"Women and birthing people"

People can have any beliefs they like - religious, political, delusional, genderist, whatever.
But they have no damned right to insist that the rest of us deny reality in order to accommodate them.

Whatever these people believe, it is a medical and scientific fact that only women give birth. If they have a problem with that, then that’s their problem.
It is not our problem, nor do we need to mangle the English language to try and fix it.

I am SO TIRED of all this.

Mammals procreate through sexual intercourse. Male female.

That is simply a FACT.

In mammals the female gestates the offspring and gives birth.

In mammals the young are sustained by milk from their mother.

These things have been key in the categorisation of mammals for a really long time. And shocker! Even before humans created these categories- which aren't perfect by any means.

Humans and leopards and pigs and cats. Were doing that for well. Tens of thousands of years?

The concept of mother is basic and understood across human society, whatever the culture language etc for... Ever.

Additionally. Gorillas know it. Mice know it. Elephants know if. Outside mammals. Kangaroos. More? I'm sure there are. I'm not an expert.

The fact that in some countries humans have extended etc the concept / word where mother applies is irrelevant really. I have no problem even slightly with children calling adoptive mum.. mum. Zero issues with birth mother v mum etc. Who would?

The FACT is though that. I have no doubt that most/ all mammals on the planet and through history know what mother means in essence.

And it's an absolute basic. Hugely important.

Watch a nature prog. When a larger female mammal with newborns is shot or similar. Sad doom music. Why?
The babies need their mother. Without her they generally. Will die. Be eaten.
Nature progs young offspring taken from mother. To be sold etc. To humans for pets etc.
Doom music. Why?
Because as mammals we KNOW that it's unconscionable to take young from mother.

In the animal world the taking young in to look after when mother gone etc happens.

As I understand it, “Mother” has a particular meaning in UK law. It refers to the person who gestated and gave birth to the baby concerned, the gender identity of the mother doesn’t alter the status of that person as mother of a particular baby. Genetics is equally irrelevant so a donor egg won’t change the fact that she who gestates and gives birth is the mother of the baby at birth. This way all babies have a mother, a legally responsible adult from birth.

ok point taken about the "and" but what do you suggest?

If there's a need to include 'birthing parent' then perhaps
Mother/birthing parent would do?

Tbh on a birth certificate why not just name the parents? Is there a particular reason why they say "mother" & "father"?

Please someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is already an alternative to father for same sex parents.

However, a birth certificate is a record of a birth, and the legal name for somebody who has given birth is ‘mother’. For many reasons I think it is vital that ‘mother’ can have a simple, clear factual meaning.

That doesn’t prevent people from using it on other ways - many words have several meanings.

The best one I've seen so far is "womb carrier" . Very New Age.

To me, the term 'birthing person' or 'birthing parent' makes it sound like it is something that a couple has discussed and agreed, akin to being a designated driver on a night out. "Go on, you have a drink tonight, it's my turn to drive," vs "Darling, you birthed the last two children, I really think I should do the next one". It's ridiculous.

[Of course, lesbian parents may indeed make this decision, in which case the term 'birthing mother' vs 'non-birthing mother' make absolute sense and describe the reality of the situation. But you can still use the term 'mother']

Oh I don't know, maybe because the mother has literally done all the hard labour while the father has just ejaculated?

Tbh on a birth certificate why not just name the parents? Is there a particular reason why they say "mother" & "father"?

I agree that a child has the right to a factual birth certificate. Would it be an issue for those that want them to ggave "birth parent" and the rest of us to have "mother"? It's not something I spend a lot of time thinking about, tbh

I did think that a GRC required you to live in that gender, and men don't get pregnant.

Well, yes. There's no coherent definition of what "living in a gender" means. The people writing these laws thought they new what they meant, and the response to people asking, "well, what does that mean, exactly?" was "well, you know what it means, don't be so pedantic".

I believe in Scotland they're trying to pin it down to "which pronouns people use for you", while simultaneously compelling people to use the pronouns they're told to use.

Part of the confusion here was that all these laws were intended to support people who had a surgical sex change, for dysphoria reasons. So the requirement was just limiting it to the people who needed it.

But it is indeed hard to argue why any man can't call himself a woman or vice versa, if you're going to let some do it.

I don't think anyone would care about whether or not an individual female's decision to have a baby regardless of how they identified, unless language was being erased and removed from the 99.9% of females to apparently suit this very small group of females who identify as TM. Between them and their doctors, although I think children's rights to a factual birth certificate should continue to be protected above adult right to have legal documents meet their preference.

