‘Women’ vs. ‘people with a capacity for pregnancy’: Which is right?
Good writing is as precise and concise as possible, and good grammar helps us get there. But what’s a grammarian to do when precise and concise are at odds with each other?
Why is grammar important?
If you said, “Because rules should be followed,” “Because it’s what I learned in school,” “Because we need standards and consistency,” or anything similarly small-minded, you’re part of the problem. Please stop.
The reason is simple: Good writing is as precise and concise as possible, and good grammar helps us get there.
But what’s a grammarian to do when precise and concise are at odds with each other?
The ways we talk about abortion and gender — particularly in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s downfall — illustrate the problem.
» READ MORE: Four Pennsylvanians who had an abortion reflect on life after Roe
Take, for example, a recent viral exchange between Sen. Josh Hawley, lately known for running away from the same rioting Jan. 6 mob that he’d raised a fist in solidarity with, and Berkeley law professor Khiara Bridges. In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Hawley objected to Bridges’ use of the phrase “people with a capacity for pregnancy,” which Hawley — ever the studious grammarian — thought should be shortened to just “women.” Bridges replied that Hawley’s questioning was transphobic, as it excluded trans men and nonbinary people who can become pregnant, as well as cisgender women who are unable to become pregnant.
The takeaways from this infuriating (for everyone) moment ranged from “Berkeley Law Professor Eviscerates Sen. Josh Hawley at Post-Roe Hearing,” according to a Jezebel.com article, to “Far-Left Berkeley Law Professor Melts Down When Senator Hawley Asks Her If Men Can Get Pregnant,” according to Hawley’s own Senate website.
Put aside (for only the briefest moment) the fact that Hawley’s motivation was likely not syntactic concision but the desire to pick a fight and spark a viral moment and a provocative Twitter post (mission accomplished, Senator). A pressing language question still lingers here.
“People with a capacity for pregnancy” might be inclusive, but it’s clunky as hell. At the same time, the simple “women” doesn’t describe everyone capable of becoming pregnant.
“‘People with a capacity for pregnancy’ might be inclusive, but it’s clunky as hell.”
Where does that leave someone just trying to improve the ways they speak and write?
The solution, as always, lies with context.
As I’ve written before, if you’re looking for a word’s meaning — the weight it carries, an understanding of how its usage will affect others — even the best dictionary will get you only a fraction of the way there. Context is essential to understanding motivation, or whether a word’s definition has expanded or contracted since its dictionary entry was last edited. A few months ago, Sen. Marsha Blackburn tried a similar tactic during Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, when she asked Jackson to define the word woman. Like Hawley, Blackburn wasn’t interested in simplicity; she wanted blood.
Precision and concision aren’t abstract platonic ideals; they’re tools for better communication. When you’re precise, there’s less room for someone to twist your words for their own purposes. When you’re concise, people pay attention. They’re less distracted by unnecessary words (like these, inside this parenthetical; see how distracting this is?).
No grammatical solution is one-size-fits-all. Aim for both precision and concision, but when one has to win out, ask: By using a less precise term, am I hurting anyone? Let’s avoid that. By using a less concise term, am I making it harder for others to understand what I’m saying? Precision won’t help you if no one can understand you, and as any decent law professor knows, legal writing in particular is often uniquely inscrutable — largely because it twists itself in knots to be overprecise.
And if all else fails, check whom you’re talking to. If the guy on the other side was cheering on insurrectionists, you’ve probably already claimed the high ground — grammatically and otherwise.
The Grammarian, otherwise known as Jeffrey Barg, looks at how language, grammar, and punctuation shape our world, and appears biweekly. Send comments, questions, and taxemes to jeff@theangrygrammarian.com.