First they came for our loos, insisting that it was prejudicial simply to label them ‘Men’ and ‘Women’. Then they came for our children, preaching a gospel of transgender rights in schools and playgrounds.

Now they have come for our wombs, for the precious privilege of calling ourselves mothers.

And that, I’m afraid, is a game-changer. This madness must end.

Hayden Cross (pictured), 20, is a pregnant woman who is transitioning to become a man and thus wants to be identified as male

From now on, expectant mothers — in other words pregnant women — are to be referred to as ‘pregnant people’ in order not to offend the sensibilities of members of the transgender community.

What is even more extraordinary is that this is not some half-baked agenda dreamed up by members of a student lobby group, but official new guidance issued by no less an august institution than the British Medical Association.

In a new advisory booklet entitled A Guide To Effective Communication: Inclusive Language In The Workplace, the BMA’s 160,000-odd members are informed that ‘a large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women’.

The idiocy of this statement alone is enough to make my hackles rise. But it gets worse: ‘However, there are some intersex men and trans men who may get pregnant.’

I’m sorry, come again? Yes, that’s right: the BMA is labouring under the delusion that men can become pregnant. (Intersex, by the way, refers to a person born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit the typical definitions of female or male.)

This from a supposedly scientific body established almost 200 years ago with the express intention of, among other things, guarding against quackery, is frankly unforgivable.

Because men, it’s a well understood fact, cannot get pregnant. Only women can get pregnant. That is because (and it pains me to have to state the obvious) only women have ovaries and wombs and, therefore, only women have the biological equipment to bear children.

It therefore follows that if a person is pregnant she must by definition be a woman. Granted, she may not wish to be a woman, she may not like being a woman or dress as a woman or style her hair as a woman or even resemble one. She may even be transitioning to become a man — but if she still possesses a functioning womb she is, nonetheless, in biological terms a woman.

And for the BMA even to suggest that a man can become pregnant is not only an act of blatant stupidity, but a sign that this revered institution — or at the very least those currently in charge of it — is losing its marbles.

It is also, and perhaps most importantly, insulting to those of us who are perfectly happy in the bodies and genders we were born with because it suggests the process of becoming a mother is little more than a social construct, a mere cultural convention that can be overturned on a whim.

And that being a woman, with all this entails, is something that can be reduced to a lifestyle choice.

Not only does it undermine the dignity of womankind, it seeks to strip us of a fundamental part of our identity, to take away the one undeniable advantage we have over the male of the species: the ability to bear and nurture new life.

And if you think I’m being a bit melodramatic, consider this. Already in America (where the transgender lobby has sunk its hooks far deeper into the culture), breastfeeding is becoming known as ‘chest feeding’.

Next thing you know, midwives and doctors will be banned from telling new mothers — sorry, ‘parental persons’ — ‘it’s a boy!’ or ‘it’s a girl!’ and be required instead to leave the gender open until the newborn has had a chance to indicate a clear preference. If he or she ever does.

I should make it plain that I have absolutely every sympathy for those who, for whatever reason, feel that their true identity does not match their gender. I even support their right to alter their physical appearance permanently through hormone therapy or surgery — though I strongly believe you should have to be over the age of 18 to make such a momentous and irreversible choice.

I am, as are many others, very tolerant of other people’s personal choices, regardless of whether or not I completely understand them.

That is why this latest outrage is so upsetting. Because tolerance should be a two-way street. But what this shows is that the transgender lobby — and those who pander to them — have no respect whatsoever for those who, like me, are absolutely 100 per cent comfortable with their identities and who want to be known as what we are, that is to say women.

Not ‘persons’, or ‘cisgender’ (the very ugly-sounding term assigned to those boring people who stick with the sex they were born with) or ‘binary’ (conforming to traditional male and female precepts). Just plain old-fashioned women and mothers.

Is this really to much to ask? After all, we are in a massive majority and this country is, supposedly, run on democratic principles.

And yet it seems that even our most erudite and allegedly rational of institutions is determined to impose the will of a tiny but vocal minority on the vast — but somewhat more guarded — majority.

This latest missive from the BMA appears to bear this out. ‘We can include intersex men and trans men who may get pregnant by saying “pregnant people” instead of “expectant mothers,” ’ says the leaflet. Great. But why, when the medical establishment is facing some of the biggest challenges in its history, are they even considering this issue, let alone dedicating a 14-page booklet to it?

As far as I know, there is only one example in the UK of a pregnant woman who is transitioning to become a man and thus wants to be identified as male, and that is an individual called Hayden Cross.

In a new advisory booklet entitled A Guide To Effective Communication: Inclusive Language In The Workplace, the BMA’s 160,000 are to say 'pregnant people' instead of 'pregnant women'

Cross, 20, was born female, but has lived legally as a man for the past three years. Having embarked on the NHS’s gender transition process — which costs approximately £29,000, a sum many argue would be better spent elsewhere, especially given the financial crisis in the service — he decided to become pregnant via a sperm donor he found on Facebook.

Even with the best will in the world, one has to question the motivation of someone apparently so desperate to alter their gender they are prepared to embark on a complex and costly process — and yet goes out of their way to get pregnant halfway through.

Once the baby is born, he intends to continue his transition, having his breasts and ovaries removed.

For his part, Hayden Cross, in an interview with the Mail, said: ‘The choice I was left with was to have a biological baby much younger than I wanted or delay being a man and live unhappily as a woman for many years.

‘This situation means my position isn’t as perfect as it could be, which is why I came forward publicly, to help change the situation.’

Some will say he is simply exercising his human right to express his true identity. But the fact remains that with or without his pregnancy, he still represents a tiny minority of individuals undergoing gender re-assignment on the NHS — around 3,000 a year — who nevertheless cost the service £22.72 million annually. Why are their sensitivities being placed ahead of those of millions of women?

The BMA is precisely the sort of sober institution I would expect to rise above this highly emotional issue and exercise extreme caution and impartiality in respect of guidance.

And yet here it is, demonstrating clear bias and partisanship towards one side of the argument and, with one inane and sweeping statement, removing a pregnant woman’s hitherto inalienable right to call herself an expectant mother.