"Women and birthing people"

what is it that annoys you so much about a little bit of inclusion that you can't just blank that out?

Who exactly is being excluded by using the word "women" in the context of maternity healthcare?

Every single person who is pregnant right now is a woman. Every single human on this planet, and all those who have ever lived, came out of a woman.

Vets don't have to waste time with double think in order to describe cases as "mares and other foaling equines".

I've no issue with this. I don't care how people view their own gender, I care about how that view impacts women.

Women give birth. People who do not view themselves as women also give birth sometimes. Saying both, for me, does not diminish the role of women here.

In general, I would be happier with a third space available in any matter that is (or should be...) sex segregated. This feels like a sort of linguistic third space, though I would prefer 'women and OTHER birthing people' to 'women and birthing people'.

I am a midwife, the day a man comes I and gives birth I will change my language, for him and him only.
Until then it’s women WOMEN Women.

If women don't like having the "birthing parents" being appended - why?

It's the "and". It's the implication that "women" is not an inclusive term. It suggests "women" means something other than adult human females. And it's not clear what. Certainly you're not intending to include "transwomen", right?

You're mixing two sorts of language in a single clause. You're not describing two different groups, but you're framing it as if they are. It makes no more sense than "women and frauen".

And how do you keep it up? If you had to include the "and birthing people" the first time next to the first "woman", you have to include it every time, unless you're changing the meaning of "woman" mid-document.

Some sort of footnote, or bracketed clause the first time you use "woman" to indicate that this includes all female humans, regardless of gender identity, then lets the rest of the document flow. Define terms well, once, and the rest of the document is clearer.

If someone wants a document in Genderese (or German), then that's a separate translation. Putting "and birthing people" or "and frauen" next to every "woman" in the English version is daft.

Conversely, if the document is intended to be Genderese, then it wouldn't make sense to put "birthing people and women" everywhere either. Just "birthing people" is fine.

"Birthing people" is a ridiculous phrase. Because if it's the giving birth that's important, why not "birthing women and men?" Or "birthing women, men and non-binary people?" - which is a hell of a mouthful, admittedly.

Or is it only the "people" who are giving birth, not the women?

My point exactly @HPFA

It's a sign that organisations are now just as worried about the blowback they'll get if they eliminate the word "woman" as they are about the blowback from continuing to use it.

Whilst I can see why people find it annoying the danger of not accepting the compromise is that the organisation concerned thinks "oh well, if they're not happy anyway we might as well just go back to saying "birthing people" exclusively". Plus there is a benefit for GC people in showing themselves as the reasonable compromisers as opposed to TRA "nothing is good enough."

I don't get the problem with "women and birthing parents". Women aren't being ignored, and people who themselves don't identify as a woman, but are pregnant are covered and are (presumably) happy (if they're not - i don't know what to say to them)

You don't have babies with an identity though. You have them with your seed bodies.

What is the word for the class of people that have babies. The adult human females.

Is there a collective word fir that group ?

I don't get the problem with "women and birthing parents". Women aren't being ignored, and people who themselves don't identify as a woman, but are pregnant are covered and are (presumably) happy (if they're not - i don't know what to say to them)

The fact is that the vast vast majority of people who are having a baby are women so it makes no sense not to use the word. Also there are other issues around things like learning difficulties and language issues that means that language, where possible should be as plain and inclusive as it can.

If women don't like having the "birthing parents" being appended - why? why is that? Is it the utter belief that people can't adopt a different gender? is it to wind people up? what is it that annoys you so much about a little bit of inclusion that you can't just blank that out?

To be clear - i am not in favour of only "birthing people" or any other thing that clearly involves women ignoring the word "woman" but i don't get why it is so necessary not to include other people in this?

I don’t agree with it for two reasons: firstly, it doesn’t make sense as explained by NecessaryScene and others above; secondly, and more importantly, it promotes an ideology - that ‘woman’ is a gender identity. It’s not.

Therefore, I’d prefer a footnote explaining the (correct) use of women on things like Maternity leaflets. Something along the lines of “Women is being used as a sex-based term to refer to all females”.

It could also be seen to be implying that women aren’t “people”?

