AIBU to tell every mother on mumsnet...

[LastRoloIsMine]

We nearly lost the word mother and all that comes with it?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4176497-History-in-the-making-Watch-Parliament-Live-at-2-30pm

The maternity bill wanted to remove the word mother/woman and replace it with pregnant person.
Those words are important and women have fought for a century to be recognised yet we were nearly wiped out in favour of belief not fact.

I wont say "I am not transphobic" like some sort of plea! I dont actually have to I am just fighting for womens rights no need for me to explain myself any further.

I support terms being trans-inclusive but not at the cost of removing terms that would only define cis-women

Oh god the irony.

Why is it ironic @BrumBoo? Why can't there be space for all terms for all groups?

I can't link it but Robert Winston was brilliant in the debate, talking about his experience with women who had lost babies (thousands over his career) and who desperately wanted to become mothers. To him the language absolutely did matter to those women.

It greatly worries me that the people who draft legislation don’t understand that the language of the legislation is important. There’s all sorts of legislation designed to protect different types of people from discrimination, does that define the demographic in the wording or does it just use the blanket word ‘people’. Because if so the laws don’t really mean anything do they? It’s just based on what someone defines themselves as/feels. So who gets to decide whether they are being discriminated against or not? Thank goodness for the HoL on this, and well done MN.

[quote Makingnumber2]I support terms being trans-inclusive but not at the cost of removing terms that would only define cis-women. Inclusivity is not about erasure of one group's identity in order to support the identity of another. Could the legislation not have read 'women and pregnant people are entitled to...' ? In the same way the NHS guidance for cervical screening currently says: 'All women and people with a cervix aged 25 to 64 should be invited by letter.' www.nhs.uk/conditions/cervical-screening/

I do note that on the NHS site currently the equivalent page on prostate testing says : ;Routinely screening all men to check their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels is a controversial subject in the international medical community.' Surely to ensure inclusivity is truly happening it should read: routinely screening all men and people with prostates? www.nhs.uk/conditions/prostate-cancer/psa-testing/
Not sure why only the cervix page was amended in the way it was and the prostate page wasn't.

Also- just to note OP the chest-feeding thing that hit the headlines was a bit of a misnomer- Brighton NHS trust had introduced the term to sit alongside breastfeeding, not to replace the term and I don't see any issue with that. It's important there are appropriate terms being used which ALL people identify with. 'ists new terms such as "breast/chestfeeding", "mothers and birthing parents" and "father or second biological parent".' www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-56007728[/quote]
Why did you need to put CIs-women there then?

@Makingnumber2 - cis women is a banned term on Mumsnet. Women are just women. We don't need a prefix thanks.

@Makingnumber2

Why is it ironic *@BrumBoo*? Why can't there be space for all terms for all groups?

There is a space for the term transwoman. This doesn't come at the cost of referring to biological women as 'cis'. A biological woman doesn't need clarification in their definition, everyone knows what a woman is, even if they're desperate to pretend otherwise. You cannot bemoan the regression of women's language whilst actively regressing it with your own words.

@Makingnumber2

So the drafting would have read 'women and pregnant people who give birth are entitled to...' That wouldn’t have been acceptable drafting, especially not for primary legislation, as it’s simply not accurate. It implies that ‘women’ are in a different category to ‘pregnant people’ when we all know that only women are capable of getting pregnant! ‘Pregnant people’ was chosen originally because it was the only way they could draft in a supposedly gender neutral way without (a) excluding women from the Bill or (b) creating a falsehood as above. It was rejected, rightly, because gender neutral drafting is a nonsense in legislation that specifically deals with one sex only!

Force of habit when wading into these types of debates I think @Clymene and @WeIcomeToGilead

However I hope it doesn't detract too much from the points I was trying to make that
a) inclusive terms for one group shouldn't be introduced to replace terms that another group identifies with.
b) why can't there just be room for terms that all groups identify with

And a small side point of c) isn't it interesting the inclusive amendment was made to nhs cervix page but not to the prostate page....

It's important there are appropriate terms being used which ALL people identify with.

I have met so, so many men who say "I'm still a boy at heart, I never really grew up". Do you suggest we start saying "men and people who are boys at heart but are over 60" should get their prostate examined? Or just stick to factually only talking about men.

Only women can be pregnant.

@AnnaPotter

Endless meaningless word salad, designed to whip up anxiety and intolerance, but nothing remotely real or concrete. ‘Words have meanings!’ you shout, like it’s something profound instead of an endlessly trite phrase that conveys nothing more than fear and prejudice.

Name the specific harms you fear. If they existed, you could do so. What does it say about you that you can’t?

Why can't that be said for the reverse, how does a law calling someone legally 'mother' ,which is what the pregnant person is, affect them or harm them.

100% of people who get pregnant are female and will be the mother, the word is already inclusive to all.

