Well, it’s happened... the trans activists have waded into the 8th amendment issue in Ireland

[AngeloMysterioso]

And are apparently pushing for the language in the repeal legislation to be “gender neutral”.

Quote from the article-

“Despite what some may believe, men can become pregnant too. There are tens of thousands of transgender men and non-binary people in Ireland who can conceive, and when speaking about reproductive healthcare, we must always be mindful of that.

“It’s imperative that newly written legislation uses inclusive language. By including this, trans men and non binary people will not hit legal barriers should they need to receive an abortion. By using the term pregnant people in new legislation, as well as protecting women, we are also protecting and respecting all gender identities should a crisis pregnancy occur.”

So. That’s nice. Thousands upon thousands of women have suffered, many have died, because of bullshit like the 8th amendment. And after fighting so hard for so fucking long and finally winning the right to bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, if the TAs get their way, we get to be referred to as pregnant people

I’m a bit of a TERF at the best of times but this is beyond fucking insulting. Savita Halappanavar wasn’t a pregnant person. Michelle Harte wasn’t a pregnant person. Sheila Hodges wasn’t a pregnant person.

If the TDs capitulate and let this happen I will be really pissed off.

I didn't miss them Fermat; I also didn't miss the very many posters unhappy with any notion that someone other than a woman can be pregnant.

As per previous, I'm up for compromise. My original post was to highlight the outcome of we were to all adopt the position of those who aren't so compromising.

Exactly Samphire and Twittle et al.

The only reason the term 'woman' may not adequately include transmen any more is because TRAs are trying to appropriate the term woman to also mean male-sexed people. That is where the problem lies.

If in law the term 'woman' continues in law to mean 'of the female sex' then all is fine. Perhaps uncomfortable to people with gender/sex dysphoria in common usage of pronouns, but legally and scientifically fine.

I believe the law confers rights to tranpeople "as if they were of the opposite sex". AS IF THEY WERE, not that they are.

Which of course is a bit naive/ ill-conceived when it comes to healthcare/ medical/ science issues as transpeople still have the biology of their natal sex. I think most lawmakers presumed that transpeople would all be having genital and internal, top and bottom surgery to 'complete' their transition, and failed to properly anticipate situtations where females claimed to be men but then went on to purposely have carry children.

The whole trans-law thing is bad law in my opinion; is ill-thought out, conflates gender with sex, is illogical and knee-jerk, and tainted with misogyny, and no amount of New Speak gender-language fuckery will make it right.

Curiousaboutsamphire you seem to be saying that biology should trump the legal definition of men/women Yes, cos biological sex is real and any legal definition is a social construct. You cannot law away a thing that actually exists!

but that’s not actually how it works is it? No, sadly, in this weird, Post Truth world it isn't. Legal fictions have always existed, they often ease otherwise sensitive situations. But TRAs are pushing this further, they seem to want this legal fiction to be the overriding truth as, presumably, they believe this will aid in dispelling some of their own dysmorphia.

Biological women seems a lot more complex that just using gravida, and having two sets of legislation when one will do the job seems ridiculous Why is the word biological more complex than gravida? Why deny biology? That seems odd to me.

Keep in mind I, like most posters here, really have no issue with transgenderism per se. I just have absolutely no idea how and why TRA ideology has suddenly become an over arching political imperative!

If in law the term 'woman' continues in law to mean 'of the female sex' then all is fine. Perhaps uncomfortable to people with gender/sex dysphoria in common usage of pronouns, but legally and scientifically fine.

You misunderstand the process of legal recognition I'm afraid. Woman/man may mean "of the female/male sex", but when a transman is legally recognised as male, they are treated exactly as every other person of the male sex is in law (except in a few cases). There is no defaulting back to biology in the law - none - a legal man is of the male sex in all cases regarding the law.

This may have been asked, and answered, already but, a trans man gets pregnant, has a baby, what is then listed on the baby's birth certificate? Does the child not have any mother listed?

If anything ever shines a light on the biological facts you'd think this would.

I do agree that it is important to recognise that people live in different lifestyles, and that any law is explicitly inclusive, because if it isn't someone will use that against someone.

What I can't stomach is the foot stamping and dissing. Women - yes women, female and gender defined - have campaigned long and hard, and at this incredible moment of progress, trans people have occluded that victory with foot stamping. There are other ways to operate, that are in themselves inclusive. The TA movement seems to cry 'inclusivity' but act the opposite.

None of the real life trans people I know and work with carry on like this.

Imagine for a second a person who fathers a child (biologically) and signs away any legal parental rights over that child. The law no longer considers their biological connection to that child, it considers their legal connection - or lack of it.

But biologically the 'first' father would still and always be so. So, looking at hereditary disease etc, you would always look down the boilogical line, looking down the adopted parents line would be pointless and only be done to not upset the family and pander to a delusion. This seems to be were we are going (in some way) with self identification.

You misunderstand the process of legal recognition I'm afraid. Rather, we are pointing out some of the uninteded consequences!

None of the real life trans people I know and work with carry on like this. Absolutely. The transmen and women, and gender bending individuals, I know are amused, bemused and horrified by all of the TRA shouting!

After such a monumental decision, I’m thoroughly appalled at this. Gestators, seriously? Utterly bonkers.

