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.

No, sadly that isn’t what happens usually - lesbians are often treated really poorly by maternity services.

The attempted change may be seen as a problem, but there’s really no options left to our services at this point. And it isn’t a change - some HCPs already know how to engage with service users who are trans, lesbian etc. Many do not and the way they handle things lead to justifiable complaints. This is formalising the way to support them, not an eradication of existing language.

I am gender critical, but this is an enormous overreaction to what is an attempt to ensure that all staff are aware of how to support everyone using the service.

It’s a no win situation at the moment - whatever language you use excludes someone or angers someone.

That sounds crap all round Tammy

It really is crap. The last year has been horrific, and honestly arguments about language use is the last thing anyone working in maternity need.

The problem is there also really are legitimate complaints about the way some service users are treated / spoken to by some staff - quite a few stories from lesbian service users stick in my head particularly. Genuinely offensive stuff.

Any time you write any comms, social media content etc there’s concerns about who is going to be upset by it - you have those who are offended by additional language, those who are offended by the language not being gender neutral, those who are 100% gender critical, those who cry T**F at any opportunity. And it’s not just coming from trans service users at all - a lot of aggressive complaints about the lack of gender neutral language comes from female service users, in fact the vast majority do.

The whole thing is a nightmare. Which is why, from my view inside, saying we will not use gender neutral language is a statement and an encouraging one at that - within the context of the discussions being had, this is actually a stand being taken, which I’m glad about. But some trusts / comms teams / MVPs are much more likely to use gender neutral language routinely than others.

I wonder what midwifes should be called? midspouses

This statement says they they reject the blanket use of neutral language but will use additional language where required.

Hi Tammy, good to have input from a professional. In my experience (3x) of a delivery/Maternity service it is often super busy with midwives whizzing about looking after more than one woman giving birth, then afterwards when I was trying to recover it all just seemed permanently crazy.

Maybe the NHS maternity care has improved enormously since my day and nurses and midwives have plenty of time to make a lovely 1:1 bond with their patient and learn all the important medical stuff as well as how the patient would like to be addressed, their pronouns, their chest feeding/breastfeeding preference, whether they are mother or birthing parent, which pronouns the non birthing partner prefers, whether the baby will have its ‘gender’ assigned straightaway or whether they can delay a bit to make sure they get it right (there seems to be too many mistakes made in the past - it has caused too many people to have to go through expensive surgery to fix the mistakes made at assignation stage).

But back in the real world, do you think it might be a bit distracting trying to work with the threat of disciplinary action hanging over you if you accidentally use the wrong term (non-intuitive, non scientific) that you were informed that you were to use when a particular patient was admitted?

It really is crap. The last year has been horrific, and honestly arguments about language use is the last thing anyone working in maternity need.

I have sympathy, it does sound horrendous. I’d quite like the adults to come back into the room now and sort it all out.

@gardenbird48

This statement says they they reject the blanket use of neutral language but will use additional language where required.

Hi Tammy, good to have input from a professional. In my experience (3x) of a delivery/Maternity service it is often super busy with midwives whizzing about looking after more than one woman giving birth, then afterwards when I was trying to recover it all just seemed permanently crazy.

Maybe the NHS maternity care has improved enormously since my day and nurses and midwives have plenty of time to make a lovely 1:1 bond with their patient and learn all the important medical stuff as well as how the patient would like to be addressed, their pronouns, their chest feeding/breastfeeding preference, whether they are mother or birthing parent, which pronouns the non birthing partner prefers, whether the baby will have its ‘gender’ assigned straightaway or whether they can delay a bit to make sure they get it right (there seems to be too many mistakes made in the past - it has caused too many people to have to go through expensive surgery to fix the mistakes made at assignation stage).

But back in the real world, do you think it might be a bit distracting trying to work with the threat of disciplinary action hanging over you if you accidentally use the wrong term (non-intuitive, non scientific) that you were informed that you were to use when a particular patient was admitted?

A lot of staff are concerned about saying the wrong thing. Other staff don’t give a toss or give it a second thought. I don’t think we are anywhere close to staff being disciplined for using the wrong language accidentally - at the moment senior staff in some trusts would be very dismissive of such a complaint and at worst, if a complaint came in about a HCP deliberately using language they know would be upsetting, would assign that service user to a different HCP that they know is more likely to support them in their wishes.

My belief is that the vast majority of actual midwives will never use Gender neutral language persistently. Most are very resistant to it or aghast that it’s even possible for anything else to be necessary.

