Scientific American Covers Itself with Shame Again, This Time by Using Term ‘Birthing Parent’

by Leslie Eastman at

Friends from Legal Insurrection may recall I refer to Scientific American as the Bud Light of scientific journals. That particular article stemmed from the magazine’s editor using an example of a bird that has 2 distinct genders based on 4 chromosomes to argue the avian’s existence supported “non-binary” gender identities. She was heavily critiqued for the example by an exceptional evolutionary biologist.

The publication is back at it again, this time using the phrase “birthing parent” in reference to mothers.

The term was apparently also used in a Nature Neuroscience study that was being described in the magazine.

The study, published in January in Nature Neuroscience, followed more than 100 new mothers from near the end of their pregnancy until about three weeks on average after they had their baby. Previous research had examined birthing parents’ brain before they gave birth or during the postpartum period, but this study observed them both before and after birth, and it also took into account whether they had a vaginal birth or C-section.

The findings reveal temporary changes in some brain regions and more permanent ones in a brain circuit that activates when people are not engaged in an active task and that is also involved in self-reflection and empathizing with others.

Why not use the term “women” for mothers. 100% of all babies born to humans so far have been born by women. Until that scientific fact changes, the term ‘birthing parent’ is a signal that you are about to read woke blather and pseudoscience.

To promote the article, Scientific American released an X-post. The ratio it achieved was spectacular, and the comments were mix of mockery and derision for the use of the term ‘birthing parent’.