'Pregnant people' or 'expectant mothers'? Should we mind our language?

SARAH PUYATIER explores how the recent proliferation of inclusive language guidance has led to accusations of 'woke virtue-signalling'

How would you feel if you read or heard the term ‘pregnant people’? Would it make you upset? Would you feel it erases womanhood? Or perhaps you'd feel indifferent? Maybe it even feels more accurate and you might therefore feel more 'seen'?

In 2025, when BBC newsreader Martine Croxall “corrected” the scripted ‘pregnant people’ to ‘women’ whilst pulling a facial expression, it was, according to the BBC Executive Complaints Unit, "variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt or exasperation" (BBC, 6 November 2025). They reprimanded her for this because her actions did not adhere to the BBC's standards of impartiality.

This in turn sparked criticism in certain circles. JK Rowling, known for her controversial views on transgender identity, showed her support for Croxall, quoted in The Sun newspaper as asserting: “I have a new favourite BBC presenter.” And The Sun’s Piers Morgan called the BBC’s reprimand of Croxall “[p]athetic” (The Sun, 6 November 2025). Clearly, people feel very strongly about language and its regulation, but why, and why might it matter?

The role of inclusive language guides

Much of the advice about language regulation is published in 'inclusive language guides'. They provide alternative language options for what they claim is discriminatory and exclusive language in order to facilitate more inclusivity.

To explain why inclusive language matters, the University of Leeds’ Inclusive Language Guidance asserts for instance that “[l]anguage is powerful and it can help to shift attitudes and behaviours”. Their stated aim is to promote “equality, diversity and inclusion” through inclusive language and they underline the importance of practicing empathy.

Oxfam’s Inclusive Language Guide similarly aims to encourage language that does not imply discriminatory concepts in favour of language that challenges these concepts and underlying structures to support marginalized people (2023, p. 6). In the section that aims at promoting gender justice, Oxfam advises to replace the term ‘mankind’ with alternatives such as ‘human beings’ or ‘human kind’ because ‘mankind’ is inherently associated with maleness (p.27). Similarly, they promote the use of ‘spokesperson’ instead of ‘spokesman’ and to use ‘workforce’ or ‘human effort’ instead of ‘manpower’ (2023). They also suggest avoiding ‘mother’ or ‘father’ to prevent assumptions about gender roles and consider using ‘parent’ as a replacement (p.39).

Inclusive language critics

However, Oxfam’s guide received lots of criticism from right-wing news media. For instance, Daily Mail columnist Andrew Neil claimed: “It’s easy to scoff at woke nonsense like Oxfam’s language guide. But it’s not a fad - it’s a sinister cultural sea change” (Daily Mail, 17 March 2023).

The Daily Mail cited various opponents of the guide such as Toby Young of the Free Speech Union who claimed it “was hard to take all of this woke virtue-signalling seriously” and Tory MP Nigel Mills who alleged that “Oxfam are trying to take the word ‘woman’ out of the dictionary – it’s nonsense!”.

  The Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) Inclusive Language Guide – which suggests ‘cleaners’ instead of ‘cleaning ladies’, ‘police officers’ instead of ‘police men’ and ‘partner/spouse’ instead of ‘boyfriend/wife/husband’ – was also subject to much criticism (2023, p. 8). GB News reported that “Free Speech Union director Lord Young of Acton accused the CII of ‘pandering to woke dogma’ and told the trade body to ‘man up’”. And Director of Don't Divide Us, Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, asked “[d]oes the Chartered Insurance Institute need a crash course in common sense?” (5 October, 2025).

Rationalising feelings about language regulation

It is important to try and explore why some people feel so strongly against being asked to use inclusive language. In their English Language textbook Language, Society and Power, Mooney and Evans note that one of the reasons is that people are reluctant to see language use as political (2019, p.20). This view would in turn make the idea of so-called ‘politically correct’ or ‘woke’ language seem illogical and meaningless.

Also, even though language change is inevitable, people resist language reform because, according to Burridge (1996, as cited in Mooney & Evans, 2019, p. 20), they “don’t like linguistic change” and “resent being told what to do with their language because it seems like censorship”.

Additionally, Burridge (1996, as cited in Mooney & Evans, 2019, p. 20) points out that people object to regulating their language because it makes them feel “uncomfortable when told that a term they thought was neutral or offensive is actually laden with meanings they did not intend”. People are afraid to be judged and censored for their language and, by extension, their character. Ultimately, you can always be judged for your language. In this case you might either be judged as a bigoted person when using, perhaps unknowingly, offensive language or you might be ridiculed for being a sensitive ‘woke’ ‘snowflake’ who feels offended by words

In other academic research published in the Discourse and Society journal, Cammaerts underlines that those with anti-inclusive right-wing views have weaponised ‘wokeness’, changing its meaning from the initial fight against social injustice and discrimination to a "supposed progressive over-reaction” (2022, p. 736) and problematises how opposing hate speech is no longer represented as a moral issue but an ideological ‘opinion’ of an ‘irrational mob’ (2022, p. 735).

Equally, they see their hate speech as an 'opinion' and when people oppose it, it is represented as an infringement on their freedom of speech which in turn allows them to frame 'wokeism' as 'cancel culture' and the 'woke' as an extremist authoritarian threat. According to Cammaerts, this helps fuel the 'anti-woke agenda' and normalise fascist views.

Language discrimination victims

Finally, there are the voices affected by discrimination that indicate what inclusive language means to them. Simon Croft, Director of Educational and Professional Services at Gendered Intelligence, explains that misgendering - being referred to with gendered words that do not align with your gender identity - is one of the most common issues trans people encounter, and explains the consequential feeling through the metaphor of a mosquito bite where it is quantity and frequency that cause the unavoidable omnipresence of discomfort (2019).

In his blog, Croft quotes an answer from a trans survey participant who describes the feeling of constantly being misgendered as “exhausting and invalidating”, where he is “left in a position to either correct them which is awkward for everyone involved…, or to feel sad and invalidated”.

Language and contexts always evolve; inclusive language must be continuously reevaluated. Oxfam (2023, p. 8) says that their guide will be updated with time and that it is not meant to be prescriptive, but rather a “guideline for things to think about in your choice of language”. They underline the importance of context and that to be guided by what is appropriate for the situation. Still, it is sometimes difficult to get it 'right'. The University of Leeds says “[i]t is okay to make mistakes. Apologise, correct what you have said, learn from the mistake and work to communicate more inclusively next time.”

Be kind!

Ultimately, those who promote inclusive language would argue it is about aiming to be kind and not wanting to hurt people. No one likes to be criticised for their language. We cannot decide how someone will react to what we say, but we can decide on the language we choose to use. So is it too much effort to try and be kind?

Written by SARAH PUYATIER, former ERASMUS BA (Hons) English student, University of Chester, UK