“Birthing parent” language in work policy – inclusive or erasing women?

Ignore their nonsense, when they are women whether they identify as that or not.

I managed the non pregnant same sex partner who was eligible for 'paternity' leave. That language was non- inclusive.

I take your point that if it doesn't explicitly mention women then it feels exclusive to women. But there are people who don't identify as women so what do you do with them?

Or birthing parent isn’t the biological mother - it’s her lesbian partner - lots of couples do that to create equal bonds as I understand it

I think it’s for cases where there are two mothers and the baby has been donor conceived.

I agree it is important to differentiate between the mothers as one will have a physical recovery to complete.

That’s not a serious refutation though, because this is all part of a much greater epidemic of misguidedness which is very much about erasing the space, experiences, and language pertaining to women, and basically ‘removing the ovaries’, if you will, in order that men may partake of womanhood just as they feel fully entitled to partake of every other thing they ever encounter.

Erasing reference to our existence in everyday language and turning our lives and our biology into a unisex free-for-all is an irony too awful to be amusing.
Even ‘The Female Eunuch’ never envisaged that women fifty+ years hence would be required to relinquish our essential selves and agree to this neutering, all for the benefit of men.

But don’t they then often seek to be recorded as the infant’s father?
As though the word ‘mother’ will blister their skin and make their hair fall out, such is the need for validation in their new gender.
(Maybe it’s just the odd case here and there; naturally such a thing looms large.)

How on earth does 'birthing parent' not only talk about women? If you give birth, you are a woman (or girl)

Sorry in case I sound insane - I have 2 daughters- one dead and one living (the severely disabled girl)

@InvisibleBumble

Thank you.

This is what is so abhorrent to me. The absolute nonsense of reducing women - and it’s only ever women - to functions or body parts. I remember people telling me when I lost our daughter that I was “still a mother”. I fucking know I was and am. It is my baby in the ground and I’m her mother. She didn’t get to decide to play identity games.

Baby.. a word to describe a human shortly after birth (is baby an objectionable term?).

It’s going to be 12 years on 24th Dec since I had a c-section under GA (as that abruption nearly killed me too) and I’m still her fucking mother, not her birthing parent. I didn’t birth a live child but arguably I didn’t birth her at all (given the circumstances).

And as for the inclusion of mothers who aren’t giving birth - to be inclusive THAT is what a leave policy should state - a mother giving or about to give birth or who has given birth (in case woman is so extraordinarily offensive) and the child’s other parent (if needs be to eliminate offence at being a non-birthing mother or (of course) father).

Anyone who has ever given birth could apply for leave as a “birthing parent” unless it’s meant to kick in as a leave policy during live birth and not cover a pregnant WOMAN.

I am sickened by the insistence that “self-identification” excludes those with disabilities that render them non verbal or those with intellectual disability. How exactly can someone who can’t speak identify themselves as ANYTHING, let alone those with intellectual disabilities.

It’s just a fucking pandering to men, as always.. but the well-intentioned will pretend “there’s nothing to see over here”.

I personally had the absurdity of two Social Workers (on the children with disabilities team which is why I was talking to them) ask me if my daughter identified as female. I said absolutely nothing and watched them squirm and then say “we will assume she does”. Why was that assumption “okay”? As always the fucking able bodied box ticker cunts decide for the disband the female of the species.

I hate this shite!!!

Reminds me of how much I want to start referring to men as penis-havers. All the time.

The delivery penis-haver did not deliver as specified.
I met a pleasant penis-haver selling tickets for a raffle and so on.

If it’s acceptable in maternity policy, in the NHS and with Social Services it’s acceptable in normal day conversation surely.

I couldn’t care less if Bob the penis-haver identifies as Barbara the woman, because there is no such thing as a woman it seems so I should go by the genitalia or other internal organs I can’t see.. and if Bob has chosen to lose his penis I should use Barbara with the prostate …

Im not sure I’d mind so much then with someone calling me X with the ovaries, uterus, cervix, vagina (all assumed of course), who menstruates and has a tongue, earlobes …
I’m far too old for children again but I shall …refer to myself as a former birthing parent who lost her first child in utero at full term and my husband as a former non-birthing parent who lost a child when his former birthing parent’s uterus caused problems with the placenta.?

I wonder how I should refer to my disabled non verbal DD. Because she can’t identify as anything by choice. A never-birthing uterus, cervix, ovary, etc person with a non-working set of facial muscles for reasons unknown…

This would be fun if it wasn’t absurd.

It just sounds silly as men cannot have babies.

A.K.A women

For clarity, surely they should use the same language as the law does.

Lol. Mature.

Oh bless. It's sweet that you're concerned that a random on the interweb could give me the hump.

Only women give birth. Wasn’t a trans man recently refused a GRC because she was trying for a baby? (But then granted it on appeal ) We are not birthers, breeders, menstruaters or lactators. We are women. Mothers. Adult human females

Women who carry and give birth to babies using donor eggs are legally the biological mother of their child in the UK.

So you agree it’s not inclusive?

What a load of nonsense 🙄

Anyone who is about to give birth and is offended by anyone else referring to their female-ness really does need support with their mental health first and foremost

This is it in a nutshell.

Adoption policy is a completely different policy which is why they get hung up on the birthing bit. That's the bit that gives you things like maternity sickness cover, and compulsory time off post birth

There are multiple types of mothers and interestingly the op herself has got some confused which is why they want to be clear.

Biological mother doesn't include people who use donor material. In my case it wouldn't cover the birthing parent.

Mother would cover same sex partners, adoptive mothers etc which come under different policies

It used to be as lesbian mums you could both get mat leave because it wasn't overly clear but they've tightened it up

But a 'birthing parent’ is actually not inclusive at all.

If a mother adopts a child she is not a birthing parent is she?

Unless your lived experience (And I know you're taking the piss out of people with this phrase) is that you didn't give birth to your child, or that they're not actually your child and somebody else is their parent, then yes, you are a birthing parent. You can identify however you want of course but you literally cannot argue that a mother and a parent who gave birth are not factually the same thing. If you identify as a mother, you are also a birthing parent. As a statement of fact. Unless you're an adoptive mother obviously.

You just have the hump because you don't like inclusive language.