Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWashington Post adds 'pregnant individuals' to style guide
Hat tip, the DCRTV.com mailbag for October 2
Washington Post adds 'pregnant individuals' to style guide
Luke Gentile
Fri, October 1, 2021, 4:51 PM EDT · 1 min read
Washington Post adds 'pregnant individuals' to style guide
When referring to pregnancy, the Washington Post will strive to be more inclusive and use the term "pregnant individuals," according to a Twitter post that has since been made private by the publication's Instagram editor.
"While biology dictates who can become pregnant, it does not always reflect gender identity," the style manual reads. "If we say pregnant women, we exclude those who are transgender and nonbinary."
However, writers can't use "pregnant individual" as a blanket term, as that would be at the expense of women who are already a marginalized group, according to the style guide.
{snip}
"If you are dealing with a situation in which you know the people identify as women, then you can appropriately use the phrase pregnant woman or pregnant women," the directive stated. "In other situations, to be more inclusive, use pregnant women and other pregnant individuals."
It can be helpful to explain that transgender men and nonbinary people can become pregnant, the Washington Post style team also suggested.
There are other "accurate" and "applicable" phrases to use if "pregnant individual" just doesn't fit the mark, the style guide passage concluded.
{snip}
Luke Gentile
Fri, October 1, 2021, 4:51 PM EDT · 1 min read
Washington Post adds 'pregnant individuals' to style guide
When referring to pregnancy, the Washington Post will strive to be more inclusive and use the term "pregnant individuals," according to a Twitter post that has since been made private by the publication's Instagram editor.
"While biology dictates who can become pregnant, it does not always reflect gender identity," the style manual reads. "If we say pregnant women, we exclude those who are transgender and nonbinary."
However, writers can't use "pregnant individual" as a blanket term, as that would be at the expense of women who are already a marginalized group, according to the style guide.
{snip}
"If you are dealing with a situation in which you know the people identify as women, then you can appropriately use the phrase pregnant woman or pregnant women," the directive stated. "In other situations, to be more inclusive, use pregnant women and other pregnant individuals."
It can be helpful to explain that transgender men and nonbinary people can become pregnant, the Washington Post style team also suggested.
There are other "accurate" and "applicable" phrases to use if "pregnant individual" just doesn't fit the mark, the style guide passage concluded.
{snip}
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 542 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Washington Post adds 'pregnant individuals' to style guide (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Oct 2021
OP
hlthe2b
(102,562 posts)1. I can appreciate the attempt to be inclusive, but it seems that women in the future will be a
non-entity. Their bodies already are not their own, so why not eliminate them as a class entirely?
It's utterly infuriating. This next battleground for women is completely different than what we faced in the past, and a real minefield.
When will this stop?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)3. How about "pregnant people"? "Individuals" is a de-humanizing term.
This is a step toward corporations are people, but women are not.