So many of these issues would not exist if the same courtesy and care was extended in both directions as opposed to stamping on other people's words and resources and spaces and language and then blaming them for protesting.

TBH i am also confused by Transmen living as men and then getting pregnant. I did think that a GRC required you to live in that gender, and men don't get pregnant.

However, I'm fairly libertarian in many respects, and reproductive rights are something that i believe is up to an individual. So confusing and weird as i do find the idea of a transman giving birth, i leave it up to them. I didn't want children, and i absolutely hated it when anyone questioned me on my plans about having children so i try to extend everyone else the same courtesy.

Japan mandates irreversible sterilisation in such circumstances. It's a draconian policy and doesn't allow for someone changing their mind: it's currently contested on other grounds.

A policy I disagree with.

I just don't think transmen can have it both ways. Deny that you are a woman all you want. 'Live as a man', whatever that means, to your heart's content. But if you then decide to bear and birth a child, something that no man has ever done or could do, please don't expect the rest of the world to alter its language to accommodate you.

I actually have a scintilla more sympathy for ftm transitioners who want to amend the language around periods and smear tests etc. since it is not an active choice to have a period or require a smear. (Although these things do prove that one cannot identify out of biology.)

However, my suspicion is that changing the language around childbirth is less to do with including ftm transitioners and more to do with making sure mtf transitioners do not feel excluded from the female experience.

www.hrw.org/news/2021/10/12/trans-man-fights-japans-sterilization-requirement

Not that long ago, all pregnant women were referred to as Mrs Surname. The assumption was that they were married. If a woman was not married she could inform the midwife that she wished to be referred to as Miss Surname, and that would have been noted in her records. Generally her request would be accommodated, though some HCPs would still slip up. Should she not want to out herself as unmarried, she would just have gone along with the Mrs.

Pretty much a parallel situation.

ok point taken about the "and" but what do you suggest? make suggestions of how to be inclusive, because this thing isn't going anywhere.

Maybe if someone doesn't want to be referred to as a pregnant or birthing woman, they should not undergo pregnancy and childbirth. They can be treated as a man or as a non-binary person by choosing not to go through an act that only an adult human female can do.

Just a thought.

ok point taken about the "and" but what do you suggest? make suggestions of how to be inclusive, because this thing isn't going anywhere.
I've already made a couple:
Women (including those who don't identify as female).
Or - based on one of your posts:
Women (including anyone who doesn't agree they're a woman)

Another could be: women (irrespective of whether or not they have a gender identity).

Not every time you use the word in the text but maybe the first time, and then, as you suggest, as a footnote.

I'm sure a professional copywriter could come up with a more elegant way of phrasing it without using 'and'.

The NHS is resilient to meeting the healthcare preferences/demands of large groups of people.

that is sadly very true

The NHS is resilient to meeting the healthcare preferences/demands of large groups of people. Yet, it does seem captured enough to take the preferred healthcare beliefs of some groups very seriously

I think one of the things I hate most about it all is that whilst all these organisations pat themselves on the back fir being woke/inclusive/worthy of a much higher spot on stonewall's league table, the ONLY reason they can do any of this is because someone somewhere has actually told theor sister mother or daughter or whatever the biological facts needed in order to even exist as a base line to define yourself against.

And if we base medical care on believe systems

There are lots of people of a certain age (mostly women) who have hypothyroidism that they would argue is undertreated. A number of them medicate themselves using licensed drugs that they purchased abroad where those drugs are available OTC. Others want prescriptions of particular dosages to allow them to have thyroid hormone levels that are recommended by patient groups.

Some are told that if they continue to take these drugs they will be removed from a GP's list and unable to sign up on another. I'd say that very few have been able to persuade a GP/endocrinologist to medicate them to their preferred levels.

There are lots of people who want to be prescribed injectable B12 although they do not meet the clinical criteria for it. How many people would take steroids (for various meanings of the word 'safely') if they could coerce the health service into sourcing affordable 'clean' drugs and monitoring their bloodwork?

The NHS is resilient to meeting the healthcare preferences/demands of large groups of people. Yet, it does seem captured enough to take the preferred healthcare beliefs of some groups very seriously.

And if we base medical care on believe systems Why just gender. Why not past lives , those who think they can fly , those who think everyone's following them.

Ooh. My mother used to get a holistic magazine that did regular features on how your backache might be because you had once been a slave working all day carrying stone to build the pyramids.