I take issue with Therese Bottomly’s arguments related to “pregnant people” (“Letter from the Editor: Inclusive language illuminates changes in society,” Dec. 19). It doesn’t matter how some people “identify themselves.” If they are pregnant, they are women, that is just a biological fact. Biology is a science; it is not based on personal identification, but on scientific facts.
Bottomly’s argument that “1.2 million Americans identify as nonbinary” is meaningless. It doesn’t matter that this represents “more than the population of the city of Seattle or San Francisco.” It represents less than 0.4% of the U.S. population. And comparing the adoption of Ms. with the adoption of “pregnant people” (soon “pregnant men”?) is a slight exaggeration. One refers to stopping the immediate reference to the married status of women, the other one refers to a biological impossibility.
The fact that a government document refers to pregnant people is not relevant in today’s ultra-politicized atmosphere. I can almost guarantee that if an “ultraprogressive” person in the government used this expression, few others would have the courage to point out its absurdity; they would be afraid of being labeled with all kinds of unattractive adjectives.
Gabriel Farkas, Portland