Also its not just about this bill and this word, it about the whole culture of diluting the word women with menstruators, cervix havers etc. Which many women object to, especially when only women's language changing! Don't hear the word men being replaced for sperm carriers, ejaculators, prostate havers, in the name of inclusivity.

@BrumBoo thank you for explaining- I totally see the point you're making.

@Rosie2111 but wasn't the point of someone trying to make it gender neutral to ensure transmen could also be covered by it whilst respecting their position as a transman? So if we are all aware and accepting of the reason why this was even being debated in first place then I don't see why it should be an issue to have it say mothers/pregnant women and pregnant people? Because actually women are then covered by both those terms: pregnant women and pregnant people and transmen can identify and feel comfortable with term 'pregnant people'. Or could it have said mother/pregnant women and pregnant transmen?

Seriously some knobhead thought 'pregnant person' was appropriate instead of mother!

What is wrong with these individuals?

Why do they want to erase women/pregnant women/female etc!

Why do they hate women so much?

This language is trickling down too, my son always uses “they” rather than he or she - he’s 7

But there are problems in schools too, then. They can't only be picking this up this terminology from their friends who are only 7

@newyearnewname123 I'm saying that if changes are to be made to the cervix page the same changes should be made to the prostate page to ensure inclusivity is being equally adhered to across the board.

For interest how many pregnant transmen are there? 1 in a couple of million? How many. So we erase the term pregnant woman for 1 individual who might get hurt.

Anyway surely if you think you are a man and call yourself a man then why on earth would you want to do something that only a biologically born female can do - give birth! A bit contrary

@itispersonal I fully agree with you that it seems only women's terms are the ones people are trying to change or expand/add to with inclusive terms. The NHS cervical screening vs prostate testing pages are a clear example of that.

@ConstantlySeekingHappiness

It’s interesting how dreadfully important language is when talking about trans people.

But apparently so completely unimportant when talking about women...

Strange that.

Yes! Let's amplify this comment!

@Makingnumber2 - you have summed this up in the best way that I have read - 'inclusive terms for one group shouldn't be introduced to replace terms that another group identifies with'

Having this conversation with my DD just this week why she feels she has to add her pronouns to her social media. A really excellent Instagram news feed I follow had to amend a post where she referred to the government trialling home screening smear kits for women...

I would defend any trans-person's rights to a fair and just society but you have hit the nail on the head when you say I get to keep my self-identification too and I am a woman.

Language is very important when you care about the ramifications of its use, worthless when you don’t.

We don’t have to scratch the surface very far to see the harm in words when it comes to racism for example. With many words now considered unusable entirely. Cunt also has many people wildly clutching their pearls, only to be used in earshot of a select few in my social circle. Words have also been accused of ‘literal violence’ in many arguments on the internet. They are literally seen to invoke enough hatred that there are now laws that can put the person who wrote or said those words in prison. Words are that powerful.

Yet we are also told they are worthless and mean nothing. That one word can easily replace another without any impact on anyone. They are interchangeable at whim and anyone who complains are intolerant.

The obvious answer is to have this debate robustly. Shine light on it and let everyone have their opinion, yet of course we know that’s also not allowed. #nodebate #noplatform.

I wouldn't have objected to being called a pregnant person, seems accurate to me. Being a mother seems feels like a bigger role than just being pregnant and some mothers have never experienced being pregnant.

IBelieveInAThingCalledScience

The word woman/female and anything to do with our biology is constantly under attack. We are told the words we use to describe ourselves are harmful/literal violence, not required and we need to be kind to those who do not identify as women and be kind to those that do but are not female.

@WeIcomeToGilead

This language is trickling down too, my son always uses “they” rather than he or she - he’s 7 🙄

Really?! How had he picked that up. My son is 6 but I don’t think he is aware of other pronouns yet. Though we have spoken about people wearing what they want, there not being boy/girls clothes really etc.

Did they speak about it at school

@LastRoloIsMine thanks for posting this in a general topic to give exposure to what happened yesterday. A post like this encourages debate, and I hope it prompts more people to look into the numerous areas where women are being erased to accommodate a tiny percentage of trans people.

My DH is a psychologist and thinks the whole thing is bat shit crazy. He thinks naturally the tide will turn and this will all go away, I'm not so sure.

Absolutely anything that tries to erase women: whether it's a word in a legal document, NHS services referring to chestfeeding, people who have periods/cervixs is important and need us to challenge.

I've needed time off work and accommodations because of being pregnant, having miscarriages, attending appointments to work out why, and also because of all the fall out. And I've had assumptions made about me as a woman of childbearing age, and had time off for mental ill health due to having a) had miscarriages and b) being unable to subsequently get pregnant.
So while SOME of this was due to being "a pregnant person" ALL of it was due to being a woman.
So eliminating the word "woman" means that I can be discriminated against for my reproductive health and nobody can argue it's sex based.