Thread derailment

So (flipping my original question) why didn't your own language shift back here? You know that "pregnant women" is the accepted language here and yet you didn't automatically change. Either you do think "pregnant people" is a more correct term, or else you have been affected in some way - perhaps by habit? - so now you automatically reach for those words even though you don't believe in them yourself?

Yes it's best to say women and anyone with a cervix.

Well that is due to your inexperience as a HCP. We regularly have to shift in all kinds of ways to build the best rapport we can with our service users. Language is just one way we do this.

It really isnt a problem at all.

Nice words, but we all know you would draw a line at, for example, racism. You would not - or at least I hope you would not - produce a leaflet that pandered to racists to ensure racist women felt properly addressed by language that differentiated their race from those they consider inferior? Then consider why it is you think it's ok to do that to women.

Or indeed remove the woman entirely from services which are specifically for one sex such as when NHS Scotland/Scottish Government ran a national radio campaign for cervical screening which used only the phrase 'those with a cervix'.

So why would we allow the needs of women to dictate the literature that we provide to the range of service users that we have? You dont make sense.

Youre saying that a leaflet aimed at everyone who might have a anamoly scan should omit some of the service users who might need an anomaly scan because including them somehow erases other groups who are also included (women). It's totally illogical.

The type of society we want is one where anyone who is pregnant receives safe, holistic care.

There is a difference between "does not care about" and "actively denies".

I suggest you reread my post as you have clearly not understood that.

No one is saying people cannot feel however they feel about themselves.

We are saying when politicians, public services, employers, media outlets take up those self images as fact, or even just pretend to think they are facts to make individuals feel comfortable, it goes beyond just what makes an individual comfortable into something that impacts other people and that also needs to be considered.

That is why health care information that goes wider than one HCP talking to an individual service user, like literature that refers to "women and birthing people", cannot allows the needs and preferences of one group to redefine everyone else.

This is not about "right or wrong", it about what type of society we want to have - one based on understanding reality and finding our best places within that, or one based on pretence and the imposition of power.

No one is saying people cannot feel however they feel about themselves.

We are saying when politicians, public services, employers, media outlets take up those self images as fact, or even just pretend to think they are facts to make individuals feel comfortable, it goes beyond just what makes an individual comfortable into something that impacts other people and that also needs to be considered.

That is why health care information that goes wider than one HCP talking to an individual service user, like literature that refers to "women and birthing people", cannot allows the needs and preferences of one group to redefine everyone else.

This is not about "right or wrong", it about what type of society we want to have - one based on understanding reality and finding our best places within that, or one based on pretence and the imposition of power.

I dont think you read the post or you wouldn't have rehashed what I just said. Maybe go back and read it again. This time, think about why it would be poor care for a midwife to emphasise womanhood when someone feels their sex is about as important as their ring size. Think about why we might be more inclined to orient her care about the identities she feels are more central to her being.

As a HCP, you have to ensure that you don't allow the things that you find important to obstruct you from providing safe, holistic care to the service user.

No again youve misunderstood because your whole world is about this whole gender issue.

This is simply a wrong statement.

Nevertheless, as we are on that topic on this board, I note you slipped in the word "primarily".

You had to do that because your examples of people who do not want to be seen as "primarily" a woman are not at all the same as denying one is a woman at all.

The African woman might consider her identity as an African more important that her identity as woman, but presumably she does not think that being African means she is not a woman at all.

Very different.

What exactly are you talking about? Why would you refuse to accept that some people don't see their sex as a primary identifier if it clearly evidenced and you may have even had first hand experience of people who feel that way?

This is about how people feel about themselves. You cant argue with them about that and say that they should feel that sense of attachment to one aspect of their identity when they just do not.

Lots of academia isn't about right or wrong. It is about exploring difference.

