MOMA Bill back in the Commons today, Monday 1st March 5.15pm

Labour, now.

I don't know if I can watch

a review into language used in legislation ... interesting ...

Sorry garden! I don’t know why I typed Michelle there 😆

What already Michelle? Bloody hell

what a lot of waffle to use the word 'mother'. Fucking ridiculous.

Thank goodness. I was worried there for a minute!

Why is Penny Mordaunt in her jacket?

omg - have they agreed the amendments!!!!

'grammatically challenging' to include mother my arse.

They are talking about how COVID affects men worse than women right now. Fine to mention men of course....

Ooh there's an audio only version too. Going to listen whilst I go for a walk and try not to cheer and boo audibly!

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/02ab0dd5-baf3-4a5b-ad99-cf0e76c707d0

Just placemarking.

Felt so hopeful after the HoL debate.

Joanna Cherry we are standing right beside you !

Thank you for this thread.

Bingo card purchased.

Live here when it starts:

Thank you!

The annoying part is the total lack of honesty and willingness to actually represent and defend this fairly and democratically. It's all no, this is not what it's about, this is definitely not what it's about, you're all horrible, look a squirrel, you shouldn't talk about this while we remove your rights look another squirrel, oh the evilness of you, but this happened last year when we sneaked that in without anyone noticing so it's already happened and it's too late.

So nyer.

We'll probably be able to fill out a bingo card.

I'm expecting to hear some variant of ''most oppressed/marginalised''.
'Phobia'.
'Fear mongering.'
'Discrimination'.
''So called feminists''.
''Funding from the far right.'' (again)
Waffle about using the word mother being a human rights violation.

What do we win if we get a full house?

As the HoL identified: this is not needed for these reasons, but its purpose could be very cynically regarded as a trojan horse to create precedent and further the Cause of removing all references to women from law (not men, so not sex) and separating all mention of biology and sex from womanhood. Basically disenfranchising the 51% of the electorate involved, for a political lobby who wish this for the choice and wellbeing of less than 1% of the other 49% of the electorate involved.

Full out assault on women's rights.

Certainly not someone I would consider private or did Jake and Hannah W use a surrogate?

Yes, a single mother of two in Belfast. Jake and Hannah have been honest about borrowing money from family and friends for the surrogacy arrangement that brought them Millie but they intend to do it again, and Laura has either offered or agreed to do it again.

Feeling mildly anxious about this and the impending ageism and woke pointscoring that's likely to happen.

One hour countdown....

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/02ab0dd5-baf3-4a5b-ad99-cf0e76c707d0

WanderinWomb

The couple, who married in March 2018, used a surrogate to carry their baby after using an unknown sperm donor who matched Hannah's description, and Jake's eggs which had been frozen several years ago when he stopped taking testosterone temporarily.

Is the other not Jake Graf ?
Certainly not someone I would consider private or did Jake and Hannah W use a surrogate?

Exactly Michelle

I get so frustrated when this is weaponised as

a) the chances of it affecting a trans man minister are slim to none (not being ageist but how many ministers are late 20s or early 30s and having children despite being on synthetic testosterone)

b) it wouldn't affect them anyway as they would still get maternity leave

The aggression from those who have a problem with the word mother is because they don't want anyone to use it, not that they just don't want it applied to them.

As PPs say, if the government rule against it and use 'pregnant person' in the Bill this says a lot about what they think matters, or rather, who matters.

So who is this for exactly? Is it for women who are ministers who have the 3 protected characteristics of sex, pregnancy and maternity?

This point was made during the HoL debate, I think it may have been Baroness Nicholson? That it would have to be a minister, who was a woman, who identified with a different chosen word to woman, who was pregnant, who needed maternity protections, who did not want the words woman or mother to be used.... the speaker pointed out that this was a great many qualifiers, when the massive majority of those needing this legislation will never need them. And it would be no real barrier to that multi qualified rare person anyway.

Call me a pedant but I think 'and' does alter the meaning as it implies there are people in addition to women can become mothers. And that, I believe, is asking for trouble.

Agree. It also weighs down the word 'mother' with all sorts of stereotypes that should be irrelevant to legislation.