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.

To those that say language doesn’t matter, it’s language creep over time that has resulted in the replacement of the term sex with gender, making its way into official
documentation, and law, and therefore confusing and eroding sex based rights that women have fought for. Every change in language that makes it less clear what a woman is, we should all be worried about.

X post with Life.

@redpencil77 the idea that a newborn baby would be forced to drink a chemically induced liquid from a mans chest is ridiculous and cruel. I know it’s been talked about in theory but thankfully I’m not sure this has actually been done in real life.

The thread title and opening post are misleading to put it mildly.

In fact it’s an out and out lie.

www.bsuh.nhs.uk/maternity/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2021/01/Gender-Inclusive-Language-in-Perinatal-Services-BSUH.pdf

Go read the document (section 6 is the bit where they state the guidance)

It’s nothing like the thread title.

Yet another thread in AIBU, stirring up anti trans comments, with an opening post and thread title that is plainly and demonstrably untrue.

So fed up with mn allowing these propaganda threads to stand in AIBU.

The thread title is based on how this has been reported in the media which is presumably where the OP got the info. I haven’t read the report but as the link states perinatal services rather than maternity, that’s already once instance where a word associated only with women, with expectant mothers had been taken away, so already it doesn’t seem that far off the mark.

@NiceGerbil

Hmmm

I had a look at the document.

So far they have mentioned that women are often marginalised in healthcare

And while they say this

'We also recognise that there is currently biological essentialism and transphobia present
within elements of mainstream birth narratives and discourse'

They also say this

'Please note that these language changes do not apply when discussing or caring for
individuals in a one-on-one capacity where language and documentation should reflect
the gender identity of the individual. When caring for cis women it is good practice to
use terminology that is meaningful and appropriate to the individual; this may include
terms such as woman, mother or breastfeeding.'

I really wish people would be a bit more circumspect with this stuff. It's not nearly as bad as OP makes out. They say they take an additive approach- so pregnant women and people. Type thing.

Let's not get people riled up over half a story.

When the NHS main website says 8 out of 10 people under 40 get pregnant in a year of having unprotected sex, then there's really no need to do this. There enough ludicrous stuff out there not to worry!

"8 out of 10 people under 40 becoming pregnant after a year of unprotected sex" is a great example of gender inclusive language making statistics meaningless. Really, only half of the people having sex are biologically capable of pregnancy, so the statistic changes to 4 out of 10 and the meaning is lost.

it is interesting that there are people who were born male but identify as female gaining places on advisory boards or committees shaping policy on women's health issues.

The Royal Obs/Gyn Society has a male born transwoman (who also works for Stonewall incidentally) on the committee which is about sharing women's experiences of health issues and informing policy. What possible input could this person have? There is also a possibility that having someone not female present could make the women self-censor when talking about often extremely painful and personal experiences.

There was a situation in Bristol a while ago where, despite being born male, attended a women's meeting about menopause and gave a talk on the menopause and their experience of 'HRT' (meaning cross sex hormones).

This person has had major input into the policy that says that the needs of transgender people overriding all other patients relating to single sex accommodation for all the hospitals in the South West (and has a very anti-woman blog and was involved in the protests against a women's meeting in Bristol a couple of years ago) .

Obviously Dr Ruth Pearce is advocating for trans inclusion in the matter of breastfeeding but having been born male has no actual insight into the feelings or needs of women or transmen affected by this. As pp's on other threads on this topic keep telling us, transgender people are not one big homogenous group and the trans umbrella stretches far and wide to include cross dressers, drag queens etc etc. Within the group there are very different groups of people with very different needs and priorities so it is hard to see how a male-born transwoman can speak on behalf of all female born transmen.

Which leads me to think that Dr Ruth is speaking on behalf of the wants of the male-born transgender people which is to decouple the word woman with our biology to make it easier for a male person to claim to be a woman. And it seems to be working.

The policy document talks about "biological essentialism" aka actual biology (unless you are appropriating the DSD community despite their repeated requests that Stonewall refrain from this). It talks about "chestfeeding" when in fact both men and women have breasts and the correct term in both sexes is "breasts".

There is absolutely nothing to stop an HCP using any term the patient wants on a one to one basis but codifying inaccurate terminology and poor medical record keeping helps nobody.

Use of "inclusive", usually indirect language actively excludes large communities of women - mostly at the lower end of the privilege scale. But who cares about them eh?

@Frazzzledmrs

Haven't people heard of trans men? Surely if being female is being 'eroded' by men transitioning to women, being male is also 'eroded' by females transitioning to males. So maybe it all cancels out and we can just get on with things? Some women have moaned forever about not wanting to hear 'breast is best' maybe now we're just told it's milk. I don't see how the experience and inclusivity of any gender, trans or otherwise in birth classes or maternity services makes any difference to my experience. It must be a source of great pain that trans women can't biologically conceive, or even those born without a clear gender - if there's some way they can have families of their own with a partner etc then fair play to them. I'm not going to deny someone else something that I've been able to take for granted.

