Language Timothy/Timandra!

Certain people on Twitter have been joking that certain other people on Twitter have suddenly remembered the definition of 'a woman' following the US Supreme Court's ruling on returning the right to rule on abortion laws from the federal government to the states. 

But the BBC News website has struggled with it today, with its woker elements trying to impose their sensibilities on some of the language of the BBC's reporting and BBC editors, eventually, overruling them. 

Again, Newssniffer helps us lay us what happened in the article headlined:

Abortion: What does overturn of Roe v Wade mean?

By Robin Levinson-King & Chloe Kim & Paul Sargeant

The original version spoke of “pregnant people”:

In 1973, the court had ruled in Roe v Wade that pregnant people were entitled to an abortion during the first three months of their pregnancy, while allowing for legal restrictions and bans in the second and third trimester.

15 hours later “pregnant people” was changed to “pregnant women”:

In 1973, the court had ruled in Roe v Wade that pregnant women were entitled to an abortion during the first three months of their pregnancy, while allowing for legal restrictions and bans in the second and third trimester.

A note was added to the bottom of the report: 

Update: Language in this story has been amended to more accurately reflect the specifics of the Roe v Wade ruling.

But even this wasn't the end of it. The edit that replaced “pregnant people” with “pregnant women” and added that 'update' left this behind:

Most have said they will not prosecute women for trying to end their pregnancy, reserving criminal penalties for abortion providers and others who try and help people get abortions.

This has now been edited and changed to:

Most have said they will not prosecute women for trying to end their pregnancy, reserving criminal penalties for abortion providers and others who try and help women get abortions.

What a mess!

Update (Sunday): The Mail on Sunday has also picked up on this.