Powered by Topple

Conflicted between science and inclusion, Wa-Po updates style guide to phase out the term ‘pregnant women’

Powered by Topple

At the Washington Post, words go to die in darkness. The so-called newspaper that is now just an assemblage of typists has updated its style guide in order to be more inclusive, and yet somehow less so.

The Washington Examiner reported that the Post will now use the term “pregnant individuals” when referring to women who are with child.

The news was presented in a Twitter post that has since been made private by the publication’s Instagram editor, Travis Lyles.

The word salad that serves as an explanation of the new parameters begins as follows:

“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.”

Image: Washington Examiner

Writers are admonished not to use “pregnant individuals” as a blanket term, however, for that would exclude women who either do exist or don’t exist depending upon the Left’s order of the day.

“However, we must take care that our efforts to be more inclusive do not come at the expense of other marginalized groups, such as women, and add to a feeling of exclusion.”

“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.”

Oh but it continues. Writers are instructed to explain in their stories the biological falsehood that people other than women can get pregnant.

“Depending on the context, it may be helpful to explain in the story that transgender men and people who are nonbinary can also get pregnant.”

The anonymous author of the style guide update writes, without any sense of irony, “Yes, this is a bit of a mouthful …”

Again, however, writers are reminded not to use “pregnant individuals” as the “de facto usage” because “it can come across as exclusionary to women, who are already marginalized and for whom it is impossible to separate the experience of being pregnant and giving birth from the inequities that persist specifically because of their biology.”

The update lists other terms the Post has deemed appropriate if a writer is literally at a loss for words. The terms “pregnant patients,” the “pregnant population,” and “those who are pregnant” are acceptable alternatives.

It would be fun to watch Twitter implode with reactions to the original tweet, but evidently, in anticipation of that bloodbath, the Post’s Instagram editor promptly removed it from public view. In fact, all of his tweets are private, because hey, the Washington Post is all about transparency and an open and free press.

This is all part of a continuing trend fostered by leftists who wish to remove meaning from words, eliminating some of them all together, and erase history, etymology and objective truths from American society in order to rebuild the country according to their grotesque vision.

Even the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion spending bill refers to mothers as “pregnant individuals” and “lactating individuals” on 11 occasions.

Frank Webster

Comments

Latest Articles