If this impacts anything and there’s a slow slide to GN language, it will be on the comms side and many senior staff will resist it, I guarantee.

The biggest issue though is the push from a small number of vocal women who want this change under a misguided sense of being allies.

Maternity is quite fascinating - I’ve seen more women express vocal GC sentiments on maternity issues than anywhere else, but then also there are some doulas, antenatal educators, IBCLCs etc who are pushing neutral language hard and blowing up social media pages where language isn’t inclusive enough in their view.

@TammySwansonTwo

The biggest issue though is the push from a small number of vocal women who want this change under a misguided sense of being allies.

Maternity is quite fascinating - I’ve seen more women express vocal GC sentiments on maternity issues than anywhere else, but then also there are some doulas, antenatal educators, IBCLCs etc who are pushing neutral language hard and blowing up social media pages where language isn’t inclusive enough in their view.

Yes I'm convinced the actual population of genuine trans people is so small that the push can only be coming from so-called
"allies".

@ivykaty44

I wonder what midwifes should be called? midspouses

Since "mid" means "with" and "wife" means "woman" in the word "midwife", it's going to have to change to midbirthingperson 😑

I know this is a bit off tangent but when receiving his covid vaccine because he works in a care home- my six foot something very masculine uncle got asked if he was pregnant.

I would much rather be called a cunt than a birthing person.

LockdownLumpy you are not getting it. There is no such thing as chestfeeding. "Adding" such language is a) biologically misleading and b)is just the start of un-linking women from their female sexed bodies.
People who give birth and chest feeding are all about things that "any gender" can do. That is not the case.
Only women give birth, someone who has given birth is a biological mother and women use their breasts to feed babies.
The guidance also threatens midwives with disciplinary action if they do not capitulate.
That is fascism. Demanding the people swear allegiance to an ideology and threatening them if they do not comply.
It is not "inclusion" it is a hostile takeover.

I appreciate what you are saying Tammy, and it's shit that some lesbian couples have received bad treatment in Maternity-I had horrendous treatment too, it was actually quite traumatic-and midwives should be encouraged to treat everyone with equal respect (and respect the words those individuals wish to be used) but when they are writing it into the comms and into policy, that is deeply disturbing to me. I'm sure most midwives will continue as they were, but to say "it's just the comms" is not good enough for me.
Everything starts with language-that's why it is so damn important.

I would much rather be called a cunt than a birthing person.

This is the problem though isn’t it? You object to the use of “women and birthing people”. Others object to the use of the word “woman”, still more object to the use of the term “birthing person”.

Maternity is caught in the middle of this shitstorm and cannot win at this point. Whatever is chosen is wrong.

If anyone explains breastfeeding to me in future childbirths as 'make sure your right chest chosen instrument of feeding' is securely in baby's mouth, I'll just say 'do you mean my breasticules?' and move to Indonesia.

@TammySwansonTwo

I would much rather be called a cunt than a birthing person.

This is the problem though isn’t it? You object to the use of “women and birthing people”. Others object to the use of the word “woman”, still more object to the use of the term “birthing person”.

Maternity is caught in the middle of this shitstorm and cannot win at this point. Whatever is chosen is wrong.

Except that 'Mother', for example, isn't wrong - it might upset a minority of people but it's not actually wrong to describe in this way, it's been in use in the English language for centuries.

'Birthing person' is wrong because it doesn't properly describe anyone - 'birthing person' could be a midwive or relative - anyone present during labour.

*@Welikebeingcosy

This is the problem though isn’t it? You object to the use of “women and birthing people”. Others object to the use of the word “woman”, still more object to the use of the term “birthing person”.Maternity is caught in the middle of this shitstorm and cannot win at this point. Whatever is chosen is wrong.

Well...no. Woman is correct. Mother is correct. They are words that have been used forever to describe actual, physical things. They are (or were) completely neutral words. Others (who?) may object to my use of the word woman, but no medical service especially maternity should ever be capitulating even slightly to such offensive rubbish.
To be clear, I don't have any problem if a the rare pregnant trans man asks their midwife to not say the word "breasts". Not my business. But to write it into policy...
Women need to start saying NO clearly and every time because this really is the thin end.

@TammySwansonTwo

I would much rather be called a cunt than a birthing person.

This is the problem though isn’t it? You object to the use of “women and birthing people”. Others object to the use of the word “woman”, still more object to the use of the term “birthing person”.

Maternity is caught in the middle of this shitstorm and cannot win at this point. Whatever is chosen is wrong.

