Word Mother removed from Scottish governement Policies

Why do we need to use ‘inclusive’ language when the standard is understood?

Don’t feel like a woman? Well who does. Get on with your life.

Its sad that they have did this but happy to see them using inclusive language for others. But just so disappointed that they couldn't also keep mother as an option in the language. Maternity care is supposed to be individual and personal to the mother/birthing person and that should include which title they'd like to be addressed as. Anyone else feel like womans rights are slowly being pulled away from us?

Has anyone written to the Scottish government about this? I wonder who I would write to? I could write to my MSP, but as it's about the administration of government, not sure this would be right.

For what it's worth, I think this insane attempt to remove the word woman will backfire. It's interesting that I have had three conversations with different friends and relatives in the last week where the topic of erasure of women's rights has come up - not instigated by me. I have been GC for a while and honestly felt very alone but it really is starting to get into the mainstream.

Psychiatry has a long history of practices which turned out to be inhumane. It is something the Royal College is acutely aware of and they been working hard on ensuring things like lobotomies don't happen again.

If I was a psychiatrist I'd be demanding my professional body audits the practices of my colleagues at gender clinics. The Bell case found that the basics of care, assessments, record keeping, differential diagnosis, critical thinking were lacking at Tavistock. The appeal found that the medics should be responsible for decision making, not the court (which I agree with) but that they would also, therefore, be liable for civil action should they be found to have provided inadequate care.

If I was a psychiatrist, a psychologist or an endocrinologist I'd want to be seen to be as far removed from those practices which were criticised in the judgment, which is now a matter of public record.

Scotland have lost it on this issue

Does anyone know if the FOI that had the info about removing mother has been published?

I Listened to a very interesting podcast about lobotomies. Absolutely fascinating - a respected ‘treatment’, used until scarily recently.

Where are the medical ethics people in this?

I can give a partial answer although not from the perspective of eugenics. Recent publication that considers the ethical case for ongoing suppression of puberty:

Notini L, Earp BD, Gillam L, et al Forever young? The ethics of ongoing puberty suppression for non-binary adults Journal of Medical Ethics 2020;46:743-752.

jme.bmj.com/content/46/11/743.abstract

The linked commentaries in response are interesting and raise an array of issues.

OhHolyJesus you WHAT now?

I wonder what interest a children's charity, seeking (as they claim) to help 'trans' children, might have in promoting and campaigning for easier access to surrogacy in the U.K?

Is it because these children (like Jazz Jennings and Jackie Green) are likely to be infertile later in life if they are on a 'medical pathway'?*

Yes, the pathway causes infertility. And an unusually high number of these children on puberty blockers are autistic.

We used to have a word for sterilising groups of people who had a difference, didn't we?

Where are the medical ethics people in this?

If someone is a trans man who gives birth it is inappropriate to label them as a mother because that is not the way that they would describe themselves.

How many are there, like 3, if even that? Freddy was apparently the first transman in the UK to give birth when Freddy had their first child.

You're really taking the word 'mother' off mothers for a handful of people?

Stonewall urged ministers to remove gendered terms from policy documents and replace them with “gender neutral equivalents”.

'Mother' isn't a 'gendered term', as Freddy found out in court.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division of the High Court:

He concluded that people who had given birth were legally mothers, regardless of their gender, and said there was a “material difference between a person's gender and their status as a parent”.

The surrogacy lobby almost certainly were an interested party in the case Freddie McConnell brought to remove the mother category on their child's birth certificate.

McConnell's lawyer was/is Andrew Spearman, he sits on the Ethics Board of Surrogacy U.K.

Surrogacy U.K. is the secretariat for the APPG on Surrogacy law reform:

Contact the APPG
If you have any questions about the APPG, please do contact the APPG's secretariat, the Surrogacy UK Working Group on Surrogacy Law Reform, at [email protected]k_

Dr Horsey has been conducting research into surrogacy (in support of law reform which will specifically remove the mother from the birth certificate, hence the cross over with McConnell) and a report recently released and discussed on BBC news was done jointly with Two Dads Michael and Wes Ellis Johnson under their newly created surrogacy agency, My Surrogacy Journey. My Surrogacy Journey was also recently added to the official government website on surrogacy, which is odd as other more established agencies are not listed.

Michael and Wes also recently hosted the Modern Family Show, an exhibition in London aimed at LGBT people looking at fertility/adoption/surrogacy.

The charity partners for this show, ie who will receive the donations from tickets were Mermaids and Diversity Role Models.

(Michael appeared in the documentary on C4 featuring Jake and Hannah Graf on their "journey" to obtain Baby Millie.)

I wonder what interest a children's charity, seeking (as they claim) to help 'trans' children, might have in promoting and campaigning for easier access to surrogacy in the U.K?

Is it because these children (like Jazz Jennings and Jackie Green) are likely to be infertile later in life if they are on a 'medical pathway'?

Just unbelievable and sickening.

Fucking hell.

I am so cross.

There will be civil unrest. Never mind the Stonewall riots - if they take my word away then I will march.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/nov/25/books.britishidentity

Why is the Scottish Government able to have a spokesman, but no mothers?

Headscratcher, intit? Women and mothers must be used and not heard.

My workplace has an adoption policy and given that the process parents go through when using a surrogate is basically the same ie court then the adoption policy is what would be amended. For anyone who became a mother pre 2000, maternity leave now sound ridiculously generous … it isn’t but having had one DC when you got six months and one when it was a year I was astounded at my female colleagues who had 12 weeks. The original point of maternity leave and the legally required bit is for the mother’s health postpartum.

In order not to offend females who believe that you don't have to be a woman just because you are female you automatically offend women who believe that you don't have a choice in the matter

It does read as if the mere fact of being born female is a privilege/offence to some groups.

The surrogacy lobby almost certainly were an interested party in the case Freddie McConnell brought to remove the mother category on their child's birth certificate.

There are numerous vested interests tied up gender ideology. A lot of them are about money and profit. None of them are good for women and children.

What are the non birthing parents called? Ejaculatory parent?

So - legally you can offend a woman (on the basis of their sex) they weren’t born a woman (and Thai would include refusing to call them ‘mother’). Is that right?

Oh good spot lammy

In order not to offend females who believe that you don't have to be a woman just because you are female you automatically offend women who believe that you don't have a choice in the matter

You bow to people who think woman is in the brain and kick the woman who think that if people would only stop thinking your brain is inferior because you are clearly a woman the world would be a fairer and better place

"The Scottish government insisted its relationship with Stonewall was beneficial and productive.

A spokesman said: “The Scottish government is making progress towards our ambition to be a world-leading diverse employer where people can be themselves at work, with a workforce that reflects the diversity of the people of Scotland."

Why is the Scottish Government able to have a spokesman, but no mothers?

The comments from the Pink News body are particularly telling. Is Scotland paving the way for a fully commodified surrogacy industry? That's the only light in which those comments make sense; UK maternity law already covers the situations of adoption and of couples who are both women.

“The people who are concerned about this are actually a relatively small but vocal minority,” he said.

Someone seems to be looking in a mirror!