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.

The bizarre thing is we have two opposing trains if thought running at the moment.

Everyone remembers the dice game Palava that made the news. And another campaign that was withdrawn that a council ran re sex education and the level of description that went into it.alot of questions over the suitability of it all. Arguments for it being that children were exposed to porn early on these days and the discussions needed to reflect that. Keep kids educated and informed. Sone of the terms were terms alot of users on here didn't understand themselves. Threads on it at the time.

But now we have a removal of words that women are able to use to describe their lives and their bodies. Now lack of information about their bodies has been used against women for decades in order to keep them.ignorant and therefor easily manipulated and controlled.

We have all heard the myths surrounding pregnancy and rape amd contraception. In fact it is still legal to make conscientious objections to women with regards to reproductive choices.

So on one hand we have children who apparently need to be able to discuss extreme ajd sometimes dangerous porn influenced activities and on the other women are not allowed to have words to describe who they are/theor bodies.

Its a complete contradiction I'm surprised no one's picked up

@Whatwouldscullydo

The bizarre thing is we have two opposing trains if thought running at the moment.

Everyone remembers the dice game Palava that made the news. And another campaign that was withdrawn that a council ran re sex education and the level of description that went into it.alot of questions over the suitability of it all. Arguments for it being that children were exposed to porn early on these days and the discussions needed to reflect that. Keep kids educated and informed. Sone of the terms were terms alot of users on here didn't understand themselves. Threads on it at the time.

But now we have a removal of words that women are able to use to describe their lives and their bodies. Now lack of information about their bodies has been used against women for decades in order to keep them.ignorant and therefor easily manipulated and controlled.

We have all heard the myths surrounding pregnancy and rape amd contraception. In fact it is still legal to make conscientious objections to women with regards to reproductive choices.

So on one hand we have children who apparently need to be able to discuss extreme ajd sometimes dangerous porn influenced activities and on the other women are not allowed to have words to describe who they are/theor bodies.

Its a complete contradiction I'm surprised no one's picked up

Excellent post.

Yes i agree, excellent post scully

Spot on with Now lack of information about their bodies has been used against women for decades in order to keep them.ignorant and therefor easily manipulated and controlled

@littlbrowndog

Dick Kerr

It’s chest feed with human milk

What is wrong with you and all that old fashioned biology

TBF, when DC1 was a toddler and I was getting mumbles from family about being time to stop breast chestfeeding I did go through a stage of talking about cow breastmilk which appeared to make my point.

Same DC also once latched on to DH. It seems babies are very inclusive when it comes to where their milk comes from.

Its a complete contradiction I'm surprised no one's picked up

You're right that it has not been mentioned here. But surely we have been connecting these dots? Isn't this the basis of queer theory to destablise science and 'morality'?

I wrote this to my MP last year and was told that I needed to be 'kind' and it was a 'theory' (implication that it was crazy.... now look at the articles today mentioning French agitators who apparently 'fathered' queer theory and their impact on children's lives).

Or am I missing the sarcasm here, as I often do....

I was referring to the governing bodies who authorise it all. Sorry I should probably have said.

Although to be fair its made harder on here these days to outwardly connect the dots as many posts that do so are deleted.

Only natural born women can breastfeed so breastfeeding is already an inclusive term, it includes all women who can breastfeed. End of. This makes me absolutely rage. There is no such thing as chestfeeding period.

I mean this is one of few threads that have been allowed to remain on the main boards. Most are tucked away in fwr like we are all kids in the naughty corner. And that's a section many block because whilst happy to reap the benefits of loud disobedient women they don't wanna hear or read about it

Ahh! yes. The captured governing bodies. Where the major team players move from one to another, and many orgs are striving to achieve the highest award for diversity to virtue signal while leaving the initiatives needed for 'women' by the wayside in their focused pursuit, and the rest are just being kind or wanted to get funded....

And yes, our carefully curated language on this board does make being explicit difficult.

I also write to 2 Mps on 3 occasions first one never responded. 2nd ( we got a new one) responded only to some statement re trans rights on his website completely ignoring any issue id raised. And my response was again ignored.

It would appear that the tactics is to just ignore us . Its incredibly disturbing that many would prefer to go on tv and radio and publically state that babies are born without sex,.a.rapist should choose their prison, and I can see souls than concede a single women has even the smallest point.

And that's a section many block because whilst happy to reap the benefits of loud disobedient women they don't wanna hear or read about it

Yes.

As someone who benefitted from loud, disobedient women from the 70's & 80's without understanding that I actually needed what they were fighting for at the time. By the time I hit my late twenties I realised exactly how I benefited. Hence, my love for loud, disobedient women.

I want to be one for my daughter's benefit now, if I can get over my socialisation to think the best of everyone and want everyone to be happy. It helps that I have a heavy streak of cynicism.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

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

Why say that when if you at least read the article it doesn't say anything of the sort?
It says it respects what each individual wants to be called.
To say otherwise is pure speculation and/or projection on your part.

@Illberidingshotgun
I am pleased that long term, lesbian friends won't feel excluded because information refers to "fathers"

That's a good point, hadn't thought of it that way too - surely it's a good thing to include lesbian partners, or should they just suck it up that they are automatically part of a Mum and Dad partnership?

Why say that when if you at least read the article it doesn't say anything of the sort? Why? Because, like many others, I am fully aware that the alternative wording will become the norm and trying to mainatin the female based nouns will be frowned upon.

I am fully aware because I meet it in my normal every day life. Facebook groups; local groups in village halls etc And I am not talking about mums groupd alone! I am a sole trader and can no longer go to a couple of networking groups, one for women included. My crime was to laugh and say My Name Is XX when asked for my preferred pronouns and, later, to mangle a sentence when asking about single sex pampering evenings.

