If you avoid the feminist section then at least read this article

And also, why does it matter?

It may not to you, and if not I don’t really care to persuade you, but it does to many women / feminists hence the changes we are seeing in the opposite direction

If you disbelieve the post

Look to HoL

Do you want me to review & critique the (bits of the) article OP is evangelising about and not everything else demanding my attention on OP's link?

Ok, here goes...

SV is ranting about something I don't encounter IRL, that isn't a real "threat". It's theoretical, it's hysterical fear-mongering. It's journalist bubble-think. Y A W N *.

it feeds nicely into the interests of the rabid-anti-trans mob on MN and evangelical feminism that is loudest on MN. Rather ugly.

Shoot self in foot you do.

Also HoL amendment

You could just as easily ask ‘why are so many people pretending this is a huge, widespread issue?

When work maternity documents do not use mother, see pp, it is widespread

This crap we are seeing about the changing of language is using trans as a trojan horse. This is chauvinism and misogyny being given a vehicle and too many people are

This doesn't benefit transsexuals in the slightest and I've long maintained that supporting the trans umbrella is transphobic not the reverse.

[quote roarfeckingroarr]@Pumperthepumper because language matters. Because this insidious agenda is entrenched now within the NHS and public sector.

Why not explain whence your need to suppress concern about women's erasure stems?[/quote]
It’s easy - it’s because it’s not happening in any real way. Unless you can prove me wrong? We have policies that refer to ‘employees’ or ‘pregnant employees’ - I don’t see how that erases ‘mother’. I can’t see any evidence of midwives being struck off for daring to say ‘mother’. It’s a non-issue that Sarah Vine can make money out of by pretending it is.

@Pumperthepumper because language matters. Because this insidious agenda is entrenched now within the NHS and public sector.

Why not explain whence your need to suppress concern about women's erasure stems?

I'm also surprised to see how many people are unable to review and critique the article on its own merits.

Goodness knows, I disagree with Sarah Vine on many things, but that doesn't mean I can't read a specific piece and consider whether she has a point.

I disagree with Richard Dawkins 90% of the time, but I agree with his views on some things, eg jury duty.

There are times when I have agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, even though I disagree with a lot of what he has said.

I don't think it is healthy to dismiss something out of hand purely because you disagree with the style of publication as a whole or you dislike the writer.

It seems there is a consensus that the word ‘mother’ is inclusive, and everyone is also happy to include ‘trans men’.

Most objections are a denial that the replacement of woman/mother with ‘birthing parent’ or ‘person with a cervix’ is happening. That’s fine, but please do go and check your work policies. I did today and was horrified to see that they were all changed last year to remove woman, mother and father.

In my work’s maternity policy, ‘mother’ and ‘woman’ are not mentioned. Very happy for them to use ‘women and trans men’ or ‘mothers and other birth parents’ but not dropping the words altogether.

It's why on the top of a school letter you might see 'dear parents/caregivers'. 95% of the time, you will be addressing parents, but using more inclusive language is respectful of those who are carers.

So they are using both. Parents because they are potentially addressing mum and dad. And caregivers for those who are carers.

So by the same principle it should be mother plus (whatever other version).

Why are so many women desperate to deny this is taking place?

And let's not forget that she's married to Michael Gove, so presumably isn't opposed to the crippling cuts to public services and welfare benefits that affect women so much more than men.

When she starts sticking up for the services that women depend on, her opinions on the conflicts between trans rights and women's rights might have some validity.

I dont see the issue with using language thar includes everyone, in documents that will reach a broad audience. The words 'mother', 'mum' and pregnant woman are also not 'banned'. Noone will object to you using them.

People may say that it isn't worth it for the sake of a tiny percentage of people, but we see that in our language all the time! It's why on the top of a school letter you might see 'dear parents/caregivers'. 95% of the time, you will be addressing parents, but using more inclusive language is respectful of those who are carers.

Can't imagine getting so frothy over some harmless inclusivity.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4182990-Courage-Calls-to-Courage-Everywhere

De-lurking just to say that I think more people are likely to be put off by the anti-trans views they see on Mumsnet than they are to become GC.

And there's many more who have delurked to pop on to feminism and say the exact opposite. Go take a look. So clearly you don't speak for all delurkers. Welcome to Mumsnet though. 😉

There are some words one can ask not to have applied to oneself and it's no big deal. Mother isn't one of them. It relates to the objective reality of being either the woman who gave birth to a child or the the woman who is bringing the child up and has parental responsibility (or both).

We should be asking why so many young women and girls are desperate to opt out of womanhood - far more than in any previous generation.

We should also be asking why men are so intolerant of other men who don't conform to gender stereotypes. Why is it all on women to take these refugees in and be kind to them, regardless of the inconvenience and danger to us?

If we had an answer to these questions, we could get away from the Humpty Dumpty world of insisting that words mean what we want them to mean, even though that makes it impossible to talk simply and clearly about important topics like health promotion.

One person saying ‘my neighbour is a midwife and was shot for saying mother’ is not anecdata but one person saying ‘it’s not happening in any real way’ is anecdata? Sure.

I didn't refer to any such 'my neighbour was shot' post, which I don't actually recall seeing anyway. It seems a bit disingenuous to argue against points one hasn't made.

Still, you asked for examples. I've provided some, as have other posters. I think they are sufficiently concerning and point to a creeping normalisation of removing the words 'woman' and 'mother' from official texts. Others disagree.

Some of us will push back against the changes. Others will shrug their shoulders and decide there is nothing to see here.

But at least it is being openly discussed and debated now, which is the important thing.

I am a mother and I'm proud of it. Should I not be?