FENLON TO THE RESCUE

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

For Fenlon's rescue, see below.

Language does not change biology. But so-called polite manners—what we’re told is “kind” or “inclusive” or "civil"—warps and harmonizes cultural reality just enough to reshape how people behave, how policies evolve, and lately, how whole classes of humans disappear from public speech.

And right now, it is happening to women, the female sex.

We are watching our sex being booted out of the lexicon, in real time, under the banner of "gender" and inclusivity. That’s not progressive mannering. It’s insane. It's erasure. News-outlet editors, touting inclusivity, tell reporters and columnists to say "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women."

Let’s Talk About MALE GODS and Power.

And Myth. And the FEMALE "Womb."

Throughout history, Euro-Asian patriarchy has been obsessed with the female body—especially the uterus. The one creative function men cannot perform is gestation, so for millennia, they’ve mythologized pregnancy, appropriated pregnancy, symbolically rewritten and recast pregnancy to suit their own dominant purposes.

Here’s a selection of instances wherein male-dominated cultures stole "the womb":

• Zeus (Greek) gives birth to Athena from his head after swallowing her pregnant mother, Metis—usurping female power directly.

• Dionysus (Greek) emerges from Zeus’s thigh, conveniently cutting women out of the reproductive equation.

• Kumarbi (Hittite) swallows the genitals of another god and ends up birthing a new generation from his belly.

• Atum (Egypt) ejaculates the world into being—sometimes through sneezing, spitting, or masturbation. Women? Copied, and thus, optional.

• Marduk (Babylonian) dismembers Tiamat, the primordial goddess, and creates the cosmos from her corpse.

• Vishnu (India), male, births Brahma from a lotus (the female flower) in his navel—symbolic male reproduction again.

• Loki (Norse) shape-shifts into a mare, gets pregnant, and gives birth to a horse.

• Noah (Jew/Christian) in his god-blessed Ark, is the first Adam. Creation, salvation, order—all done on male terms.

• And in modern days, what about the gentle blue-mantled Mary? The mother of Christ is worshipped because she’s a passive element in the trinity gods' incestuous liaison. Immaculate (she gives birth without sex, the original sin), constantly chaste, and of course, silent. How many pregnant women (raped by outsiders) are told to be silent? The Virgin Mary has usurped some of the power of life-giving male gods as the Christian transformation of older goddesses: nurturing, interceding, pure yet powerful, and accessible in ways a male god is not.

  
  

Across these stories, even and including the Virgin Mary, lies the same message: female biology must be claimed, cleansed, replaced, or redefined. Women are passive. Men are agents.

North American Indigenous Traditions Knew Better

Matrilineal. Matrilocal. Grounded in the earth. These many and various cultures respected female generativity. For instance, Sky Woman (Haudenosaunee), through her fall and nurturing, becomes the first mother, the earth, and the origin of life. Her story teaches her people respect for women: women are central to creation, life springs from women's sacrifice and male-female cooperation, and the natural world is infused with spiritual meaning.

You'll find there's no coincidence in the timing of exactly when these matrilineal worldviews were violently suppressed—usually right alongside the women who carried them.

Enter 2025: A New Myth, A New Theft

Today, the act of replacing “pregnant women” with “pregnant people” might look progressive. It’s not. This isn’t an inclusive shift. It’s an asymmetric one.

• A group of men—even if it includes a sperm-producing trans woman—is still called men.

• A group of women—including a single trans man—is reduced to people.

Only one sex loses its group name. Only one sex is being asked to step aside. In the name of gender women are supposed to surrender their self-referencing code.

What Does Current Civility Cost Women?

As a former head of a Canadian Studies program with expertise in critical mass theory, I’ve seen this before: When a small but highly organized group reaches sufficient visibility, the group can shift policy—even when the broader public is uneasy or opposed.

James Carville (a US Democrat) claimed "wokeness" was one reason women voters turned en masse to elect their country's worst internal enemy in its nation's history.

Today, most women I know—from lawyers to nurses to writers—feel something is wrong. They see the asymmetry. They know they’re being asked to give up something fundamental. But they won’t say so publicly.

Why? Because the personal cost is brutal. Say “pregnant women” in the wrong tone or in the wrong place, and you're branded a bigot—no matter how left-leaning, inclusive, or feminist you are. The silencing is real. And institutional.

