"Women and birthing people"

The problem with ‘woman and birthing’ people is that it is an imposition of a sexist ideology.

‘Woman’ is already an inclusive word that can be used to refer to just to sex.

I appreciate that a tiny, tiny number of people who are born female insist that the word woman can only refer to a stereotype that they reject.

It should be possible to accommodate them as individuals without insisting that all other women affirm their beliefs.

I’d say “women and transmen” would cover it- it acknowledges transmen won’t accept being called women but leaves the word for the majority.

As for non binary people, maybe just accept that whatever your gender is if you are pregnant it’s because your sex is a non binary woman.

“With Jehova's witnesses and Muslims i feel that their particular religious requirements could be acommodated, but i wonder if they really feel they need to be explicitly announced? Maybe they do. But in the end, they are still "women and other birthing parents" too - their religion doesn't change that.”

Okay but do you think we should be saying inshallah, and other Muslim things and have honey on labour wards to accommodate Muslims? If not why not? Should we have crucifixes on hospital wards and have the Angelus bells so we can all stop to pray, or in fact the Muslim call to prayer? How will we demonstrate our shared beliefs in all beliefs so that everyone feels included?

How many women would be thrown into a mental health crisis by the use of woman centred language in women’s health? Where are the studies which show the demand for gender neutral language from the appropriate cohort? Why are we changing language across the board for those who believe in gender identity/queer theory and not for any other beliefs? Even though there are other beliefs with a great many more believers? Why don’t we make all hospital food vegan for example so as not to distress vegans? Why are we privileging the 1% of the population who believe in gender identity/queer theory over all other beliefs, philosophies and absence of belief?

And why would it be so bad to create separate resources for them? In my mind it can only be because there is a determined agenda that this new belief system be forced on all of us and embedded in our societal structures, whether we like it or not.

On the contrary. If you are going to lobby to change legislation and re write official documents based on these beliefs the least anyone can do is define what we are legislating. Or now does or differ from other people who claim to be reincarnated or the king or something

If a TW genuinely believes that they are a woman, then they are what they believe a woman is. Reality is irrelevant. Clear definitions are irrelevant.

It's more important to be truthful.

What IS a man identity if we're not talking at root about the concept of a biological male and all that is associated with one?

I disagree. As is clearly evidenced by many people with trans identities, what they believe their identity is, is what they identify as

We have never had any definitive list if criteria as to what constitutes these identities.

What is a man gender identity fir example. What are the features of a man identity. How do men know of they have one.

You cannot identify as something without knowing exactly what it is.

I disagree. As is clearly evidenced by many people with trans identities, what they believe their identity is, is what they identify as.

So convoluted! I don't know how to write it clearly.

If there's no definition that anyone can put together then how do people even know what anyones talking about

This is where the Emperor gives away that he's got no clothes on.

You cannot identify as something without knowing exactly what it is. The identification is based on sex based thinking, however much is layered over the top of it.

It isn't a zero sum game. It is the opposite since it now includes anyone who doesn't agree that they are a woman (for whatever reason)

But we need a definition for this.

When you re write guidnece or adopt policies you need to brief the staff yes?

So they need to know these things they need to know what we are talking about . You cant say women is both a sex and an identity because if you believe its an identity you can opt out of or opt in to then what are the defining features? What will the glossary in the back of the policy book say?

If you had a female human in a coma who was pregnant would you just withhold treatment and shove them in a cupboard somewhere and hope they woke up so you could treat them and place them on a ward accordingly?

What defining features would this adult human female in a coma have that would allow you to determine their identity ? Is identity even remotely relevant.

You cant write an " and". The second you do you make women some kind optional being. They cant be optional and real at the same time. If anyone can be any identity then that males men and women obsolete altogether surely?

If there's no definition that anyone can put together then how do people even know what anyones talking abiut

There are, apparently, women who really, really don't want to have anything "womany" associated with them, and they would be best served by a separate document that isn't doing "women and birthing people" throughout. Do you think they want that formulation any more than most women do? Same sort of objection, but from the other end.

but they are at the extreme end and they are the ones (extremists) who are least likely to compromise, and i wonder if they would form a large enough minority that they simply must be acommodated? because compromise is about some people giving things up.

I don't think Stonewall is ever the answer these days because they have adopted an extreme position and a lot of people don't trust them.

In your Welsh example you aren't excluding anyone - so maybe there is an argument to have brochures with women and nothing else, and brochures without the word women anywhere. I'd like to see the labelling for that (maybe not). I think most women wouldn't have a problem with that. I wonder if people who don't identify as women would be? Personally, i wouldn't find that a bad compromise.

However, the other side of that coin is that someone who sincerely believes (and we can argue about how misguided or wrong we think they are until the cows come home - the different opinions here will never agree, i think) that they are not a woman and therefore can ignore "women, don't forget to book your smear test" because of it, we are failing them if we don't use languages that also brings them in.

Well, my Welsh example works for that as well. If someone really wants their advice in Welsh (and not mentioning Britain), we can produce separate totally-not-English-or-British material for them. Not have one document with "British and Cymreig" throughout.

There are, apparently, women who really, really don't want to have anything "womany" associated with them, and they would be best served by a separate document that isn't doing "women and birthing people" throughout. Do you think they want that formulation any more than most women do? Same sort of objection, but from the other end.

