Washington Post adds 'pregnant individuals' to style guide

[mahatmakanejeeves]

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}

[hlthe2b]

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?

[Percy]

2. Exactly.

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]

3. How about "pregnant people"? "Individuals" is a de-humanizing term.

This is a step toward corporations are people, but women are not.