This keyword essay on "women" responds to heated debates surrounding the term “pregnant person” in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision and argues for the continued usefulness of “women” to Victorian studies. While “pregnant person” allows institutions and thinkers to signal their recognition that the population requiring reproductive services includes trans men and nonbinary people, the curtailment of reproductive rights is often fueled by misogyny, which cannot be conceptualized without “women” as a category. Here, we are witnessing the reemergence of a field of discursive tension: between the coalitional power of the term “women” as used by feminists, on one hand, and the feminist goal to normalize inclusive language to honor and make visible marginalized experiences, on the other. We want to highlight that, first, such categories need not be mutually exclusive and that, second, the category “women” remains relevant to Victorian studies. We advocate not for the ascendancy of the term “women,” nor its dominance over other, crucial terms such as “trans” and “queer,” but simply for keeping “women” in play. Doing so makes space for strategic forms of coalition, historically precise scholarship, the recognition of trans women's identities, and intersectional analyses.