It would make sense to work with Stonewall, or some other group claiming to represent the target market, to produce something specifically targetted at them with all the "birthing people", "chestfeeding", "front holes" and whatever else they want. And it can be totally "female"- and "woman"- and "mother"-free if that's what they think they need. (Stonewall could help fund this stuff!)

I re-read it recently, and it is such a fantastic novel - where despite what might be written elsewhere isn't actually about the gender issue at all - on so many levels, it should be more widely read.

But i still stumbled over "per" even though i knew about it. Maybe in a year if i read it again it won't be so odd.

If you want a term for labouring women that pays lip service to genderist beliefs, you would have to say “women, including those women who believe they are really men despite being pregnant”.
How many other “beliefs” should we include on the labour ward?

I really need to get to work (sighs of relief all round) but I would like to address this.

If woman is "adult human female" we're fine talking about women. But if we believe that some people don't refer to themselves as women - why can't we include them? it isn't about any other belief than the fact that you are a woman. So either you are a woman "woman" or you believe you're not a woman but you're still in need of maternity services "and other birthing parents". There is no need to include other beliefs. Why would you? Religion? doesn't play a role, too much, in giving birth (my knowledge of religion and beliefs, not to mention giving birth, is limited though).

If we write "women and other birthing parents" where does that take away anything from women? It isn't a zero sum game. It is the opposite since it now includes anyone who doesn't agree that they are a woman (for whatever reason).

Brefugee
That’s one of my all time favourite novels. Im currently rereading it. It’s just as important as The Handmaid’s Tale for me. It invents the gender neutral pronoun ‘per’ - Marge Piercy was ahead of her time.

The term “woman” refers to the scientific, biological reality of sex. It has no truck with gender ideology.
If you want a term for labouring women that pays lip service to genderist beliefs, you would have to say “women, including those women who believe they are really men despite being pregnant”.
How many other “beliefs” should we include on the labour ward?
“Women, plus women who believe they are cats/horses/Napoleon/the reincarnation of Buddha?” Where does it end?
And given that only one transman has given birth in the UK ever, the above beliefs are no less likely.

thanks @Helen8220 - i do tend to write and post without reading back so sometimes my thoughts come out garbled. (PPE has been... useful)

My worry about not using inclusive language in healthcare is that if someone refuses care because they don't understand "people with a cervix" means them, becuase they have learning difficulties, or English as a 2nd/3rd language, then we are failing them. So the word "woman" is vital. And i think that is an important point that gets missed.

However, the other side of that coin is that someone who sincerely believes (and we can argue about how misguided or wrong we think they are until the cows come home - the different opinions here will never agree, i think) that they are not a woman and therefore can ignore "women, don't forget to book your smear test" because of it, we are failing them if we don't use languages that also brings them in.

And all the other weird combinations of this. Regardless of where i stand on the TWAW and TMAM argument - and my own personal belief is not yet fixed in my mind, tbh - i would far rather everyone gets the healthcare they need than argue that one or other of the expressions "women" or "people with a cervix" should not be used. (what i never ever want to see highlighted ever again is "bodies with cervixes".)

Perhaps advocates for trans or non-binary people feel that poking the wasp's nest of inclusive language (particularly in healthcare) is worth it so that we aren't leaving people behind?

With Jehova's witnesses and Muslims i feel that their particular religious requirements could be acommodated, but i wonder if they really feel they need to be explicitly announced? Maybe they do. But in the end, they are still "women and other birthing parents" too - their religion doesn't change that.

TERF - it's like so many other words, isn't it? It is used as a slur, an insult, as an attempt to shut down conversation. But i also see people embracing it and saying "yeah, so what?" and the conversation goes on. So i wonder if it will soon become meaningless. Or "reclaimed"?

I would be more prepared to consider it if there was some kind of quantitative reasoning behind it ie

-some clear starts on the number of women identifying as men who actually give birth each year
-an impact equality assessment looking at the results of changing language in female-specific healthcare situations, with specific reference to the many women in the UK who have learning disabilities, or for whom English is not their first language.

If it's just because some shouty people on Twitter said you must be kind and inclusive, then that's not good enough.

However I accept that there are people who sincerely hold these beliefs and have asked for their choice of wording to be used. I can tolerate that if my own choice of word is also there and equally included. Mutual tolerance is the way to go with this.
But what if the meaning of your own chosen word is now different because of your compromise? That's what I think happens once you agree to 'women and....' As far as I'm concerned, the 'and' changes the whole meaning of the word. That's not a path I will agree to.
My compromise would be on a form of wording such as 'women (including those who don't identify as female)'. Clunky but there you go.

Special phrases that we all have to say, every time. And which implicitly assigns non believers with a status within that religion? In the case of gender ideology, when women and birthing people is used, it assigns women the gender ID of "woman" which many of us don't have. If we object, we are assigned "TERF". What another religion might call heretic or infidel.

But if they don't identify as a woman they are still pregnant but aren't a woman.

That's utterly nonsensical.

A Welsh person who doesn't identify as British is still British.

@Brefugee I just wanted to applaud your clear and balanced posts. I’m definitely much more to the TRA side than you (eg I don’t think the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act needed to use the terms mother or woman), but I feel that we could have a constructive and civil discussion. Interesting to see you also studied PPE