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

@JustAmotherOne “woman” includes anyone who would give birth (or female to include girls.) Nobody is excluded because nobody else is giving birth. A person may choose to identify as a transman but they are still biologically a woman.

Mother is a non gendered term. Mother does not mean female, it means gestator.

I disagree with the definition of mother as "gestator". An adoptive mother has not gestated, but she is still a mother.

Only biological females give birth.

It's so fucking offensive to try and cancel women

To all those saying trans men are clearly not real trans men if they get pregnant: what if they are raped? Imagine how bloody horrible that must feel for them, and then to constantly be told 'this makes you a woman now! ha! gotcha!' must be really bloody horrible too. Since you are so convinced they are women, shouldn't your feminism extend to them too, and show them a little bit of respect?

@funnylittlefloozie

Saying "women and transmen" won't offend women or transmen - why would it? Only women can be pregnant, and even if transmen opt to present as men, they are still biologically female.

Makes things a bit wordier than necessary though, surely? Unless you are denying that women are people, which seems to contradict a lot of feminist beliefs. Or in fact all of them.

@Thewithesarehere

Pregnant person is completely clear and can’t be misinterpreted, as it will not and cannot apply to anyone not pregnant. What is wrong with ‘pregnant people, including women, trans men,.....’? Surely that is far more clear and inclusive?

How is that MORE inclusive than 'people'? Women are people. The word people includes women.

What's interesting is no one in government has said that this is being done to include Transmen. Existing maternity law which uses the word women doesn't exclude people who are pregnant if they don't identity with the word woman.

@42goingon90
Please read my post I wrote at 23.20.
It’s crucial to be clear and consistent between scientific and parliamentary (law) language and terminologies.

@JustAmotherOne

I wonder whether the OP will come back to contribute, and maybe explain what it is that she objects to here.

In the meantime, it would be nice to not have the thread derailed into general dissing of all things trans.

Gender neutral language is considered best practice for clarity in legal writing.

Pregnant person is completely clear and can’t be misinterpreted, as it will not and cannot apply to anyone not pregnant.

This particular instance of inclusive language isn’t harming women.

Gender-neutral language in legal writing is enormously important to equality. To fight against it, as a woman or a feminist, is to cut your nose off to spite your face.

This particular legal bit is to make sure that pregnant women high up in government get maternity leave. They haven’t had it before because women weren’t expected to ever be allowed to be in such positions of power as to become ministers.

Let’s not make it harder for this progress to happen.

The OP of this thread is politically and personally invested in finding ways to leverage public opinion to be less supportive or welcoming towards trans people, due to court action she is involved with.

This thread is stirring up a lot of generally anti trans comments, that are negative, dismissive and hostile towards trans people in general, and towards trans men who become pregnant in particular.

Is this really what mumsnet should be like and feel like to be a part of?

Your whole post sounds a bit like a guilt trip, honestly. Please don’t object to language being made all about ‘people’ because ‘pregnant women’ will then be denied equal treatment with men.

You can say women or other pregnant people but don't erase my gender identity. I'm not a pregnant person I'm a pregnant woman. It cannot be ok to offend me but not trans / non binary people.

This is the crux of it. The legal language can be clear as unequivocal by using both pregnant women and other pregnant people. There’s no reason not to campaign for that. Either language matters and can unwittingly give offence (misgendering a pregnant trans man by using woman) or it doesn’t (be quiet women who say that the term is important to them).

Would anyone from the other side of this argument engage in replying to my post at 23.20 please?

I went to bed so didn't read the rest of the replies. I kind of scrolled through them this morning and the jist of what people are telling me is this:

I hate women
I hate feminists

Neither thing is true and actually you saying that to another woman as a so-called feminist is worse than what you're accusing me of.

Recognition of trans men should be by saying 'women and trans men' not 'people who get pregnant' in my opinion. Calling trans men women does not recognise the different issues they may face, not only during pregnancy.

I don't support erasing the word women, I would be happy for an additional phrase to be added to include trans men and female non binary people. Such legal and policy issues are why it is important not to redefine our language and to retain terms that can specifically refer to our sex.

@BriocheForBreakfast

Transmen are not fully equal to men because there are inheritance laws that only apply to men and transmen don't qualify.

Is this true? Why is it transwomen are women but not transmen are men?

Why has the word "men" not been changed to "people" in legislation?

People who are transmen can give birth so I can't get my head around using the term "pregnant people".

