My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Feminism: Sex & gender discussions

UK submission to UN - "whatabout the pregnant men?"

106 replies

pisacake · 22/10/2017 11:42

The text as proposed by the UN:

"Although States parties may adopt measures designed to regulate terminations of pregnancy, such measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or her other rights under the Covenant, including the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. . Thus, any legal restrictions on the ability of women to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives or subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering which violates article 7. States parties must provide safe access to abortion to protect the life and health of pregnant women, and in situations in which carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman substantial pain or suffering,"

and continues in similar vein

The UK's submission:
www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/UnitedKingdom.pdf

" We note that in using the term “pregnant woman” the Committee may be inadvertently restricting the application of this paragraph to exclude transgender people who have given birth; this has happened in two recent cases in the UK."

This is rather confusing language. If they are not, in the context of that sentence, 'pregnant women', then surely the appropriate sentence, by elimination, is 'pregnant men' "exclude transgender men who have given birth; this has happened in two recent cases in the UK.""

OP posts:
RoseAndRose · 22/10/2017 11:47

So pregnant people who do not identify as women should not have these protections?

I think that would be wrong.

pisacake · 22/10/2017 11:49

you can identify as a teapot if you want; if you are pregnant you are a woman. surely this is primary school biology?

OP posts:
RoseAndRose · 22/10/2017 11:53

The UN is concerned with every country. And no, the definitions are not the same globally.

So yes, inclusive language is needed because it has to work everywhere.

pisacake · 22/10/2017 11:59

It's normal for legal documents to define important terms. It doesn't make sense for a country to be allowed up with its own definition of words in order to ignore treaty obligations. .

OP posts:
CancellyMcChequeface · 22/10/2017 12:04

if you are pregnant you are a woman

This. Men cannot get pregnant. It's biologically impossible. Therefore, if someone is pregnant, the protections apply to them, regardless of how they choose to describe themselves.

RoseAndRose · 22/10/2017 12:05

Which is why the treaty needs inclusive language, so that the lives of all those seeking TOPs are protected as envisaged.

RoseAndRose · 22/10/2017 12:07

Sorry, that was in response to pisacake not the post immediately above.

Terfing · 22/10/2017 12:08

As if the Uk isn't enough of a laughing stock at the moment! This is just embarrassing.

meditrina · 22/10/2017 12:13

In the light if the UNFE, has UNHRO taken a view on this?

AssassinatedBeauty · 22/10/2017 12:13

If it needs clarification, then surely it just needs a note about "pregnant women, regardless of how they personally identify" otherwise you'd have to specify all of the current genders that exist and run the risk of accidentally excluding someone who identifies as a gender that hasn't yet been identified and written down.

DJBaggySmallpox · 22/10/2017 12:15

Sex is a biological definition. Men can't get pregnant, only biological women can.

pisacake · 22/10/2017 12:20

Yes 'pregnant people' wouldn't work, as it doesn't include otherkin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherkin

OP posts:
NoCryLilSoftSoft · 22/10/2017 12:34

Pregnant individual?

QueenLaBeefah · 22/10/2017 12:37

I wonder how many men globally have given birth? Probably no more than 100. Do we really need to cheapen the effects of childbirth on billions of women over thousands of years over this introspective horseshit? If you give birth you are a woman - let's not pretend otherwise.

nauticant · 22/10/2017 12:38

Pregnant individual?

What if someone identifies as a collective. Maybe "pregnant entity, whether biological or otherwise".

Datun · 22/10/2017 12:57

They need to define the word woman. That will suffice.

NoCryLilSoftSoft · 22/10/2017 13:02

Good point nauticant

Pregnant female. That’s biological fact.

Datun · 22/10/2017 13:03

So is pregnant woman though. Woman is an adult human female. I don’t know where this idea has come from that woman is a social category. It isn’t, it’s a biological one.

PricklyBall · 22/10/2017 13:06

The reason language matters is summed up succinctly by a favourite quote of my late mother's: "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Women's reproductive rights are impaired worldwide not because they are "pregnant persons", but because they are women, and women are treated, to a greater or lesser extent worldwide, as lesser beings. (Anyone in any doubt about this should read this leaked memo on the Trump administration's plans to attack provision of contraception and sex ed - it is not just abortion they oppose, but any attempt by women to take control of their fertility.)

This is why it needs the legislation to say this is a women's issue - because it is a women's issue. By all means have a footnote to say "this legislation encompasses transmen with functioning uteruses", but do not erase women from the story.

If it genuinely was a "person's" issue, there wouldn't be an issue. Pregnant "people" would be able to control their own fertility. (If you are in any doubt about this, think about the knots Christian theologians tie themselves in to justify the concept of a just war. It's not about the foetus's imaginary right to life at all, it's about keeping women in their place as subordinate to men, having to ask men for permission about everything, including whether they're going to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth against their will, often in countries where medical care means rates of maternal mortality are sky high - or conversely, and equally hideously, forced to abort female foetuses against their will - again, the female ones, not "the ones who might later on identify as women.")

AssassinatedBeauty · 22/10/2017 13:06

So perhaps just a clarification that "woman/women" is being used as a biological category not as an identity.

Datun · 22/10/2017 13:13

Exactly.

BigDeskBob · 22/10/2017 13:22

So perhaps just a clarification that "woman/women" is being used as a biological category not as an identity.

It must be - I would assume girls are included too. Nobody seems bothered that they wouldn't feel included

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Terfing · 22/10/2017 13:46

Has the Guardian published this story yet? I like having a good laugh at their pro-trans articles! Grin

Sunkisses · 23/10/2017 06:05

There was an article in the Sunday Times about this yesterday: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/its-not-women-who-get-pregnant-its-people-w3mmzbgwh
Does anyone have the full text as it is behind the paywall?

StealthPolarBear · 23/10/2017 06:18

"So perhaps just a clarification that "woman/women" is being used as a biological category not as an identity."
That goes without saying as it's the meaning of the word.
Tbh in an legal document I'm sure all terms will be defined.
This is madness. Stop the world I want to get off

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.