Boo fucking boo,.no Trans woman will be able to give birth or breastfeed. But that's the reality for many females. Women have been shamed, dismissed and fought to get their rights acknowledged surrounding pregnancy and childbirth ...

But now it's an issue because a male might get upset?

They can go fuck off.

Welcome to the world of being a woman. You're dismissed and overlooked.

[quote Lifeaintalwaysempty]@redpencil77 the idea that a newborn baby would be forced to drink a chemically induced liquid from a mans chest is ridiculous and cruel. I know it’s been talked about in theory but thankfully I’m not sure this has actually been done in real life.[/quote]
Unfortunately, it has been done. :(

The birth mother was there and fully able to breastfeed...

www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/14/transgender-woman-breastfeed-health

The Equality and Human Rights Commission particularly recommend that public bodies should take action wherever possible to include trans and non-binary people in the widest sense (DoH, 2008). In this context it is generally taken to mean unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violatingsomeone’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them. Harassment could include accidentally or intentionally misgendering a patient (BASHH, 2019).

that last statement is very worrying for staff - 'accidentally misgendering = harassment'. If I am in need of medical care, as long as the HCP has my sex correctly, I would rather they concentrated on their job than worrying about a disciplinary for harrassment or accidentally mentioning their trans status which is also against the rules.

Previous term New term Previous example New example
Previous term “Breastfeeding” New Term “Breast/chestfeeding”
“The value of breastfeeding as protection, comfort and
food”
“The value of breast/chestfeeding as
protection, comfort and food”
Previous term “Breastmilk” New Term“Human milk” or “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding
mother or parent”

to make a busy midwife change the language they have used all their lives seems to be adding rather a big load onto an already stretched person.

^The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables binary trans people to apply to receive a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), which recognises that a person has satisfied the Act’s criteria for legal recognition of the acquired gender. The GRC recognises the
individual’s acquired gender for all purposes in law from that moment forward.^

There is much debate about what it means to be 'living as a man' or woman but I would stick my neck out and suggest that giving birth is one of the most female things a person can do, so if a person has a GRC that identifies them as legally male, if they give birth, are they 'living as a man' for the purposes required of the GRC?

That document is a crime against language. If you're talking about pregnancy, childbirth or breastfeeding then gender identiry is irrelevant as they are sex based functions, so the only word you need is 'woman'.

Wording such as 'Women and people' is not only unnecessary, it is misleading as it implies incorrectly that there are other people who get pregnant and give birth.
If you're trying to use inclusive wording then 'Women, which includes transmen' is accurate. And it should be accuracy that counts. Always.

Misleading language can be dangerous - we use words to think.

From th Guardian link above:
The patient had taken hormone therapy for six years, but had not had gender reassignment or breast augmentation before she approached doctors. Reisman and Goldstein used a framework known to induce lactation in cisgender women who had not experienced a pregnancy to promote the patient’s lactation.
So the patient was an intact male, albeit taking female hormones.
The patient took a gradually increasing regimen of the female hormones progesterone and estradiol, stimulated her chest with a breast milk pump, and took domperidone, a nausea medication known to increase milk production. Domperidone is used internationally but it is not approved in the US, because in some intravenous instances it produced cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac arrest and sudden death.
Doctors said the case shows “modest but functional lactation can be induced in transgender women”.
In other words, not enough milk is produced to nourish a baby. Breastfeeding women are not usually encouraged to take unnecessary medication, in fact most are reluctant to do anything that might cause harm to the child.
Which prompts the question: why do this?

In other words, not enough milk is produced to nourish a baby. Breastfeeding women are not usually encouraged to take unnecessary medication, in fact most are reluctant to do anything that might cause harm to the child.

Which prompts the question: why do this?

We're not allowed to say why on this board or we'll get banned. It's definitely not for the benefit of the infant.

Many truths here. I read the doc and noticed no women association was mentioned in the contributors. So very one sided.

It really looks very considerate to say adding language to be inclusive, but I know how grooming works. In a few years the birthing parent would be the prevailing wording.

Those questions about Midwives, they already say birthing worker in the doc.

I wish all the best to the mothers and birthing people, but if you read my previous post the agenda is to get rid of women centric systems as they called.

I wish the money would be spent on investigating why more BAME Mothers loose their lives giving birth. They are aware of this, fact but I guess there are less advocates on this diversity category backer by big money.

Thanks for posting the link to the document @JustAmotherOne.

I encourage everyone to read the actual document and not be whipped up into a frenzy of indignation based on the OP's original statement.

www.bsuh.nhs.uk/maternity/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2021/01/Gender-Inclusive-Language-in-Perinatal-Services-BSUH.pdf

It quite clearly sets out that it's adopting 'gender additive' language (ie adding the use of gender-neutral terms to existing 'woman' terms, not replacing 'woman' terms with gender-neutral language) and that gender additive language is to be used for documents and population-wide communications, but not when dealing with individuals.

