Image by Free-Photos

There appears to be something in the water in the United Kingdom. First of all, we have the police taking alleged “hate speech” more seriously than rape. While hate speech in its vilest form is utterly reprehensible, it is not comparable to rape unless the hate speech is accompanied by violence. According to the Avon & Somerset Police, painting your nails bright colors means you’re in solidarity with those who are suffering from modern slavery (hint: it’s not).

22490084_513346559042297_3447157402414054045_n

Maybe these are just lone instances. So what’s happening now? In a move that sounds like it was ripped straight off Tumblr, the UK Foreign Office has written to the United Nations “to make the change to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that the death penalty ‘shall not be carried out on pregnant women’,” according to The Guardian. Out of context, it sounds like they’re asking for pregnant women to be allowed to receive the death penalty. Nope, it’s much simpler than that. They want to change the term “pregnant women” to “pregnant person”, claiming that using the word women is not inclusive to transmen. According to a Foreign Office spokeswoman:

The UK does not object to the use of the term ‘pregnant woman…We strongly support the right to life of pregnant women, and we have requested that the human rights committee does not exclude pregnant transgender people from that right to life.

According to fellow English newspaper The Times, there have been two reported cases  of pregnant transgender men. Yes, that’s right, two. The United Kingdom’s Foreign Office wishes for the United Nations to change legislature because of two people. More than likely there are more than these two recorded cases, but surely this can’t number more than a couple dozen. Changing the law for two people is utterly absurd, and changing a true statement because of these people is more than absurd.

There is nothing wrong with being transgender. The problem lies in that, once a female-to-male transgender person starts passing as male, they would not enjoy the idea of being pregnant. Transgender men suffering from crippling dysphoria would not be able to stand pregnancy. It’s their body betraying them. They identify as male, i.e. unable to give birth. And this doesn’t even include hormone blockers, which halt feminine traits like a functioning womb.

Concerned that the term “pregnant women” may exclude transgender people? Well, you shouldn’t. The fact of the matter is: only women can give birth. It’s been the same for millennia. Transmen have methods in place to stop themselves giving birth, whether that is taking The Pill, hormone blockers, or having bottom-down surgery. Transwomen already see them themselves as women. They are just like infertile non-trans women: still women, just unable to give birth.

The purpose of this change of wording seems to be only to appease the Social Justice Left. Most seem to be against the change of wording, except those you’d usually find on Tumblr. Prime Minister Theresa May is against the change, stating:

Of course pregnant women is an acceptable term.

Now, that might not count for much to many Britons, but May is not the only person against this absurd change of legislature. “Pregnant person” is such an alien term, and it sounds like something said by robots or PR people. It’s only a matter of time before it’s changed because “person” has the word “son” in it, and “son” implies maleness, and pregnancy shouldn’t be gendered. Maybe “pregnancy-equipped being of mammalian nature”?

It also brings up a whole slew of uncomfortable new questions. If anyone can get pregnant, then why all the fuss about “men” controlling “women’s” pregnancy decisions? If “people” in general can fall pregnant, then surely these evil patriarchs in charge can decide whether abortion should be legal, considering they are people.

The Foreign Office isn’t even speaking on behalf of trans people, just on behalf of those who wish to police everyone. It is virtue signalling to an entirely new degree: changing the law just to cater to approximately two out of 65.64 million people.

Biological women have been able to become pregnant since the beginning of human existence. For the UK’s Foreign Office to say we should change “pregnant women” to “pregnant people” is an insult to biological women throughout history who have given birth. While the Foreign Office themselves may say they’re not against women, they seem to be the most fervent haters, not even allowing women to claim the thing they can do over men.

Or maybe the Foreign Office is smarter than we give them credit, changing it to “pregnant person” so anyone can identify as “pregnant” and thus avoid facing the death penalty where otherwise they would ultimately face death.

One thing stands: The United Kingdom’s Foreign Office mustn’t have much to deal with if their main focus appears to be on one word in United Nations legislature. You can use the term “pregnant person” personally if you wish, but the UN should not change the wording.