Breastfeeding is now chestfeeding, Brighton’s trans-friendly midwives are told

[quote andyoldlabour]AMK42

"I just deny that a woman can claim to be a “trans man” AND become pregnant. Therefore maternity services have no need to change their language at all."

I think this sums it up perfectly. In the following article, there is so much mixing of biological sex and gender, that my head was starting to hurt. For instance:

"In deciding that TT could not be registered as the 'father', the judgment defines 'mother' for the first time under English common law. Sir Andrew McFarlane (President of the Family Division of the High Court), framed 'mother' status purely in terms of reproductive experience (para. 279). He says that 'mother' status follows from the 'biological role in giving birth' and is separate from one's gender: TT is a 'male mother'. 'Male' in the sense that TT has received legal recognition of his male gender but a 'mother' due to giving birth. Therefore, it is accepted that those of the male gender can give birth."

www.bionews.org.uk/page_145481[/quote]
Agree that mixing up the language of biology and gender identity is a nonsense and furthermore leads to difficulties down the line.

If it was me, I'd hammer out a short statement to be included at the start / end of all written communications, (including a pinned tweet), clarifying that it's essential for maternity health care services to use biologically correct language at all times, and that the words 'woman' and 'mother' are used to include all females, regardless of gender identity. It would need a bit of work to make it less pompous. And then I would dig in my heels and concede no further.

Apologies if this was mentioned upthread, but the BBC described this policy as being "trans friendly" - not a word about how it affects women.

Yes Arabella, equity rather than equality or equal but different or both men and women are of equal value but not the same. It really seems like the only common sense way of seeing it to me.

Not Goddess then but you get the point, accepting, valuing and celebrating our womanly bodies, perspectives and life experiences. To me that is feminism as much as equal pay.

Masculine gender surely.

AMK42

"I just deny that a woman can claim to be a “trans man” AND become pregnant. Therefore maternity services have no need to change their language at all."

I think this sums it up perfectly. In the following article, there is so much mixing of biological sex and gender, that my head was starting to hurt. For instance:

"In deciding that TT could not be registered as the 'father', the judgment defines 'mother' for the first time under English common law. Sir Andrew McFarlane (President of the Family Division of the High Court), framed 'mother' status purely in terms of reproductive experience (para. 279). He says that 'mother' status follows from the 'biological role in giving birth' and is separate from one's gender: TT is a 'male mother'. 'Male' in the sense that TT has received legal recognition of his male gender but a 'mother' due to giving birth. Therefore, it is accepted that those of the male gender can give birth."

www.bionews.org.uk/page_145481

I'm not mad keen on 'goddess' as a descriptor, being a militant agnostic!

I think some feminism sought equality that effectively meant women living according to male standards. A slightly different slant means we value female roles and histories (herstories) with as much weight and importance as has been traditionally attached to male roles and histories. Isn't it 'equity rather than equality', or similar? So - mothering and raising children is just as valuable as a male-oriented 'success' story of founding a political party or writing a book, etc.

I'm not a theorist and my feminist knowledge is scant and patchy, so don't really feel able to discuss all these things properly.

This is where we end up . Black menstruators

I agree with you Justhadathought.

There were those kinds of feminists who sought to be more like men, I think some have argued that Simone de Beauvoir tended in that direction at times, wanting to be free of the constraints of the female body. Perhaps it was a naturally starting point at a time when women were so restricted. Perhaps the only freedom that they could imagine was the kind of freedom that men had then.

I’ll take your “Goddess feminism” over that because you are right and I can see how genderism could follow from the idea that sex doesn’t matter.

In my opinion we cannot hide from nor escape the biological physical realities of our bodies and the healthiest approach is acceptance and celebration.

Wasn’t that what the red tent movement was all about? Actually also many of the breastfeeding and birth related groups also went along the line of embracing and celebrating our female bodies.

Gender neutral language neutralises women in my opinion and so disempowers us, it is the opposite of what feminism and maternity services should be about

There have been voices within feminism, though, which have sought to minimise the differences between men and women; to downplay the roles that women play on account of their biology; or to see them as restrictive nuisances. that only if it weren't for the very female realities of the body and its biological role in reproduction and motherhood then women would be free.

I do think there is a need to face up to the ways in which trans-humanist and transgender ideologies have in certain ways morphed out of this kind of sentiment. That there is no real difference between men and women, and that the only differences there are reside within individual aptitudes and identities.

There has always been the feminism that is rooted in the body, and celebrant of that ( let's call it 'goddess feminism'), and the feminism that has been more concerned with down-playing that in favour of focusing on an equal rights/equality agenda. That sees the female bodily functions as the being at the root of women's oppression. That focuses on the negatives of the female experience.