What I can't get my head around is why the word "man" or "men" remains meaning born as male and doesn't get changed to include females or the word man to "adjective people" or "people with noun"

Or has it?

Or has it?

No. They are not called ejaculators. They are not called prostate people. They are simply men.

Only women get this special treatment.

I am old enough to remember women’s health issues were reduced to euphemisms, the word gender used to soften the word sex, that women couldn’t talk about their health and bodies when, where and how they wanted. It got a bit better for a while, about 15 years ago maybe, but now it is back.

This time pushed as inclusive and kind. But it is still controlling our language around ourselves. And I hazard a guess it all started with the same demographic doing the controlling to begin with.

@MForstater

What's interesting is no one in government has said that this is being done to include Transmen. Existing maternity law which uses the word women doesn't exclude people who are pregnant if they don't identity with the word woman.

Maya, what exactly is it that you’re a objecting to about the use of “pregnant person”?

How do you think pregnant person could be misapplied in a way that would make this bad legal writing?

I remember in my childhood that woman was considered a rude or offensive word. Women were politely referred to as ladies or infantilised as girls.

The word woman was reclaimed and we women decided that it would no longer be a slur. Why should we accept that there is something inherently bad or offensive about women and our biological attributes?

Winesalot is right losing our words, losing clarity and plain English, being reduced to hints and euphemisms in law, health and education is only going to lead to ever worse outcomes for women however we choose to identify.

I'm not sure who said this but I think it is very true

If PEOPLE become pregnant then abortion becomes a PEOPLEs issue, not a women's issue. And then we cannot complain when men get to make the decisions.

Women's biology is important and should not be denied or erased. Women and Trans Men would work I suppose in order to be inclusive

But everybody knows that only women get pregnant and having to deny reality to spare other people's feelings gets tiring.

@ScrapThatThen

I don't support erasing the word women, I would be happy for an additional phrase to be added to include trans men and female non binary people. Such legal and policy issues are why it is important not to redefine our language and to retain terms that can specifically refer to our sex.

Exactly.

Little girls are being told in school that ‘people with a uterus’ will start their periods (on an actual video used in schools)
How does a little girl know that she has the body type that has a uterus and why her friend, also known as a girl but with a penis doesn’t have one.

Then how do we communicate to that little girl that she because she has the particular girl body that will have periods she will have a cervix that needs cancer screening? And her friend won’t.

We need to retain our language to describe ourselves. Women get pregnant and need maternity leave and that state that shouldn’t be seen as ‘anti’ anyone. It is not inclusive to remove the word that we need to describe ourselves as distinct from members of the opposite sex.

Tbh, since it would be great if we could move towards parents having equal leave or shared leave then removing gender and the mater/pater we would just have "parental leave" which would be preferable.

So parental leave for the birth parent can be taken from x weeks prior to date of delivery. Non-birth parent can then use parental leave in z way and the full year can be shared as the parents see fit. This would cover same sex marriages without the mater/pater model as there would be division based on who needs to recover from the birth v who doesn't. Or if neither neither have given birth due to surrogacy or adoption they can split their leave.

Identify how you will, if you gave birth your parental leave rights are this. If you didn't give birth your parental leave rights are that. Everyone is included.

@JustAmotherOne
How surprising that you have chosen to ignore my points on how important it is to be as specific as possible in law and science both! Not.
What do you say about trans men and inheritance laws?

If people need maternity leave then it is only a matter of time before maternity leave is titled parental leave. This erases any recognition of the physical demands and effects of pregnancy and childbirth on women, who need a period of recuperation after childbirth as well as time to adjust to motherhood and breastfeeding their baby (if they are breastfeeding). I predict in the future there will be two weeks gestational leave for the birthing parent and the rest will be parental leave.

Women did not fight for maternity leave (which, in the UK, is still less generous than some countries whilst being considerably better than others such as the USA where just two weeks is the norm) to have it snatched away in this way.

This is harmful to mothers and to babies.

Before we start putting women and transmen in law maybe we should have some very clear data on how many transmen have given birth in the UK this and ever in fact.

We don’t usually change the wording of laws for 3 people to the detriment of the 99% of women who give birth.

And yes women’s issues must remain women’s issues, not people’s issues if we are to be able to defend them.

Also, in legal terms, if it only refers to women and transmen, what about non-binary? Do they not get the same rights because they're not included in the wording? So we now change it to women, transmen and non-binary. Or we could refer to the birthing/pregnant parent and include everyone.