"Women and birthing people"

How would it be if gender was never ever specified?

There's an interesting novel - Woman On The Edge Of Time - that sort of touches on this. But not being used to the non-gendered language makes it seem a bit clunky.

For me “and birthing people”, “and birthing families”, etc are superfluous, unnecessary for communicating and so like a superstition or religious belief. It is like tacking “touch wood” or “God willing” on to the end of every sentence.

Exactly! And why is gender ideology the religion that gets mentioned in a healthcare setting?

I'd have thought being strict practicing Jehova's Witness or Muslim would have greater implications for care requirements. Why no special phrases for people with these beliefs?

I think I wouldn’t mind so much if there was some honesty about the philosophical belief aspect of the phrase and if we who work or volunteer in maternity and breastfeeding support, and those accessing those services could choose to use the language which reflects our beliefs.

For me “and birthing people”, “and birthing families”, etc are superfluous, unnecessary for communicating and so like a superstition or religious belief. It is like tacking “touch wood” or “God willing” on to the end of every sentence.

Fine, if you believe in using that language use it. However those of us who don’t should not be accused of being unkind or bigoted or shamed or pressured, we should not be harassed into compelled speech.

As other said to add “and birthing people” implies a belief in gender ideology or acceptance that it is the orthodox view. It changes the meaning of the word woman into a lifestyle choice rather than an inescapable fact.

I prefer the BPAS approach of using the word woman in general communication but creating specific resources for those who prefer gender neutral language. More organisations should take this truly inclusive approach instead of excluding all of us who believe that sex is real, matters and cannot be changed.

There is enough room in this world for a variety of beliefs and a variety of organisations to serve different communities. We should not all have to homogenise into one big glitter party of gender identity/queerness where no other groups can have specific needs recognised or met.

only people who were born women can get pregnant. But if they don't identify as a woman they are still pregnant but aren't a woman.

Look, I'm not trans and frankly i really don't know why anyone would want to exchange male privilege to be a woman, but obviously some people do. And for those people i think we need to be inclusive.

Frothing TRAs? not so much.

but you're being a bit disingenuous. Because the question was what is the answer to a woman who asks a midwife how they know they're a woman or something else. And I specifically said that in that instance the answer isn't that they are pregnant.

Nobody on these boards has ever said the definition of a woman is 'someone who can get pregnant'. Ever.

However, only women (and girls who have been through puberty) can get pregnant.

A pregnant women asks the midwives " how do I know of I'm.a woman or something else what are the identity criteria"

the point being if you are asking a midwife how you know you're a woman, the answer cannot be "because you're pregnant". I'm a woman but i can't get pregnant. So the definition of woman isn't "someone who can get pregnant". And so on.

And what these discussions often come down to is something that very few, if any, people can actually answer: what is it to be a woman?

I know that I'm a woman because - well, actually i have no idea. I feel like me, but not all women feel like me. When I'm standing on the terrace with a beer in my hand shouting at an opposing forward who has taken out our goalie and not been penalised i am exactly the same as the rest of the crowd around me. 80% of which look like men. Probably all of them identify as men. But why, when we are sharing that feeling in that moment, shouldn't they identify as women? Because at that moment they are feeling just like me. Except they aren't.

It is a never ending and very interesting discussion. As an undergrad (PPE) i once had to write an essay on "what is it like to be a bat" and frankly, that is as unanswerable to anyone as it is to answer the question what is it that makes me a woman.

So yes, i want the word woman to be used (not least because people with learning difficulties and language difficulties can'T always relate to the "people with a cervix should get an annual smear test") but i have no issues around other people being included in that.

Again agree. It's the difference in view.

If you believe that the term 'man' means a biological reality, then yes, to get pregnant is not compatible with living as a man.

If you believe (no comment upon this) that the term 'man' is divorced from all biological realities, anyone can have any body with any formation and reproductive potential and the word 'man' is about appearance and expression.... it's very confused because it is involving a whole lot of stereotypical thinking and in denial that the appearance is based on a belief in biological reality. But it means you can say that you can be a man who gets pregnant and some men get pregnant and that sex is a choice and anyone can be anything.

Many women hate this because we have spent our lives fighting restrictive, oppressive stereotypes to teach our children any female person can be, look, do, like anything they like - sex is just the body, you have no role or self expression limits.

This seeks to shove women back in their box again.

Yes, I have strong feelings about this. I agree that it has not helped to surrender the word 'women' at all, with hindsight we should have been a hell of a lot less patient and kind about nine years ago and refused from the start. But right now we're fighting to have the word 'women' for females used at all . Spot the sex based reality for women in there.

But it is a small kindness to add "& other birthing people" for those that don't identify as women. (for me it's like gay-marriage takes nothing away from other kinds of marriage, it expands it to others)

It takes away neutrality from the word 'woman'. Essentially, it imposes on women a bunch of implicit characteristics and stereotypes that have nothing to do with biological sex. If one 'identifies' as a woman now, it is no longer purely about biological reality.

Surrendering the word 'woman' and accepting it has a meaning other than adult human female isn't a consequence-free act of kindness.

But it is a small kindness to add "& other birthing people" for those that don't identify as women. (for me it's like gay-marriage takes nothing away from other kinds of marriage, it expands it to others)

Then it needs defining surely?

