“Birthing person” is a gender-neutral term that refers to any individual who becomes pregnant and gives birth, regardless of their gender identity. It is used in some medical, public health, and policy contexts as an alternative or supplement to “mother” or “woman,” primarily to include transgender men and nonbinary people who have the biological capacity to carry a pregnancy.
Why the Term Exists
Most people who become pregnant and give birth identify as women. But not all do. Transgender men (people assigned female at birth who identify as male) and some nonbinary individuals can still become pregnant if they have a uterus and functioning ovaries. A study published in JAMA Network Open identified 256 transgender people who delivered a baby through Medicaid and 1,651 through commercial insurance over a study period, compared to millions of cisgender deliveries in those same databases. These numbers are small relative to the overall birth population, but they represent real patients navigating a healthcare system built around the assumption that everyone giving birth is a woman.
The term “birthing person” emerged from reproductive health scholarship and advocacy as a way to describe the physiological act of giving birth without attaching a gender identity to it. In this framing, “mother” describes a social and parental role, while “birthing person” describes a biological event. Someone can be both, and most people are, but separating the two concepts allows medical language to accommodate cases where they don’t overlap.
Which Medical Organizations Use It
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the leading professional body for OB-GYNs in the United States, published an official policy on inclusive language. In it, ACOG committed to moving “beyond the exclusive use of gendered language and definitions” in its clinical guidance, its journal, and its communications. The goal, as stated in the policy, is to “recognize and affirm all people who seek and receive care from obstetrician-gynecologists,” including those who identify as women and those who do not.
ACOG also acknowledged a practical limitation: much of the existing research literature uses binary terms like “women” and “maternal,” so its clinical guidance will continue to describe data using whatever terms the original study investigators reported. This means you’ll often see both types of language coexisting in the same documents.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) similarly adopted inclusive language guidance in 2024, framing it as part of a broader effort to improve care for LGBTQIA+ patients seeking fertility and reproductive services.
The Clinical Reasoning Behind Inclusive Language
The push toward inclusive terminology in healthcare isn’t purely symbolic. LGBTQIA+ individuals are significantly more likely to have experienced trauma, and clinicians working in reproductive health are encouraged to be aware of the potential for triggering trauma or gender dysphoria during sensitive examinations like pelvic exams, ultrasounds, and labor and delivery. When a transgender man walks into an OB-GYN office and every form, pamphlet, and conversation assumes he is a woman, that mismatch can create barriers to care.
Research from interviews with 66 LGBTQIA+ individuals in Ontario, Canada, identified five key areas where fertility and reproductive clinics fell short: a lack of patient education materials relevant to LGBTQIA+ people, providers not using inclusive language or respectful questioning, clinic staff without training on LGBTQIA+ healthcare needs, no visible representation in clinic materials, and gaps in services like legal counsel for nontraditional family structures. The ASRM noted that inclusive terminology reflects “a mindset that avoids cisgender and heterosexist assumptions about patients, their lives, and their desired family” structures, and that this mindset improves the care experience not just for LGBTQIA+ patients but for all patients.
How It’s Used in Practice
In most everyday settings, “birthing person” is not replacing “mother.” The vast majority of people who give birth identify as women and prefer to be called mothers. The term shows up most often in specific contexts: public health research papers, hospital intake policies designed to be broadly inclusive, insurance and government forms, and clinical guidelines that need to account for all possible patient populations.
Some health equity researchers use “birthing people” as a default in academic writing while noting that the individuals they surveyed referred to themselves as “women.” One study in the journal Health Equity made this distinction explicitly, using “birthing people” in its analysis while clarifying that its survey instruments reflected the language participants actually used about themselves.
In a clinical encounter, most providers will simply ask patients what language they prefer. A cisgender woman will typically be referred to as a mother or expectant mother. A transgender man may prefer “parent” or his own name. The point of having terminology like “birthing person” available is not to impose it on everyone but to have language that works in institutional contexts where you’re writing about a diverse population all at once.
Why the Term Is Controversial
Critics argue that replacing “mother” or “woman” with “birthing person” erases the specific experience of women in pregnancy and childbirth, and that it reduces a deeply personal identity to a biological function. Some feminist scholars and advocacy groups have pushed back on the premise that gendered language in reproductive health is inherently exclusionary, arguing that pregnancy has been central to women’s political and social identity for centuries.
Supporters counter that the term doesn’t replace “mother” for people who want to use it. Instead, it serves as an umbrella term in contexts where precision matters, such as policy documents, data collection, and clinical guidelines that must account for all patients. The tension often comes down to whether the term is used as an addition to existing language or as a wholesale replacement for it.
In practice, most major medical organizations have landed somewhere in the middle: using inclusive language in official guidance while acknowledging that gendered terms remain appropriate in many contexts, especially when patients themselves prefer them.