank you for your articulate and passionate reply to our explanation as to why, and when, CBC uses the term “pregnant people.” I appreciate your perspective and understand that it’s based on both academic expertise and life experience. I also understand that you’re coming from a place of respect for inclusion and diversity, and harbour no “anti-trans” sentiments whatsoever. Finally, I fully acknowledge the constraints and threats under which women world-wide live, and the evolving nature of those threats. Our journalism reflects that reality.
That said, with respect, I don’t agree with the conclusion you’ve reached - that the use of the phrase “pregnant people” contributes to - as you describe it - “devastating cultural and linguistic erasure which a majority of Canada’s women fear is happening globally.” Please allow me to explain.
I’ll start with what is perhaps the most obvious. The journalistic principles we operate under, and the language guidelines that govern us, are not a “male” preserve. The fact that our Senior Adviser for Journalistic Standards and Language is a man, and I as Editor-in-Chief am a man, is co-incidental, not determinative. Our JSP was arrived at after extensive consultation with CBC journalists and editorial leaders not only across the country, but of a wide-range of gender, sexual orientation, racial and other identities. And like any set of codified principles, how we understand and apply our JSP evolves as the world we live in evolves, with input not only from those who work here, but from our Ombudsman and, always, from our audiences. As a result, it is reductive to question the explanation offered you because the writer is male.
More to the point: I’m sure this is not what you intended, but your approach to the issue seems to be based on the premise that rights granted to one group diminish or threaten rights granted to another. With respect, I do not agree. To acknowledge in the category of those who can and do become pregnant people other than cis-gendered women is not to derogate from or threaten the rights of such women. It is an act of inclusion, not an act of erasure.
Finally, when a collective involves more than just cis-gendered men, we also use “people.” This no more erases men than it erases women. To suggest there is something inherently sexist in this usage, as a result, does not bear scrutiny.
To conclude, I accept that your view of this question is unlikely to be altered by what I’ve said here. But please know that your input is not only instructive, it is welcome. I appreciate both your attention to our language use and to our journalistic principles. And I wish you all the best.
Yours,
Brodie
Comments