There are unintended consequences when these things aren’t properly thought through.

I used to think that the addition was tbe more inclusive thing.

However thinking about it I have changed my mind as I now view it as being complicit in an ideology thats causing women and girls harm. And healthcare is one of the top issues women face. Being treated as small men and drs not knowing the differences in symptoms women may exhibit. With women facing issues such as battery/assult and mishandled birth , alongside the higher maternal mortality rates faced by Black women , I feel the language should not be tampered with. Anything that hides what happens to women at these times by even hinting it happens to someone else other than women shouldn't be allowed. Problems.dont go away because you remove or mangle the words to describe them.

I also feel that medical staff should not be placed in the position of being unable to be as clear as they would like when having to deliver news that requires difficult choices in courses of action.

I.also wonder how the insurance policies would work if it turned out that the information wasn't as clear as it should be. Would they even be covered if it turned out they'd been misleading about the demographic facing the issues.

We don't say 'British and Scottish people' to appease the feelings of Scottish nationalists who believe Scotland should be independent. Such wording would only be appropriate if Scotland factually became a separate political entity from the United Kingdom, as defined by objective criteria.

It's like "Christians and Catholics", or "British and Scottish", or "athletes and swimmers", or "dogs and Labradors".

I'm sure there are lots of Scottish people who don't like being called British, but we don't use such formulations like that to satisfy them.

We use the all-encompassing word that directly fits the concept we're looking for.

Every "birthing person" is a woman, and to suggest otherwise is kind of offensive.

I winced when I heard her say it but at least across the piece she only said it once- most of the time she referred to women.

I was far more enraged by the today programme yesterday- I nearly did a little cheer when the presenter said that Kathleen stock was 'falsely' accused of transphobia but then was brought down to earth with a huge bump when thought for the day was a rabbi basically saying that we should be kind to Kathleen stock because she's too stupid and ignorant to understand trans people. Infuriating!

Glad to hear that she mostly used "woman" and "women" but a shame that she also felt compelled to say "birthing people".

Only women give birth.

"Birthing people" is only inclusive in so far as it accommodates the delusion that women can become men (while retaining the uniquely female abilities to become pregnant, gestate and give birth).

I think we should stop pandering to this ridiculous ideology. The only people who can give birth are women. We don't need to talk about anyone other than pregnant or labouring women.

If someone is prepared to go through pregnancy and give birth, they are not 'living as a man' in any meaningful sense and I don't see why we should humour the absurd idea that they are.

Furthermore, as I keep saying, this 'inclusive' language suggests that the word 'woman' means something other than 'adult human female'. If so, what does 'woman' mean? Until someone answers this apparently unanswerable question, I will not change my stance on this.

Do pregnant transmen actually want to be called birthing people? Sounds demeaning to me. Like a handmaid.

I think it’s a pretty good way of phrasing it. If it were me, I’d use a comma rather than “and” - ie I’d say “women, birthing people at this hospital” or “women at this hospital, birthing people at this hospital” or something like that.

Birthing people sounds like your birthing partner. I'm going to pretend it means birthing partner from now on.

Because the trans ideology distorts the dictum that a woman can do anything a man can do, as well as the dictum that anything a woman does is a thing that a woman does. Trans ideology turns any organ on a woman is a woman's organ into things like ladydick. Hence if a transman gives birth it's something a man does. So a transman can rationalise doing what we consider to be an fundamentally female activity, as a masculine activity.

The Ouroboros of thought. If you can actually call it 'thought'.

Who are the birthing people though if not women?

I am autistic and a pedant. And a doctor, feminist and mother.
And it boils my piss to see the phrase “women and birthing people”.
There is no “and”. Only women give birth. That’s a scientific fact. Men do not and cannot. It is completely illogical to suggest otherwise.
What are these mythical “birthing people”? Women who identify as men?
Then how do they handle the cognitive dissonance of being pregnant, going through labour and breast feeding an infant?
All the most female experiences they could possibly have? How does all that validate their belief that they are really male? And why do any midwives buy into this denial of reality?
Has anyone on here ever seen a coherent explanation of this nonsense? Because I’d love to see it.