That respect you mention, seems not to be applied to a woman asking to be called a woman in the face of such a drive for inclusivity.

Now, I am aware that you will call that projecting, or anecdata. But it has happened to me, in real life, has affected my business. And I comment here based on my own experiences, thoughts and opinions!

To do otherwise os to self censor!

@Whatwouldscullydo

The bizarre thing is we have two opposing trains if thought running at the moment.

Everyone remembers the dice game Palava that made the news. And another campaign that was withdrawn that a council ran re sex education and the level of description that went into it.alot of questions over the suitability of it all. Arguments for it being that children were exposed to porn early on these days and the discussions needed to reflect that. Keep kids educated and informed. Sone of the terms were terms alot of users on here didn't understand themselves. Threads on it at the time.

But now we have a removal of words that women are able to use to describe their lives and their bodies. Now lack of information about their bodies has been used against women for decades in order to keep them.ignorant and therefor easily manipulated and controlled.

We have all heard the myths surrounding pregnancy and rape amd contraception. In fact it is still legal to make conscientious objections to women with regards to reproductive choices.

So on one hand we have children who apparently need to be able to discuss extreme ajd sometimes dangerous porn influenced activities and on the other women are not allowed to have words to describe who they are/theor bodies.

Its a complete contradiction I'm surprised no one's picked up

Agree - and if I remember correctly, the dice game, despite covering niche/extreme sexual practices, did not make any mention of breasts or clitoris.

Why say that when if you at least read the article it doesn't say anything of the sort?
It says it respects what each individual wants to be called.
To say otherwise is pure speculation and/or projection on your part.

But why do transmen and non binary female born women want to change the name of a body part present in both male and female bodies to something which is grossly inaccurate. What is it about " breast" which is so triggering? How do they want medical professionals to describe things like testes and peni as they must trigger some people as they are exclusively male parts? Dangling external part of the uretha? External sexual organs? Any suggestions?

Why say that when if you at least read the article it doesn't say anything of the sort?
Why? Because, like many others, I am fully aware that the alternative wording will become the norm and trying to mainatin the female based nouns will be frowned upon.

As I said then, pure speculation, so trying to scare the crap out of a poster by saying stuff like "get used to calling yourself chest feeder, you're not allowed to say anything else now!" on your own speculation is a bit misleading when that isn't the case at all.

Why say that when if you at least read the article it doesn't say anything of the sort?

You are right, the article doesn't say that, and it is difficult to establish what the policy says from newspaper articles.

However, that doesn't make it less harmful to apply gender identity theory to terms like 'mother' or 'breast'. It is understandable that somebody suffering from gender dysphoria would project their own feelings onto these words, and they should be treated with the same patient specific care that anyone else should expect.

However, it should not be hospital policy to project those feelings onto wider communications.

No it didn't.

Nor did it take onto account that many children in the class will have e been abused and the discussions could he extremely triggering amd that bkundries needed enforcing not expanding for these children.

No teacher would have wanted to deliver that lesson so would likely have been someone inexperienced or a supply teacher that cant afford to not do as asked etc

As I said then, pure speculation, so trying to scare the crap out of a poster by saying stuff like "get used to calling yourself chest feeder, you're not allowed to say anything else now!" on your own speculation is a bit misleading when that isn't the case at all. So... as predicted you did utterly discount the rest of my post, whilst adding hyperbole I didn't actually type!

Why do that? Why ignore the slow creep of this? Why deny that it is happening when so many women are now experiencing the language shift in every day situations?

As I said then, pure speculation

Not really. As has been noted on this thread, attempts have already been made to shelve more specific terms like transexual. Homosexual and Lesbian are regarded with distaste by those who prefer the more heterosexual inclusive term 'queer'.

We know that significant organisations like Amnesty, UN Women, the ACLU already pretend that sex is irrelevant to women's rights.

Freddy McConnell, who advised on this policy has already tried to change the legal terms used to record a birth.

It is very reasonable to assume that the long term aim is to control language in a way that disadvantages women.

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

More inclusive of whom? Changes in language are not automatically additive or inclusive. Much of the "inclusive' language around womens services (its always women's services you notice) actively excludes parts of the female population. Why is it ok to exclude those women?

When the policy is coupled with a threat of disciplinary action for an HCP who accidentally misgenders its a threat aimed at forcing use of the faux neutral language.

When the policy is from the same health authority which instructs stuff to deny biology to patients concerned about a male bodied person on a women's ward and to deny choice to women even where they have suffered traumatic abuse at the hands of men then frankly their views on the status of women are pretty clear even if the references didn't make it clear.

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.

This is not some nice happy, touchy feely thing that has been suggested as a kind thing to do - the document states that using the wrong terms, even accidentally, could result in disciplinary action

So a busy midwife is being compelled to ignore the language she has used for a lifetime and ignore her instincts to say what she sees in front of her under threat of disciplinary action!! Do you know how stressful some will find that?

Many autistic people really struggle with stating something they know not to be true - it is unkind and discriminatory to them.

And still nothing about why its only happening to the word ‘woman’

Oops cross post C8H10 - I know I would really struggle in that situation- in so many busy and stressful situations many people find their language goes onto semi-autopilot - you are not really paying full attention to what you are saying because you are reading a medical chart or doing a tricky procedure etc.

Has anyone drafting this type of compelled speech edict ever consulted with an autistic charity I wonder (not Autism UK who suggested that ‘autistics with a cervix’ might want to go for a smear though).