Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

216 replies

InvisibleBumble · 17/12/2025 20:25

Our workplace has just emailed all staff about changes to parental leave. Throughout the email they repeatedly use the term “the birthing parent”. There is no mention anywhere of women, mothers or maternity leave.

I’m honestly really uncomfortable with it. In trying to be “inclusive”, it feels like women - and our lived experience of pregnancy, childbirth and recovery - are being erased from a policy that is specifically about leave after giving birth.

I’m not anti-inclusion, but I do struggle with language that refuses to even acknowledge women or mothers in this context. Childbirth is not a neutral experience, and maternity leave exists for a reason.

It’s really bugged me, but I’m nervous about pushing back at work in case I’m labelled difficult or “not inclusive enough”.

Am I being unreasonable? Has anyone challenged this kind of language at work, and if so, how did it go?

OP posts:
EsmeSusanOgg · 17/12/2025 22:23

Minjou · 17/12/2025 22:21

I'm not turning into anything. I'm agreeing with OP that removing every single reference to mother, woman or female is ridiculous in a maternity leave policy.

Words have meanings. A minority of lesbian couples may prefer to both be called parents, that's fine, it doesn't change the fact that all people taking maternity leave are by definition women and mothers.

Individual preferences do not change facts and we shouldn't be writing policies for tiny tiny minorities. And I've never ever come across any lesbian mothers that had a problem being called mothers.

Your posts day otherwise. But I'm turning in for the night, so happy for you to tilt at windmills over this with others.

Minjou · 17/12/2025 22:22

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 22:20

They have your not listening becuase your In a defensive mode

Nope. And I'm not defensive at all

Hoardasurass · 17/12/2025 22:21

YourBreezyBiscuit · 17/12/2025 22:13

Don't be ridiculous. Dehumanising language is used to make a group of people seem less than human, like calling people animals.

The term "parent" is not dehumanising in any way, it does not remove someone's humanity. It actually encompasses ALL humans!

Edited

Wrong its the thin end of the wedge, it goes with cervix havers, chest feeders, menstrators and people who bleed amongst a few such disgusting terms. It opens the door to men feeding chemically induced man secretions to babies and surrogacy etc it strips women of everything that makes us women by divorcing them and us from our words and language and most importantly our humanity

Minjou · 17/12/2025 22:21

EsmeSusanOgg · 17/12/2025 22:17

In the UK, the second mother can only be registered as 'parent' on the birth certificate. The only person who can be named mother is the birthing parent - even if the egg is from her partner. Many couples prefer to both be called parent - until there are options available on the birth certificate. For example in other countries you can both choose to be mother, or parent. Or a combination of the above. There is a lot of nuance to this - but you seem to want to turn this into a trans-bashing thread. No matter what info others provide.

I'm not turning into anything. I'm agreeing with OP that removing every single reference to mother, woman or female is ridiculous in a maternity leave policy.

Words have meanings. A minority of lesbian couples may prefer to both be called parents, that's fine, it doesn't change the fact that all people taking maternity leave are by definition women and mothers.

Individual preferences do not change facts and we shouldn't be writing policies for tiny tiny minorities. And I've never ever come across any lesbian mothers that had a problem being called mothers.

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 22:21

fatcat2007 · 17/12/2025 22:17

Seems fine. When my friends had a baby they were both mums but only one of them was pregnant so only one of them got maternity leave. The other got “paternity” but she wasn’t the dad.

She shouldn’t have to and people are offended by that

TheKeatingFive · 17/12/2025 22:20

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 22:20

Minjou · 17/12/2025 22:16

Nobody has explained why birth parent is any more useful than birth mother, actually. If you're going to argue it's best to read the actual posts first

They have your not listening becuase your In a defensive mode

fatcat2007 · 17/12/2025 22:17

Seems fine. When my friends had a baby they were both mums but only one of them was pregnant so only one of them got maternity leave. The other got “paternity” but she wasn’t the dad.

Ddakji · 17/12/2025 22:17

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 22:16

Top surgery and hormone treatments

Can’t turn a woman into a man.

EsmeSusanOgg · 17/12/2025 22:17

Minjou · 17/12/2025 22:09

We know. But birth mother does that just fine and doesn't erase sex for no good reason.

In the UK, the second mother can only be registered as 'parent' on the birth certificate. The only person who can be named mother is the birthing parent - even if the egg is from her partner. Many couples prefer to both be called parent - until there are options available on the birth certificate. For example in other countries you can both choose to be mother, or parent. Or a combination of the above. There is a lot of nuance to this - but you seem to want to turn this into a trans-bashing thread. No matter what info others provide.

Minjou · 17/12/2025 22:17

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 22:16

Top surgery and hormone treatments

Removing breasts and taking hormones turns a woman into a man? Are you sure?
You think that's a man with a uterus that has a human coming out of it?