A pregnant women asks the midwives " how do I know of I'm.a woman or something else what are the identity criteria"

What would that midwife say.

Why are these same progressives really happy to refer to rapists and murderers as just men?

I can only speak for me. I am talking purely around this phrase, and others, that use "woman [and other people who have this thing but don't identify as women]". I am not talking about self ID or anything else.

Because not using the word woman, when talking about say, pregnancy, would be erasure and daft. But it is a small kindness to add "& other birthing people" for those that don't identify as women. (for me it's like gay-marriage takes nothing away from other kinds of marriage, it expands it to others)

I was fully benind the HoL action to get the word mother put in the maternity bill, it is utterly ridiculous to leave it out.

What does it mean to 'identify' as a woman?

I thought I was a woman on the basis that I was an adult human female (like transmen are).

However, if 'woman' does not mean that, how do I know I am a woman? Please can someone set out the criteria by which I can know for certain?

Because people who are pregnant who do not identify as women ARE being included. It does, in fact, make further protestation by TRAs easier to rebut. Or not?

A" woman " identity has no definition though. No one is able to explain what these identities actually are. How will anyone know of they have one or not if the terms aren't actually defined

If you cant define terms then they have no business being considered in making these suggestions/policies.

Woman just means adult human female. It denotes the sex/age class of the species we are talking about.

If you include people who don't identify as women/men then you need to include non circular definitions of the terms you are talking about or its just adding confusion at what could already he a difficult and vulnerable time

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. We all have different beliefs, we all need different things, everyone's diversity is met and it's never a case of one wins and one loses.

Frankly at the moment, I feel that's important because if it is a case of winners and losers then inevitably the losers will be women, and that to me is a massive, massive problem. The push back is only in its earliest stages and we're trying to achieve it following years of carefully planned campaigning to separate the concept of women from biology regardless of the harms done to women in the process.

Or because non-binary people exist.

Sam Smith is non-binary.

Is it at all possible that Sam Smith could get pregnant and birth a child?

If not, why not?

Why are so called progressives so intent on making sure the word woman is never left alone, always has to either be qualified to include transmen or obliterated altogether to refer to bodily functions. Cervix haver, birthing body etc.

Why are these same progressives really happy to refer to rapists and murderers as just men? Shouldn't that word also be qualified to include transwomen or obliterated to refer to just a body part or function? Prostate bearer, dick forcer etc.

If the tiny percentage of transmen who bafflingly decide to give birth can trouble the whole concept of pregnant woman, why can't the small percentage of transwomen who rape or murder trouble the concept of violent men?

Thanks to those that answered my question,

I am still confused by all the objections. If the phrase "woman and birthing parents" with a footnote that from now the word woman will be a stand-in for the full expression (pretty much how in German, a gendered language, the word men "is understood to include everyone but for ease of language only men is used" kind of thing) I'm ok with that but i can understand how people who don't identify as women wouldn't like that (as i don't like the German way of doing that)

But the argument that the word woman is being erased, when that phrase is used, isn't happening, is it? What that phrase does (and it could be seen as provocative in certain circles) is make the TRA argument to not use the word women at all because it excludes, invalid. Because people who are pregnant who do not identify as women ARE being included. It does, in fact, make further protestation by TRAs easier to rebut. Or not?

But, i think i may be understanding the trans-issue (if that isn't insulting as an expression) differently. Because i divide it into gender - and gender is a stupid social construct that I'd happily consign to the bin of history and everyone is a person. So maybe I should bow out and let others discuss?

I am not happy for anyone to feel they are being erased or disregarded or ignored.

That is what is meant by "erasing".

There are no birthing people other than women. When you agree to language that implies otherwise, you agree to change the meaning of the word.

Can someone on this thread define what they actually mean by ‘erasing’. Like, the word ‘woman’ is right there, it’s being used, it’s a regular and accepted and common term. How is this erasure? What does erasure mean in this context?

I know anti-TRAs love that phrase ‘words have meanings’, and yet it seems to me the word ‘erased’ has come to mean ‘used in conjunction with additional terms which allow the discussion to be more inclusive’. So, do ‘words have meanings’ unless it’s you redefining them to make your point…?

@LatteLatteLatte I thought the same about blokes and giving birth, then discovered a journalist who claims to be a trans man who had a baby (and wants a second) no idea at all how that works!

Tbh I don’t mind “Women AND birthing people.” It’s a compromise I’d be happy to make if it enabled the word women not to disappear.

The only 'birthing people' are women. As far as I'm concerned, slipping in 'women and.,.' because it feels kind and inclusive, is how we got into this mess in the first place.

In all this new terminology where is the logic?

You cannot possibly identify as a male and still want to do the most female thing of carrying, giving birth to and then breastfeed a baby/babies. A bloke can't do those things. They just can't?!

Erasing the word woman/mother/female etc erodes our voice in- and removes us as women from- the only thing that throughout history has ever really been ours.

Does anyone in this new-era even know the first thing about female oppression and the male mindset that has been the dominant culture for the last few thousand years? (There were some ancient civilisations that were matriarchal)

I left midwifery about 7 years ago when all this never even existed, I've always missed practice, but now I'm just relieved to be out of this ridiculous nonsense.

People are people, yes, we all have human rights, of course yes, but where are the rights of women in this silly, pandering rhetoric?