Midwives told to stop using terms such as 'breastfeeding' and 'breastmilk'

[MissMoped]

because it’s not gender inclusive language, I believe with particular reference to the transexual debate.

This is at Brighton and Sussex nhs trust btw, good to know NHS money is being spent wisely btw, poring over the “incorrect” use of language.

The word “mother” apparently should not be used on its own; instead “mother or birthing parent” (um, isn’t that a mother?).

Breast milk and breastfeeding is to be replace by “breast/chest milk” or “milk from the feeding parent”. “Woman” should be replaced with “woman or person”.

Gobsmacked.

That's 70 million women lost to femicide, female infanticide, sex-selective abortion

Worth repeating.

I think one of the biggest issues with this report is truly that this Trust has shown itself to have a poor performance regarding women’s right to dignity and safety.

And seriously, looking at the sponsorship of this report, it doesn’t strike confidence in me that this will stay as ‘additive’ language. It seems a particularly biased list and feels that the ‘additive’ language is a sop to get the language settled in. That sponsor list has people who have shown no respect for other women’s needs in their pursuit of trying to make language revolve around them.

It is like that NHS trust got everyone on board to push through change and forgot to include those advocating for women’s rights.

As has been said, if there is punishment for slip ups, it will go towards the option considered ‘neutral’ (because many women will probably consider it not neutral to be dehumanized than those the document sought to assist). They know this will happen.

The Trust has form already for calling women asking for female hcp bigots, why would anyone reading this think the culture within that trust is going to strive for maintaining balanced language? The sponsor list shows its priorities all too clearly.

And the push away from breastfeeding can only be attributed to yet another move to destabilize the language and detach women from their biology.

When asked why, Creasey tried to defend this because we shouldn't get "hung up" on language.

How does she think legislation should be written? Through the medium of interpretive dance? Of course language is important. She is just dodging the issue.

I'm not sure that the title of this thread represents the reality on the ground, midwives have not been told to stop using these terms. It has been stated that the language changes will not apply when caring for individuals on a one-on-one basis.

It has been developed to ensure that staff are aware that they may need to use different terms with patients and partners, and therefore check what the preferred terms are, and make a note of them. There's no reason for it to impact on individual care at all, apart from in a positive way.

Trust wide documents, policies, leaflets etc will reflect the changes, in order to feel more inclusive. I am pleased that long term, lesbian friends won't feel excluded because information refers to "fathers". Likewise that non-binary friends won't feel excluded- I'm sure many of now are in the habit of checking which pronouns people prefer, should health services not offer the same courtesy?

Absolutely this.

There's no reason for it to impact on individual care at all, apart from in a positive way

Except the terms being used could mean different things to whats intended. Body/anatomy terms should all.mean the same thing in medical situations surely. You start talking about chest pain and you have changed the entire meaning of medical issue.

Why aren't trans people entitled to the same standards of care as everyone.else ? Why would you wish for time to.be wasted on discussing pronouns and the alternate meanings of the terminology used around a particular patient when that patient should be being treated instead.

What happens.if they have chest pain that is not mastitis or feeding issues on.top of chest pain.. how do you define.what chest pain you are dealing with etc

The legislation (or ammendment - can't recall which) uses "pregnant person" rather than "pregnant woman". When asked why, Creasey tried to defend this because we shouldn't get "hung up" on language. Despite having spent the whole interview accurately talking about the disproportionate impacts on "women" during the pandemic and the lack of protection for maternity rights.

It's a farce.

who is it excluding if we speak about breast feeding?

Have I understood this correctly?

we have to change from breastfeeding to chestfeeding and from pregnant women to pregnant people in official language only? For the odd chance that someone out there may feel bad?

But if a woman feels bad because she is on a ward with a biological male and refused to choose sex of her caregiver, then she is a bigot?

yes coffee that sums it up correctly.

It is a farce.

@CoffeeTeaChocolate

Have I understood this correctly?

we have to change from breastfeeding to chestfeeding and from pregnant women to pregnant people in official language only? For the odd chance that someone out there may feel bad?

But if a woman feels bad because she is on a ward with a biological male and refused to choose sex of her caregiver, then she is a bigot?

Not quite - this is 'additive language', so both terms will be used.

What isn't clear is when they will be used or what was wrong with the old terms, or whether the health trust acknowledge that it is harmful to stigmatise previously neutral terms.

There is an additional issue re: use of 'pregnant people' in the the bill drafted to grant maternity leave rights to cabinet ministers.

This is contrasted with frequent use of the word 'woman' in the EA 2010.

@CoffeeTeaChocolate

Have I understood this correctly?

we have to change from breastfeeding to chestfeeding and from pregnant women to pregnant people in official language only? For the odd chance that someone out there may feel bad?