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 22:16

Minjou · 17/12/2025 22:10

What physical changes do you think turns women into men? Particularly when a baby is coming out of their vaginas?

Top surgery and hormone treatments

Minjou · 17/12/2025 22:16

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 22:14

It doesn’t as those women have told you on her but your not listening

which is the problem
overall - even when the people it affects are telling you

Edited

Nobody has explained why birth parent is any more useful than birth mother, actually. If you're going to argue it's best to read the actual posts first

Ddakji · 17/12/2025 22:15

People are kidding themselves if they think this language has anything to do with lesbian couples.

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 22:14

Minjou · 17/12/2025 22:09

We know. But birth mother does that just fine and doesn't erase sex for no good reason.

It doesn’t as those women have told you on her but your not listening

which is the problem
overall - even when the people it affects are telling you

Toohardtofindaproperusername · 17/12/2025 22:14

InvisibleBumble · 17/12/2025 20:25

Our workplace has just emailed all staff about changes to parental leave. Throughout the email they repeatedly use the term “the birthing parent”. There is no mention anywhere of women, mothers or maternity leave.

I’m honestly really uncomfortable with it. In trying to be “inclusive”, it feels like women - and our lived experience of pregnancy, childbirth and recovery - are being erased from a policy that is specifically about leave after giving birth.

I’m not anti-inclusion, but I do struggle with language that refuses to even acknowledge women or mothers in this context. Childbirth is not a neutral experience, and maternity leave exists for a reason.

It’s really bugged me, but I’m nervous about pushing back at work in case I’m labelled difficult or “not inclusive enough”.

Am I being unreasonable? Has anyone challenged this kind of language at work, and if so, how did it go?

everyone doing the " this is inclusive language" stuff there's 100s of thousands of women not having a clue what policies, adverts and documents mean. Most people don't think of themselves as a "birthing parent" and neither fo they need to. Inclusive could be women and birthing parent or women and transman or whatever.

Erasing the word woman isn't inclusive .. its misogynistic.

Handmaid's tale is not so futuristic after all

everyone doing the " this is inclusive language" stuff there's 100s of thousands of women not having a clue what policies, adverts and documents mean. Most people don't think of themselves as a "birthing parent" and neither fo they need to. Inclusive could be women and birthing parent or women and transman or whatever.

Erasing the word woman isn't inclusive .. its misogynistic.

Handmaid's tale is not so futuristic after all

Minjou · 17/12/2025 22:14

Imonmyway · 17/12/2025 22:13

Because there can be 2 mothers?

But only one birth mother. So why not say that? Why remove sex markers?

Ddakji · 17/12/2025 22:14

Imonmyway · 17/12/2025 22:13

Because there can be 2 mothers?

Only one birth mother.

Hoardasurass · 17/12/2025 22:14

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 22:08

They’ve had physical changes so no not women

Yes still women as proven by the fact that they got pregnant and gave birth and because nobody has ever changed sex.
Also they are still legally MOTHERS even if they havea GRC and will be registered as such on the birth certificate a transman with a GRC went all the way to the supreme Court trying to be registered as her sons father instead of their mother but lost. You can lie on your own records but not on anyone else's and the word mother has specific legal meaning and places legal duties on her

Ddakji · 17/12/2025 22:13

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 22:08

They’ve had physical changes so no not women

There’s no surgery that turns a woman into a man.

Imonmyway · 17/12/2025 22:13

dementedpixie · 17/12/2025 21:28

Only women give birth so the 'birthing parent' is the mother, so why not just say that

Because there can be 2 mothers?

YourBreezyBiscuit · 17/12/2025 22:13

Hoardasurass · 17/12/2025 22:05

No but being called a birthing parent instead of a mother is

Don't be ridiculous. Dehumanising language is used to make a group of people seem less than human, like calling people animals.

The term "parent" is not dehumanising in any way, it does not remove someone's humanity. It actually encompasses ALL humans!

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 22:13

AnotherEmma · 17/12/2025 22:07

"Bottom bits"?!!! Hmm

Do you mean the female reproductive organs, by any chance?!

Yes but lost of transgender people when talking about surgery use the words top and bottom surgery

ah yes…but you don’t like inclusion do you

it’s privileged white males who are the problem not other women and trans people

GovernmentFundedSteak · 17/12/2025 22:12

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 22:06

Bottom bits not arse

Which bottom bits? My Feet are at the bottom. Ankles? Calves?

Obviously I know what you mean, but English is my first language, I don't have any learning difficulties and have older relatives that speak in polite euphemisms.
But not everyone does. Clear language matters.

Ddakji · 17/12/2025 22:12

MissMountshafft · 17/12/2025 21:53

You’d be surprised how many trans men do give birth - when they have physical changes but just left the reproductive bottom - don’t know how to say it!

No one who gives birth is a man. These women are delusional and need help. But they don’t get to steal our words to shore up their delusions.