But it goes beyond that sphere of caring for an individual into a change in the general use of language and concepts. See your use of 'pregnant people' when not ministering to an individual but posting on a discussion forum. This appears to suggest your thinking of 'pregnant women' has been replaced by thinking 'pregnant people'. This is the specific example to hand and I am not saying this is just you or you are wrong for caring for individuals. It's that in that process of change of use in the public sphere, 'pregnant women' comes to be perceived as less acceptable or even downright wrong. Across society, this subverts reality, specifically women's reality and diminishes the position and status of women. I take your point, though, that you are not caring for or thinking of men who 'transition'.

No again youve misunderstood because your whole world is about this whole gender issue.

For many people, totally away from the whole trans argument, don't see their sex as their primary identifier. This is to do with personal identity. So, for some people, if you asked them who they are, just that simple question, they might say "a woman" but equally they might say "an African", or "a human", or they might say "a mere blip in the ripples of time". Not everyone who gives birth wants us to think of them primarily as a woman. It isn't that they disagree that they are a woman, but they see about as important as being a size 6 shoe. It isnt their most encompassing label.

A good HCP will find what is important to the individual and will use that as their foundation to build a trusting relationship.

That's profoundly ideological. I don't know whether I agree with it or not, but that is certainly not a neutral position. Was this discussed and explored and challenged, or was it just laid down by your teachers as an unquestionable principle that you all had to accept?

No it's using language that makes the service user feel safe and understood by you. That leads to better clinical care and overall, better outcomes. It's no different to how I might adapt my language and demeanour when interacting with a 16 year old to ensure they felt safe and understood. Or a disabled person. Or Quite Average Annie who has no additional needs and is just here to have a baby.

And just to say, this is something I learned as a student way before we were even taught to consider that trans men might be pregnant as part of our degree. We did relatively little on same sex relationships, let alone trans identities.

No again youve misunderstood because your whole world is about this whole gender issue.

For many people, totally away from the whole trans argument, don't see their sex as their primary identifier. This is to do with personal identity. So, for some people, if you asked them who they are, just that simple question, they might say "a woman" but equally they might say "an African", or "a human", or they might say "a mere blip in the ripples of time". Not everyone who gives birth wants us to think of them primarily as a woman. It isn't that they disagree that they are a woman, but they see about as important as being a size 6 shoe. It isnt their most encompassing label.

A good HCP will find what is important to the individual and will use that as their foundation to build a trusting relationship.

And there is it.

You either believe that "woman" (and girls) refers to the biological female half of humanity, in which case all your "types of humans" are subsets of that one group, or you believe that "woman" is some sort of personality expression entirely unrelated to biology and there's no reason whatsoever that a baby comes out of a "woman" rather than a "man".

Seems like despite all your protestations that "flipping" your language hasn't changed they way you think, when asked to get right down to basics, it has.

There are lots of types of humans who can give birth. Trans men are a group who can. That's why individualised care that meets their specific needs is of importance. TM are just as entitled to feeling safe and understood in pregnancy, birth and in the postnatal period as women are.

Nope. No talk of trans inclusive language in maternity services.

It's chilling because you, a HCP, are giving public credence to the false idea that there are two types of humans who can give birth, "women" and some other lot.

You would not, I assume, indulge a woman who believed her pregnancy would end when the stork brought her nice clean baby to her in a cloth bundle?

So you do have a line where reality matters.

I find it chilling that you are drawing it so far from reality in a way that hurts women's legal, cultural and social existence.

Okay but what are you scared that midwives might think?

So for me, the use of language I am talking about has changed my thinking (in part) because I now acknowledge that I could have a service user who doesn't identify as a woman. That's the only thing that has changed and it is based on fact. It doesn't change that the majority of maternity service users are women and identify as such.

I can't see what's chilling about any of this tbh.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by bias. I'm talking about objective thinking vs unconscious assumptions, and how the language we use and the habits we form change our thinking even if we did not intend them to.

Here's a question for you - when you use "trans inclusive language", if you reduce it to basics, is what you are doing lying to the trans service user because you know they cannot handle the truth?

And if it's not that, what is it, at the very basic level?