WE 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

This is Christian nationalism (Christo-fascism) with a policy manual.

And if the 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 in the face of left-wing smugness?

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 to do better in Olympic contests and at self-protection, but we do not have the upper body strength men have––that's simply a biological fact. If women are asked to give up the mentioning of and then their real-time power over birth, why aren't men asked to give up something? Anything? Weight-lifting?

I asked, genuinely: What are men being asked to relinquish in the name of progressive inclusion? Crickets. Because, as per usual, there is nothing men must give up.

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 diversity. Haudenosaunee stories about two-spirited individuals co-existed with creation stories about Sky Woman.

But now, there's no sex-gender co-existence. You may want to, but no. You can't support the social inclusion of trans gendered people and still claim the rights of basic sex biology. Furthermore, to oppose the noun phrase "pregnant people" is to risk exile—either from your academic institution or your progressive community.

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 bodies.

Language Manners are not always Progressive

Courtesy is not neutral (ask your boss about the company's power structure). Language manners are not always progressive (ask Margaret Mitchell ---- Gone With The Wind---- about the language manners of the Confederate South). CBC's inclusive editorial policies are not harmless (ask women how they feel about their biology being culturally erased). 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.

Say woman. Say it plainly. Say "pregnant woman" and "pregnant women" without apology.

Because if we don’t, no one else will.

Tell CBC to cut it out. Tell the left to stop doing the right’s work for them. Tell the world that this isn’t progress. It’s erasure.

And if that sounds dramatic, good—because it is.

CHART

• Male Gods Who Claim Creative/Birthing Power

Region	Deity	Birth Claim	Means/Substitution	Notes
Greece	Zeus	Births Athena (from skull); births Dionysus (from thigh)	Head, thigh instead of womb	Usurps female role by swallowing or killing mother
Hittite	Kumarbi	Births Teshub and others after swallowing sky god’s genitals	Head, penis, thighs	Extreme bodily substitution; violent assertion of male fertility
Norse	Loki	Gives birth to Sleipnir after shapeshifting into a mare	Literal biological transformation	Only myth where a male figure truly becomes female to give birth
Egypt	Atum	Creates gods Shu and Tefnut from himself (spit/masturbation)	Ejaculation = creation	Male reproductive power imagined without womb or woman
Mesopotamia	Marduk	Creates world from dismembered Tiamat	Dismemberment of female chaos	Creation via domination and destruction of primordial mother
India (Hindu)	Brahma/Vishnu	Brahma births the world; Vishnu births Brahma from a lotus in his navel	Thought, speech, body transformation	Bypasses womb; emphasizes mind-body male generativity
Christianity	God the Father	Authors the Virgin Birth through divine will	No female agency in conception	Mary is passive vessel; male deity is source of life
Andes (Inca)	Viracocha	Creates sun, moon, people—often without female counterpart	Speech, stone, will	Centralizes male creativity, suppresses role of feminine
Amazon (Shamanic)	Male shamans	"Birth" spirit beings, songs, or powers through ayahuasca visions	Visionary womb metaphor	Symbolic appropriation of gestation, often with reverence
China (Daoist)	Alchemical adepts	Seek to generate immortal spirit inside themselves (symbolic pregnancy)	Spiritualized inner womb	Seeks to bypass female biology via metaphysical reproduction

---

Fenlon to the Rescue

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 (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 as an academic. In any case, Fenlon cheats. Calling a legitimate philosophical point reductive is a fancy way of being dismissive. Fenlon does not wish to fully engage with the current and past documentation of male-dominated cultures' female-gestation erasures.

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.") CBC's choice of language, the noun phrase pregnant people, erases mention of women. You say pregnant people does not erase women. That's pure gaslighting. You could use the phrase, pregnant women in the company of pregnant trans men . . . That's inclusive, but the expression is likely costly in terms of extra print. 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 up 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 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 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.” You chose erasure. Erasure is cheaper and certainly less cumbersome than adding a tag reference to trans men. You at CBC find the issue easier to handle when you sweep women's biology under a masculine carpet. Talk about reductive. Fenlon is not just a gaslighter, but also the purveyor of a harmful and an illogical argument. By the way, would a trans man and other exclusive gender defenders find the tag (added to pregnant women), and pregnant trans men, offensive? The answer to this question would be illuminating.

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