Some are right and on the side of truth. Some are wrong and are spouting literal lies. As a PP has also responded, you can request the midwife calls you whatever you want. But to have this stuff enshrined in law and policy? I draw the line there and clearly so so many others.

I hope we stop the pendulum before it swings too far.

Well of course that’s how you feel, and I would agree.

The people on the other side of the argument feel equally as strongly.

What are trusts supposed to do exactly? What do you think will happen if they say no, we won’t add on language that recognises that not all service users identify as a woman, not all mothers are the ones giving birth (particularly true if you are genetically the mother but your partner is the pregnant one), etc. Tough, we are just going to continue to put out messaging that excludes you.

Resolving arguments over language is not what maternity services exist to do and nor do they have time for it, and whatever they do there will be an outcry from one group or another. Making language inclusive for the individuals who use the service is the only viable option. Some of those individuals do not identify as women, some are mothers who are not giving birth, etc.

Chesfeeding is absolutely ludicrous as a term and I would prefer to never see it used except in individual cases, but then if a service user has severe dysphoria and is already struggling to access feeding support, then any barriers should be addressed. Using additional language rather than replacing existing language is, I guarantee, as good as it will get and I fear that some trusts will not adopt this policy but one which is more severe.

Maternity services should be accessible to all who need them, not alienate some. The only way to do that is to try to keep everyone happy which isn’t possible, this comes closest. It’s not ideal but there is no solution right now.

The appropriation of gay couples' experiences is part of the problem. They are not the same but conflating them suggests equivalence.

My DC were all born in the 90s and I can't ever remember an HCP assuming I was married or even had a male partner. The language was all about partners/birthing partners. That excluded nobody; "partner" includes married, non married, male female. Mother and Father and parent are both terms which can legitimately be used with or without a biological bond or assumption that they have given birth. Since the legalisation of equal marriage the term wife or spouse applies to women partnered with men or women.

None of this is particularly confusing and more importantly it doesn't exclude groups. None of this requires denial of biology, misnaming of common body parties in confusing ways.

Trans men and women need consideration, I'll call someone anything they choose. However some of language changes do cause confusion, are innacurate and exclude other marginalised groups. They should not be conflated and we should not pretend that the changes have no impact on other groups. Nor should they permit the gaslighting of vulnerable women and be used to deny women who need sex based protections.

Maternity services should be accessible to all who need them, not alienate some. The only way to do that is to try to keep everyone happy which isn’t possible, this comes closest. It’s not ideal but there is no solution right now

Do you know where insurance would stand? Do you think its possible that if god forbid something happened to the mum/patient or baby , and family members sought legal action or forced an inquiry into what happened, that insurance wouldn't cover staff when it saw on charts or heard accounts of advice given or information documented that could be said to be false as it was centred on identity of the patient as opposed to biologically akd medically accurate ?

I mean ultimately its you staff who take the hit. It's your record. Your job.

Maternity services should be accessible to all who need them, not alienate some. The only way to do that is to try to keep everyone happy which isn’t possible, this comes closest.

Except that it doesn't, because it's alienating the majority at the expense of a minority. How many transmen give birth? Surely there can only be tiny number since, by definition, such people won't want to do something that so clearly identifies them as female biologically.

I don't believe this is about inclusivity at all, it's about giving in to a very vocal (and potentially very intimidating) group of activists, many of whom aren't trans.

This has little to do with inclusivity or transmen and all to do with validation of a certain type of transwoman (biological males) who hate reminding of the things they can't do. Surely having the word woman erased is a small price to pay for their mental wellbeing?

My belief is that the vast majority of actual midwives will never use Gender neutral language persistently. Most are very resistant to it or aghast that it’s even possible for anything else to be necessary.

hi again Tammy that is a relief - I can't imagine any of the nurses or midwives I knew doing that. Are you aware though that the Brighton hospital's policy specifically mentions disciplinary action against staff that accidentally use the wrong word - that seems super harsh!

As an aside, are you a member of any nursing unions - I noticed that the RCN made a submission to the recent GRA consultation, presumably on behalf of their members, that was fully in support of self-id. A few members I have spoken to had no idea that this was being done in their name.

The result of this means that single sex wards would be an impossibility if a male-bodied transgender person wishes to be placed on one. In the case of our local hospital trust, they include trans people that only identify as female on a part time basis and leave it up to front line staff to sort any dispute/conflict in rights.

The policy also states that in the event of any conflict of rights, the transgender person's wishes take precedence over anyone else. This sounds like it is setting the frontline staff up for some difficult situations to resolve.