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

But the Gra exists & some female ppl don't recognise themself in the language if women's rights.

The GRA has plenty of exceptions. It's a confusing bill, but the reason it was written was to protect privacy. At the point where somebody is pregnant, their sex is pretty clear.

I actually would rather they didn't add any 'extras', just stick to the cold hard facts, females, women, mothers.

Agree, particularly in legislation.

We need words that refer to sex, not identity.

If anything needs to be added it's just an explanatory sentence confirming that no reference is being made to identity.

It might set a good precedent that laws on women's rights issues are written as such, but with an added statement that female ppl who don't self describe as women are covered. Maternity leave is a women's rights issue. I want these types of things legislated using appropriate language that doesn't de-centre women. But the Gra exists & some female ppl don't recognise themself in the language if women's rights.

The weird thing is that the government never really tried to defend the language on the grounds of trans inclusion. They only tried to defend it using the gender neutral drafting policy. They sounded a bit jobsworth 'my hands are tied'.

So I read that there were two GRC holders in the U.K. who have given birth (it was on a thing about the BSUH guidance), neither of which are ministers who require maternity leave.

Freddy M would be one, I assume the other didn't want the media attention. Neither of which are recognised as the legal father as Aha reminds us.

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

@Aha85 thank you for the clarification and I am OK with the bill saying just mother throughout, assuming this is what is finally in the bill.

Whilst I welcome the change (assuming it is passed), I wonder if at any Covid press conferences in future, any mothers other than Priti Patel will be allowed by Mr Johnson to host them?

He went and said OUT LOUD that a woman who ..hic..gives birth isn't a mother. No mummies...

It is indeed tempting!

The Instagram share makes me rage but the comments cheer me up.

I'm ok with a statement like Manderley suggests but I'm not ok with any 'ands' after the words 'mothers' or 'women'. An explanatory statement might be unnecessary but it doesn't change what the words mean. 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.

Certainly isn't for "trans man" as that is generally understood to mean trans identified male (don't delete me MN I'm not being offensive am talking about needing precise definitions in law)

They want non-binary added too , a lot of non-binary people are male.

We need this bill to be clear. It's already been jiggered up enough by not using 'pregnant woman' before birth but 'expectant mother' FTS

I’m a constituent of Crispin Blunt, and have been writing to him a lot about trans issues over the years. He’s always brushed me off. I will be following what he says with a lot of interest.

I wonder if someone will table a half way house ammendment - allowing the term mother in general through the bill, but inserting something to state that you are covered by this law whether or not you describe yourself as a mother, and also if you are legally male.

It wouldn't strictly be needed due to section 12 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This is why the amendment says "mother" rather than "woman".

Parenthood

The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act does not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child.

If sex isn't binary as we are constantly told how the hell can you be Non-Binary, by saying you are non-binary you are admitting there is a binary.

I actually would rather they didn't add any 'extras', just stick to the cold hard facts, females, women, mothers.

I wonder if just adding "and trans men" was ever considered? I'm guessing not if the focus was misguidely on being gender neutral.

No problem whatsoever with them adding as many ands after women as they want. Include away. Just don't erase the massive majority who wish to be named women, mothers, female, acknowledge biology etc and we'll be absolutely fine.

I prefer "mother" by a mile, just "woman / women" would be better, and I know it's decided now so just speculating really. To my mind adding in those unhappy with being excluded seems better than fudging it for the main group automatically included.

Bookmarking, nervously.

I wouldn't object to "women and trans men". (Although I think it makes a mockery of getting a GRC.) Would that have solved matters, or would there have been a fuss about "none binary" not being included?

I wonder if someone will table a half way house ammendment - allowing the term mother in general through the bill, but inserting something to state that you are covered by this law whether or not you describe yourself as a mother, and also if you are legally male.

[quote OhHolyJesus]5:15 is too early for a medicinal cocktail sadly.

Given the circumstances I don't think so.

[[https://www.instagram.com/p/CL3iXujjm-s/?igshid=7ay6z0fmc55q]][/quote]
Even with that "motivation" sadly still to early for me. Don't want trouble with the law, imagine .
"Sorry sirofficer policemanchap, you see it was Crisssspin Blunt on parliament TV. Hic.
You know him?
He went and said OUT LOUD that a woman who ..hic..gives birth isn't a mother. No mummies...
Yes, really, house offff commons...
No charge?
Well yesh I'm sure he wouldn't shay it to your hic...mum's face..
I can go?
Undershtandable provocococation?"

By Jove it's tempting though.

But am I right in thinking that as it was a Government amendment that was passed in the house of Lords, it will not get through the Commons fine, as the Government will win any vote due to their majority? (Obviously major 'voting against the whip' aside, which would appear unlikely).

VODKA. NOW. LOTS.

I have just written to my MP again pointing out the HofL speeches and the fact that ‘gender neutral’ drafting is not relevant to this law (his response last time). I don’t know how the process works but if there is a vote I’ve asked him to support the amendment.

OhHolyJesus - maybe we are allowed cocktails to ‘cheers’ Joanna Cherry?

There is this chap though.

Jim Shannon (Strangford)
Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill: Lords Amendments
DUP

The DUP know that humans can't change sex. I may be cheering for the DUP for the second time in a week and only the second time in my life
Just a few days ago we were saying "Get in mate. Nice work" to Rand Paul 😄 . Strange times.