There are increasing numbers of teenage girls identifying as NB or trans and I am utterly opposed to the sterilisation of children so I would hope the majority of them retain their reproductive capabilities. I’d want to ensure they can access abortion if necessary and that they don’t feel alienated due to the way they identify. On the other hand, I’m concerned about the push to re-write language and make terms relating to women and female biology considered offensive. So I absolutely reject the term ‘gestators’ or ‘uterus-havers’ or ‘menstruators’. Same goes for ‘pregnant person’ and the hideous ‘chest feeding’.

I can’t understand why the solution isn’t ‘pregnant women, trans men and non-binary people’. Job done and there is no wiggle room, loophole or misinterpretation. Laws should be clear and watertight. Why does anyone object to that and insist on the erasure of the term ‘woman’ instead?

How does the wording "pregnant people" affect women?

I'm all for gender neutral language except in cases where it's absolutely necessary to distinguish sex or gender.

It will be women and transmen who get pregnant. And if those transmen don't want to be addressed to as pregnant women, surely it's fine.

It won't be transwomen who get pregnant.

Because people don’t get pregnant just women

Unless you can point me to a biological male who has been pregnant it’s like saying people with periods when we know only women have them

Or people who lactate only women

How does the wording "pregnant people" affect women?

For me it doesn't, in and of itself. But as part of a wider current trend to reduce 'women' and 'female' it bothers me a lot.
I am not a Not Man
I don't identify as a woman
I don't consider myself having been assigned female at birth
Toilet signs that are Men and then some amalgamation of odd icons that don't actually include the usual Woman, they annoy me!

And a whole heap of other "unfemaling" things that have started to creep of t'intenet and into my real life have also started to unsettle me. Like being asked to wear a badge with my preferred pronoun and being shouted at when I just put my name - at a business networking meeting!

And if those transmen don't want to be addressed to as pregnant women, surely it's fine. And if those pregnant women don't want to be addressed as pregnant people ? That's the whole argument in a nutshell isn't it?

I can’t understand why the solution isn’t ‘pregnant women, trans men and non-binary people’. Job done and there is no wiggle room, loophole or misinterpretation. Laws should be clear and watertight. Why does anyone object to that and insist on the erasure of the term ‘woman’ instead?

I can only assume its because of how TAs are arguing that transwomen are women and transmen are men

I’m Irish and I personally know zero trans people in Ireland.

Who are these people? Are they all in hiding cos I’ve never met any in my community or any that I’ve been in? But who I have met are lots and lots of women who have actual given birth.

Tbh, how many transpeople is this going to affect? As an Irish woman, I find the use of biological terms most correct so female should be the adjective used.

"Because people don’t get pregnant just women

Unless you can point me to a biological male who has been pregnant it’s like saying people with periods when we know only women have them

Or people who lactate only women"

I would say:

Because people don’t get pregnant just females.

Unless you can point me to a biological male who has been pregnant it’s like saying people with periods when we know only females have them

Or people who lactate only female

But females who identify and live as men can do all these things"

I was born and am proud of being a woman. Why should my right to be called a woman be taken away because a man doesn’t want to be called man or trans woman. I shouldn’t have to be called a person so a minority of men don’t get upset.

And if those transmen don't want to be addressed to as pregnant women, surely it's fine. And if those pregnant women don't want to be addressed as pregnant people ? That's the whole argument in a nutshell isn't it?

Well, but we are people. I don't have a problem identifying as one of people.
But I can see why a biological female who identifies as a man wouldn't want to be called a woman. (although I don't see why they'd want to have and use the biological functions of a woman while identifying as a man, but that's an entirely different discussion)

Thinking about it more, a FtM transman could not be legally recognised as a man, because by being pregnant and carrying a child, they would not meet the requirement of GRC to "live as the opposite sex". Since men cannot get pregnant.

So for some transpeople/TRAs/selfID to be satisfied, you then have to redefine 'man' to mean... people who are??? And try to make that mean that 'men' can get pregant.

If you are gender critcal you likely want to elminate gender stereotyped roles, but of course being pregnant and birthing chidlren is not a gender role, but a sex-based role.

Its all so screwed up.

Its all so screwed up.

Good summary.

I honestly don't see the problem with this. It is not taking anything away from women, just asking for trans people to be included.

I don't really see what there is to object to. I mean, other than the fact that half on mn clearly hate trans people and would like to see them forfeit their reproductive rights as some sort of twisted payment for living a lifestyle they disapprove of.

How can you be a trans man, and then have a baby? Doesn't having a baby make you a woman? Talk about wanting the best of both worlds!

I think that Trans activists would like nothing more than to airbrush women out of existence altogether.

I was born and am proud of being a woman. Why should my right to be called a woman be taken away because a man doesn’t want to be called man or trans woman. I shouldn’t have to be called a person so a minority of men don’t get upset.

Calling you a person is not saying you aren't a woman!

Am I the only one here old enough to remember the fight to have all the he/hims in documents made gender neutral? We weren't trying to stop men from being men, only allow for women to be included. This is the same.

Am I the only one here old enough to remember the fight to have all the he/hims in documents made gender neutral? We weren't trying to stop men from being men, only allow for women to be included. This is the same.

Exactly.

I have not read the whole thread and sm replying to the OP.

What is the harm of using gender inclusive language? It would mean there is no risk of silly arguments being raised if a transgender person seeks an abortion. It does not take away from the rights of women. I don’t understand the outrage.