Milli Hill: I will not be silenced

Milli's description of what led to the pile on online:

My work and thinking around obstetric violence had led me to the view that it is ‘sex based violence’. Please note my use of the word sex here, not gender. Sex as in biological sex, not gender as in the social constructs around roles, clothing, behaviour etc. Like other forms of violence against women, obstetric violence happens to women because they are female. What I saw happening in this slide was a genuine mix up between the absolutely correct idea that the problem here is patriarchy, a system that oppresses and damages women on the basis of their sex, and obfuscating terminology that is unable to name the oppressed people. So I felt compelled to speak.

As I had been tagged in a comment, I responded to that comment and wrote:
“Thanks. Good to see this post. I would challenge the term ‘birthing person’ in this context though, especially on international day to end violence against women. It is women who are seen as the ‘fragile sex’ etc, and obstetric violence is violence against women. Let’s not forget who the oppressed are here, and why.”

The original poster replied, “Obstetric violence is violence against anyone on the receiving end of obstetric violence – women, trans men, non-binary people, anyone.”

And I then said, “Personally I think it’s part of violence against women but if you disagree then at least don’t leave them out and say ‘women and birthing people’.

Remember, this was a reply to a comment on an Instagram post on an account with a relatively low number of followers. I didn’t expect anyone to see it apart from the person whose post it was, I just felt moved to say what I thought. But then, all hell broke loose.

A doula (professional pregnancy and labour supporter) posted screenshots of my comment in her stories. I’m going to share with you just a few of the social media posts, and the subsequent things that were said about me by others on Instagram and facebook. The posts and comments are from a variety of people, and I have concealed their identity because I don’t want to incite a pile-on onto them, having experienced how horrendous it is myself.

The more you attack a charity for using words you don't like, such as adding birthing people as well as the word women the more resources you take away from helping women. So you're harming women overall. If you think that's a victory for you then i think you've totally lost the plot and aren't as interested in protecting women as you are ensuring that trans and non binary people aren't included. Good one.

Ideological capture by TRAs is a big problem in the third sector. As one of the "indoctrinated" you would know this, poodle.

Read Milli's blog. It's helpfully linked in the OP. They joined in the pile on. I didn't say they started it, they just jumped on the bandwagon.

“My question is, is a charity that's dedicated to helping traumatized women and upholding the rights of women before, during and after childbirth the right place to have this fight? When they use language that is inclusive to both women, and trans/non binary people?”

Proponents of gender identity/queer theory and misogynists are determined to fight us women everywhere that we have (had) any power be that Birthrights, Sands, LLL, every other birth related organisation, maternity services, Girlguiding, the Women’s Institute, women’s sports, refuges and prisons.

Women did not choose this battle, it has been forced on us.

The point certainly from erish and others seems to be, i don't believe these people are not women regardless of what they think, and they should just stop being silly and recognise that's what they are.

They are, regardless of what they, I or anyone else thinks, because they are adult females and that's what the word means. Don't try to put other words in my mouth, like Birthrights did with Milli.

Aside from their statement, which could in no way be described as a pile on, show me where they piled on.

*The reason can only be ideology.

Just throwing it out there, could also be empathy towards the people that use their service and who could benefit from non gendered language being used. Even if it is just a handful. It hurts nobody to use the phrase birthing people where women is also used. The point certainly from erish and others seems to be, i don't believe these people are not women regardless of what they think, and they should just stop being silly and recognise that's what they are.

My question is, is a charity that's dedicated to helping traumatized women and upholding the rights of women before, during and after childbirth the right place to have this fight?

They joined in a nasty, misogynistic pile on. They're not above censure.

Correction the reason for prioritising gender identity over clear and accurate sex based language is ideology and/or misogyny.

I notice you haven't addressed Birthrights' lie that Milli disputed obstetric violence could happen to trans people, needapoodle.

Any minute now I'm sure.

This is an ideological battle between those who support a continuation of a sex based society and those who seek a gender based society. The two cannot coexist. “Women and birthing people” is the language of gender identity and queer theory being imposed on all of us, even the heretics, even the majority who may be unaware of what is going on..

My question is, is a charity that's dedicated to helping traumatized women and upholding the rights of women before, during and after childbirth the right place to have this fight? When they use language that is inclusive to both women, and trans/non binary people?

I'm not pearl clutching. I'm not sure why you think i am. Or why you have to resort to insults because I'm not bothered by your usual soundbites.

Approximately 650,000 births a year in England and Wales. A handful ever to the those who identify as trans or non-binary. No official data yet on exactly how many. Nor any on the impact of these linguistic changes which are being brought in unexamined.

This is not about best practice in relation to individuals which has always been managed on the basis of individual need whilst keeping general communications in maternity services as a whole relevant to the majority.

This is an ideological battle between those who support a continuation of a sex based society and those who seek a gender based society. The two cannot coexist. “Women and birthing people” is the language of gender identity and queer theory being imposed on all of us, even the heretics, even the majority who may be unaware of what is going on.

Another data gap. How many women find the language of gender identity dehumanising, confusing or even frightening if they are supportive of the traditional sex based understanding of the world? How many of us know that we will not be welcomed anywhere that uses the language of gender identity because of our heresy? How many are excluded by so called inclusive language due to not understanding it or the other reasons I have given? Why do that potentially much larger group matter so much less than adherents of gender identity? The reason can only be ideology.

That's got fuck all to do with the dogs abuse a woman with a very respectable pedigree in the area has received for mildly questioning a shift in emphasis that could harm women.

But yes, quite. And the dismissive attitude to it, while pearl clutching about people tweeting at Birthrights.

Yes, and I completely respect why you do, but this inch/mile shit is a large part of the reason I don't.

FWIW, Eresh, I respect that perspective and I think it's probably an important part of pulling the Overton window back from the brink of madness.

But don't let anyone know we're not on exactly the same page. Completely ruins the echo chamber cred.

And some things are more important than hurt feelings, no? Like women's right to organise as a political sex class.

I'm telling you.

The lives of traumatized people are not a battleground to argue about semantics around gender.

Tell that to trans activists.

I'm actually one of the few women here who still half accepts that there's a place for 'women and...' constructions in certain settings.

Yes, and I completely respect why you do, but this inch/mile shit is a large part of the reason I don't.

Agreed, floral.

The lives of traumatized people are not a battleground to argue about semantics around gender.

I got it to begin with. I'm actually one of the few women here who still half accepts that there's a place for 'women and...' constructions in certain settings. That's got fuck all to do with the dogs abuse a woman with a very respectable pedigree in the area has received for mildly questioning a shift in emphasis that could harm women.

the work that birthrights does is more important than milli's feelings

So all people are equal, but some people's feelings are more important than other people's feelings?
Now I'm sure I've heard similar to that before.