[ciiiicii]

[flagged]

[consteval]

Right, because we don’t perform c-sections on pregnant raccoons in hospitals.

The term is perfectly inclusive. It includes everyone it should, women, trans men, etc, and nobody it shouldn’t, like raccoons.

Your term isn’t like that, which is why nobody uses it. Well, I bet vets might use it, it might make sense there.

[novemp]

Yes, because it would be unforgivably woke to acknowledge women as people.

[ciiiicii]

No you've missed the point, which is that "people" includes both women and men.

Men cannot be pregnant, which is obvious from the fact that male sexual development does not produce a female reproductive system.

The term "pregnant people" is not just unnecessarily obfuscating but also linguistically erases the group of people who can actually be pregnant - that is, women.