To think that a new law on maternity leave (for MPs) should be able to refer to women?

[MForstater]

New legislation going through parliament to give ministers maternity leave for the first time. ...

It doesn't talk about "women" just "people who are pregnant"

The explanatory notes say: "The Bill does not refer to biological sex or use gender-specific terms when referring to a Minister’s pregnancy and maternity. This reflects common practice of avoiding gender-specific terms when drafting, further to drafting guidance first introduced in 2007."

.... the gender neutral drafting guidance says nothing of the sort. They say that legislation shouldn't use "he" and "man" when referring to a role that can be done by either sex.

Is it unreasonable for laws to refer to biological sex when it comes to pregnancy??

twitter.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1362744703322648576

As I’m sure you’re aware Maya, trans men can and do become pregnant and give birth.

Trans men should be covered by maternity law.

Using “pregnant people” in this context means that the law clearly covers pregnant women and pregnant trans men.

What, exactly, are you objecting to about a pregnant trans man, who happens to be a government minister, being included in this legal entitlement for maternity leave?

Yabu

Because transmen

As I’m sure you’re aware Maya, trans men can and do become pregnant and give birth.
eh?

Then women and transmen will be fine.

Otherwise it's just another of those legal language changes based on deliberate obfuscation of a law.

And you can bet when they get to paternity leave they'll be slower to say non birthing parent, or similar.

@DynamoKev

As I’m sure you’re aware Maya, trans men can and do become pregnant and give birth. eh?

The OP has used her own name in the post and is all over Twitter moaning about the same thing there. Hence the poster referring to her by name.

@DynamoKev

As I’m sure you’re aware Maya, trans men can and do become pregnant and give birth. eh?

Yeah! I don't get that either.

If a transman has a GRC then they have stated, for legal purposes, that they intend to fully live as a man from that day forward.

And surely, if misgendering is actual violence, then getting pregnant must be a total violation of your gender.

Either way, it makes a mockery of legal language, any attempt to get wider society to understand and accept the concept of transitioning. If a trans individual can dip in and out of their chosen and/or legally sworn sex then what exactly is it?

Regardless of gender critical views, I don't think this is an issue. As pp have said, it just ensures that everyone who becomes pregnant is protected by the law. Nobody is missed and nobody loses out.
As far as gender issues go, I don't think this needs to be a hill to die on.

That's how you boil a frog...

So why not say "pregnant women and transmen"? I mean, in my opinion that's still idiotic, but at least it covers all bases without erasing women.

I suppose this kind of stuff will put a stop to the "all men piss in an annoying and inconsiderate manner" threads.

Giving birth must be the ultimate "gender" affirmation though, why would a man do that..?

Oh yeah, transmen have a unique genetic abnormality that no other man has. I wonder if that's related to being a woman.

Boiling a frog is precisely what it is.

The attempts to erase the word women is terrible. Where will this madness end?
We can say women and transmen if we need to.

The number of transmen who have given birth in the UK is vanishingly small.
And if you think you are a man, have always felt that you're a man, why on earth would you want to do the most womanly thing that it's possible to do?
Not to mention you'll have to come off the male hormones to conceive and stay off then for the duration of the pregnancy.
So why change the wording to accommodate the even more vanishingly tiny number of possible transmen a/becoming a government minister and b/then deciding they want to have a baby.
'Women and transmen' cover this less-than-likely eventuality more than satisfactorily.

YANBU, if this shite gets a toehold in legislation woman/women will gradually disappear and their sex based rights watered down to being meaningless.

@Tartyflette

The number of transmen who have given birth in the UK is vanishingly small. And if you think you are a man, have always felt that you're a man, why on earth would you want to do the most womanly thing that it's possible to do? Not to mention you'll have to come off the male hormones to conceive and stay off then for the duration of the pregnancy. So why change the wording to accommodate the even more vanishingly tiny number of possible transmen a/becoming a government minister and b/then deciding they want to have a baby. 'Women and transmen' cover this less-than-likely eventuality more than satisfactorily.

Exactly. Men do not give birth, women do. Transmen should nail their colours to the mast if they believe they are men and not give birth to a baby, because men can't give birth.

Madness. Only biological women give birth.

I can't actually write anything articulate right now because why the fuck would people object to the fact that women as the female sex of the diamorphic species homo-sapiens, are the ones to push large objects out of small holes, in order to continue the prolification of homo-sapiens, be something that you would not want recognised and enshrined in law?

This nonsense has been invented to placate people who don't even exist.

Any transsexual woman, who wants to live as a man and then also gets pregnant, is still a woman.

As a PP has already said, how many of these individuals actually exist? And how is saying "woman" preventing them from receiving maternity rights?

*As I’m sure you’re aware Maya, trans men can and do become pregnant and give birth.

Trans men should be covered by maternity law.*

Yes of course. Existing maternity law and all laws about reproduction refer to women (i.e female people). Including laws written after 2004.

This does not exclude female people who identify as tmen or as non binary (and nor does it include male people who identify as women or nonbinary)

Otherwise there would be call to rewrite all the existing maternity laws.

There was also nothing in the GRA that say that people getting a certificate would be giving up their rights to maternity leave, or that all other laws would now need to be rewritten so that the word "woman" or "female" could never be used to refer to biological sex.

How are women erased by the phrase ‘pregnant people’? Womanhood does not require pregnancy. They aren’t synonymous in any way.

So again, what is it exactly that bothers you about using language that includes trans men?

Pregnant people covers pregnant women and pregnant trans men, and no one else, really clearly.

So what’s the problem you’re raising here OP?

@AnnLouiseB of all the people
You know who've been pregnant, what characteristics do they share?

Women get pregnant. Women. Women. Is it that offensive to you?

You can't identify in and out of being pregnant so identifying as a man is entirely irrelevant. You can identify as whatever you like but if you give birth, you're a woman.

And while we’re here, let’s address this point that keeps coming up that trans men should either not wish or not be be permitted to become pregnant unless they relinquish being trans men.

Controlling other people’s reproductive rights is not a good thing.

Many trans people are parents.

Many trans people are involved one way or another in conceiving children after transition.

Unless you’re actually suggesting that trans people should somehow be prevented or forbidden from conceiving children, you need to accept the reality that some trans men do choose to carry pregnancies, and some trans women do choose to be involved in conception.

Seriously, get over it, and stop using it against them

Could just use female and save all the hassle then it includes everyone who can give birth and only those who can give birth.