Some extracts:

We are taking a gender-additive approach to the language used to describe our services. For us, a gender-additive approach means using gender-neutral language alongside the language of womanhood, in order to ensure that everyone is represented and included.

If we only use gender neutral language, we risk marginalising or erasing the experience of some of the women and people who use our services. We understand the fear of erasure, however marginalising other groups because they are rare will not improve care for women. We believe in human rights-based care and we can add inclusive language to our current language without subtracting anyone

The guidance below is for the production of documents, protocols and communications. [my emphasis] It should also be used when discussing pregnancy, birth and parenting at a population level (for example, at meetings, study days or antenatal parent education).

Please note that these language changes do not apply when discussing or caring for individuals in a one-on-one capacity where language and documentation should reflect the gender identity of the individual. [my emphasis] When caring for cis women it is good practice to use terminology that is meaningful and appropriate to the individual; this may include terms such as woman, mother or breastfeeding.

Nothing to do with the thread, but a PP seemed annoyed at being asked about possible African heritage.
The hcp wasn’t being racist, they were simply checking to see whether sickle cell screening would be needed for mother or baby. Sickle cell trait is a genetic condition seen in mainly people of West African heritage, which provides some protection against malaria, but when inherited from both parents causes the more serious sickle cell anaemia and sickling crises. In areas with high African immigrant population, the screening is routine.

I am reading the document.

Gender identity is irrelevant if you're discussing something that only women can do.
A compromise would be to use wording that makes it explicit that you are including females who do not identify as women, however the 'gender additive language' they are recommending does not do that. Instead it muddies the waters.

If you can't say breastfeeding because the word breast is non trans inclusive, even though it is the part of the anatomy used.,what will we have to say for a cancer in that part of the body,: cancer of the tissue covering the chest? What about testicular cancer? Referring to the testes might be triggering ,so what inclusive language could be substituted?

It quite clearly sets out that it's adopting 'gender additive' language (ie adding the use of gender-neutral terms to existing 'woman' terms, not replacing 'woman' terms with gender-neutral language) and that gender additive language is to be used for documents and population-wide communications, but not when dealing with individuals.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that if a hcp is threatened with a disciplinary or hospitals in the South West, ‘prosecution and a large fine’ for saying the wrong thing to a patient they are going to be prioritising the language dictated by those patients! And us women will lose our words and just have to suck it up for ‘inclusion’.

When I was having my children for ease the hcps referred to us all as ‘mum’ when talking about any matter relating to motherhood or babies.

If a healthcare professional is walking on eggshells trying not to state the reality in front of her eyes or worrying about losing her job she’s not going to be focusing as much on her job and patient safety could be compromised.

I did a science degree at Brighton university some years ago and we were fed this bullshit from morning till night.
How many actual transgender people are there in the UK giving birth? I'm sure not enough to make this massive and widespread change in language and terms and complete destruction of actual women's rights worthwhile.

Males have breast tissue. They can get breast cancer

"They're called breasts, Vivian, and everybody has them".

Not read the whole thread sorry, but this rewriting of perfectly acceptable and understandable language is deranged.

Well take a look at this, :

There is a bill being passed tomorrow about Ministerial Pregnancy Rights which talks about Pregnant People not pregnant women

It refers to the mother as a “person [who] is pregnant” and a “person [who] has given birth to a child”.

There is an urgent call to action to replace the first use of person with woman and the second to mother. Our language is being erased.

This in the same week that Barnados has ended its mother of the year competition due to being told it is not inclusive language after 25 years.

We can all pretend this isn't happening but it is.

@gardenbird48

it is interesting that there are people who were born male but identify as female gaining places on advisory boards or committees shaping policy on women's health issues.

The Royal Obs/Gyn Society has a male born transwoman (who also works for Stonewall incidentally) on the committee which is about sharing women's experiences of health issues and informing policy. What possible input could this person have? There is also a possibility that having someone not female present could make the women self-censor when talking about often extremely painful and personal experiences.

There was a situation in Bristol a while ago where, despite being born male, attended a women's meeting about menopause and gave a talk on the menopause and their experience of 'HRT' (meaning cross sex hormones).

This person has had major input into the policy that says that the needs of transgender people overriding all other patients relating to single sex accommodation for all the hospitals in the South West (and has a very anti-woman blog and was involved in the protests against a women's meeting in Bristol a couple of years ago) .

Obviously Dr Ruth Pearce is advocating for trans inclusion in the matter of breastfeeding but having been born male has no actual insight into the feelings or needs of women or transmen affected by this. As pp's on other threads on this topic keep telling us, transgender people are not one big homogenous group and the trans umbrella stretches far and wide to include cross dressers, drag queens etc etc. Within the group there are very different groups of people with very different needs and priorities so it is hard to see how a male-born transwoman can speak on behalf of all female born transmen.

Which leads me to think that Dr Ruth is speaking on behalf of the wants of the male-born transgender people which is to decouple the word woman with our biology to make it easier for a male person to claim to be a woman. And it seems to be working.

THIS