According to this article in today's Sunday Times by Lionel Shriver, it's 2. Two women who identify as men whose needs to mutilate our language trumps the importance of communicating clearly and being inclusive to the remaining 650,00 ish other women who give birth a year in the U.K.

Although on the face of it this change of language is supposed to "include" transmen I can't help feeling it's more about making some transwomen feel more comfortable.

If female biological functions (such as menstruating, having endometriosis etc) are to be separated from the word woman and TWAW, eventually the only group allowed to call themselves women will be transwomen.

Mission accomplished. I'm not the first to make this point I think.

Yeah I agree with that too AMK42 - the guidance mashes up the language of sex with the language of gender identity. It's a mess.
I guess where we differ is that (for now) I still cling to the view that some kind of protocols can be agreed, but the wording has got to be totally watertight, and at the moment it's not.

No Impatiens, I don’t think so. Queer theorists and gender ideologues don’t like clear data or concrete definitions.

Most policy changes are backed up with data that demonstrates need. It seems like a fairly big change alone that decisions and policies are now to be decided on some other basis.

I suppose there's not likely to be any accurate stats on the numbers of people identifying as transmen who get pregnant?

If they are saying that increasing numbers of patients are so uncomfortable with the word 'breast' that care is compromised, they don't need a diversity policy, they need to ask why.

I suppose there's not likely to be any accurate stats on the numbers of people identifying as transmen who get pregnant?

Agree with you Floisme about necessity of accurate and unambiguous language. This whole debacle has arisen because the law failed to recognise that the terms “sex” and “gender” are not synonymous. “Gender” was never more than a euphemism for sex when it became shorthand for “sexual intercourse” in the early 20th c. Before that it was a purely grammatical term. Usage and meaning has changed in last 20+ years. I just deny that a woman can claim to be a “trans man” AND become pregnant. Therefore maternity services have no need to change their language at all.

Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud
Indeed! Seems to be a dangerous argument.

If that were the case, I am sure no one will mind if I hid my pregnancy history from my blood donation too. I am sure that any male would just be pleased to receive my otherwise universal blood.....

It is madness that they use this tactic.

I'm inclined to agree AMK42. My point is that, if a compromise form of wording is sought, at the very least make sure that wording is correct and accurate , otherwise it'll be used against us one day.

Floisme - Claiming they’re a “Trans man” implies they’ve decided to live as a man - becoming pregnant rather denies that claim. So why bother pandering to their lie?

Thanks for your posts Wednesday and Arabella.

One of the things which has helped many women with breastfeeding is the connection with other mothers in mother centred support groups (woman only spaces) where experiences can be shared freely, and the acknowledgment of the unique nature of the breastfeeding relationship between mother and baby. This is an exclusive relationship, mother and baby find the right balance between themselves after an often challenging first couple of months. Even if she is not breastfeeding, motherhood is a distinct role in a woman’s life and mother and baby have a unique relationship which should be acknowledged and supported by wider society. As many have argued it becomes hard to do this without meaningful language.

The use of the word mother is for many a source of strength and the recognition of the new state of motherhood can help us adjust to the massive changes in our lives which result from it.

Midwives used to visit mothers at home to offer support with this for the first 28 after the birth (every day for the first week then perhaps 3 days the next week and depending on the need of individuals after that) at which point the health visitor took over. If we want to give everyone born the best chances in life then we should allocate resources to supporting women during pregnancy birth and the postnatal period.

Gender neutral language neutralises women in my opinion and so disempowers us, it is the opposite of what feminism and maternity services should be about.

Thank you Igneococcus for the link, brilliant article by Lionel Shriver!

Thanks @ArabellaScott !

• I did not know there was an all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding, either. I think it's now sort of unofficial, but anyway:

www.infantfeedingappg.uk/

This is from 2016:

'Women in the UK are far less likely to breastfeed their children than in any other country in the world. New research reveals that social pressures are responsible for this worrying statistic.

Speaking at the British Science Festival, Dr Amy Brown, Associate Professor at the University of Swansea’s College of Human and Health Sciences, stated that by 12 months the UK has the lowest rates of breast-feeding worldwide at just 0.5%.'

www.britishscienceassociation.org/news/breastfeeding-rates-in-uk-are-the-lowest-in-the-world

'In the UK we have some of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world, with eight out of ten women stopping breastfeeding before they want to.'

www.unicef.org.uk/babyfriendly/about/breastfeeding-in-the-uk/