But if a woman feels bad because she is on a ward with a biological male and refused to choose sex of her caregiver, then she is a bigot?

Where there is an apparent asymmetry in the way two groups are being treated, usually the explanation "because only a woman (of the old-fashioned cunty kind)" suffices to account for the assymmetry.

@ivykaty44

who is it excluding if we speak about breast feeding?

THIS. Absolutely nobody, because men have breasts too (see my earlier post about a male friend who got breast cancer...)

I am sure that if there had not been the advertising campaigns from different women's health charities where the language had not been completely removed to reflect 'women and' that many people would not be upset by this suggestion and the not looked further.

If you feel happy that this will not creep further to the point where the 'additive' has become the upheld standard, then that is all good. I, on the other hand, don't have confidence that it will stay that way.

There is a huge difference in having written communication to include parents of either sex (as should have been the case) and having all written communication to moving to 'gender neutral' language due to word count, space in graphics to include 'women' as well.

All of a sudden, chestfeeding becomes the only term used. This term has already completely replaced breastfeeding in vital women's services.

Just when did we think that using ambiguous terminology in a medical setting was a good thing? And a breast is already something that all humans have.

Given both women and men have breasts, I wonder if the focus on language is not so much to do with transmen wishing to breastfeed (which I realise happens, albeit rarely) but with the fact that male breasts don’t produce milk without a great deal of effort and medical intervention? (I know it’s been “successfully” attempted.)

and having all written communication to moving to 'gender neutral' language due to word count, space in graphics to include 'women' as well.

ahhh

and having all written communication to moving to 'gender neutral' language due to word count, having no space in graphics to include 'women' as well.

Illberidingshotgun

Trust wide documents, policies, leaflets etc will reflect the changes, in order to feel more inclusive

I agree that the thread title is misleading, and any individual should be addressed using terms with which they feel comfortable, because otherwise it is impossible to provide good or even adequate patient care.

However, the term 'chest feeding' is not neutral and should not be used in leaflets or general policy documents. 'Breast' is already a neutral term that does not imply anything about identity. To imply that it does - that it is in someway taboo, distasteful or disturbing, or that using the word 'breast' implies a feminine identity is very, very wrong.

350 men a year get breast cancer. Does that make them less masculine?

I'm sure many of now are in the habit of checking which pronouns people prefer, should health services not offer the same courtesy?

No. Asking people to declare a pronoun is not a general courtesy. It implies that pronouns are a signifier of identity, and that is profoundly offensive to many people.

So yes, the thread title is wrong, but that doesn't mean that the policy is right.

@KatyClaire

I’m a breastfeeding mother and gender inclusive language is not harmful to me, but may help others. This doesn’t bother me at all.

No @KatyClaire That's the point. You are NOT a breastfeeding mother

You are breast/chestfeeding woman/person.

Get used to that tongue twisting double think! You can't go to any mum's groups - birthing parent groups - and many other examples.

Try it out on your own life. Any and everytime you would say breastfeeding, say breast/chestfeeding.

Whenever you would to say mother or mum, say birthing parent

And on and on.

If you feel happy that this will not creep further to the point where the 'additive' has become the upheld standard, then that is all good. I, on the other hand, don't have confidence that it will stay that way.

See for eg the thread currently running on the feminism section about the NHS official web page on trying to get pregnant which says 8 out of 10 people will fall pregnant within a year of having regular sex without contraception! That's a hell of a lot of men in for a big surprise, then.

(When they said "you just don't understand how much our knowledge of biology has moved on since you were at school" I didn't realise that was what they meant . Truly we live in an age of miracles.)

yes, Cara.

That NHS communication has completely failed. So too communications from providers of Endometriosis care swapping out 'women' for 'people'.

And it will be exactly the same with 'chest infections' sufferers. If you cannot say 'breast' then that term takes on a whole new meaning.

But there will always be those who will only look superficially at the changes and feel that they are good. And on the surface, they 'seem' to have had good intentions.

(When they said "you just don't understand how much our knowledge of biology has moved on since you were at school" I didn't realise that was what they meant . Truly we live in an age of miracles.)

That's what they meant by equality! Men can give birth and breastfeed too - hurrah!

8 out of 10 people will get pregnant 🤷‍♀️

How bizarre. It’s women isn’t it.

When you read that you just think have the people who wrote that completely lost their minds

Dick Kerr

It’s chest feed with human milk

What is wrong with you and all that old fashioned biology

I also think it is encouraging that all people can give birth now.

It will make it so much easier to deal with fertility issues. All couples (forget about all that pesky birth sex issues) will be sent off and told to keep trying for a year.

Then, if not successful, the doctors will have twice as many potential surrogates out there. I think it is genius.