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.

@Crumpledandcreased

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.

Isn’t the role ‘mother’ just a socially constructed idea of what a mother is though.

Mother is just an accurate word for the person who has carried and given birth to a baby when it comes to maternity. I know this might changed after birth by things like adoption.

[quote Makingnumber2]@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.[/quote]

“Men we are with you” advert from prostate cancer UK. I can’t even imagine a similar advert for women without it including at least one TW

As always men get to keep all their things including the language about men whilst women are told to share the small ammunition of things that are just for them becatse beeeee kiiiinnddd

“Men we are with you” advert from prostate cancer UK. I can’t even imagine a similar advert for women without it including at least one TW

As always men get to keep all their things including the language about men whilst women are told to share the small ammunition of things that are just for them becatse beeeee kiiiinnddd

My DCs have me as their adoptive mother and they still have a birth mother. She hasn't stopped being their mother.

Amount not ammunition ffs

Crumpledandcreased

This is a Maternity Bill. It is legislation for pregnant women and women who have given birth.
Yes there are women who are mothers without having carried the child but they are not the women to which this legislation is for.

If anyone could give get pregnant and give birth then pregnant people would be accurate. However thats not the case. The fact is only women can so legislation needs to be accurate in order to include the right group of people.

@WeIcomeToGilead

I agree and am glad that some have passion about this. The bandwagon jumpers out to be woke don't appear to have thought things through at all

Where will this end. I have filled out online forms for my kids to be tested when they go back to school. In that form it states Relationship To Child. I wrote Mother. What the hell am I going to have to write next Cis Birth Parent wouldn't even identify me as their Mother as their Father could also state that as his is their Birth Parent but didn't actually birth them. Cis Parent That Birthed??

For people who think it doesn’t matter.

You’re spot on of course OP.

@Sleepyquest

How many non women in the U.K. have actually giving birth? And by non women, I mean women who decided they were men but felt so against their female body they thought they'd birth a baby (the most womanly thing you can do). I reckon it's a handful, not sure but probably less than 10. So why on Earth would you change a word that's been used for centuries (mother) just to meet the needs of this group of people!? It's actually madness

Indeed.

@annapotter It's a very, very, very well documented tactic outlined in hundreds of social justice texts in the social sciences of academia. They have been teaching it for nearly 2 decades.

It is an area of study called Queer Theory (their name not mine) it comes from a feminist school of social justice thought and it specifically deals with the willful blurring of the meaning of words as a tactic.

It has jack shit to do with inclusion.

I encourage anyone not familiar with queer theory to Google it and read around it.

If words aren’t important, why the hell have organisations lobbied hard and fast to get words changed without any consultation from the majority of people that use those words. It’s only now, when these changes are hitting legislation that the wider public are seeing what’s happening.
Thank goodness for the Lords who without a small but noisy woke electorate to appease they were able to stand up and say no to this nonsense.

It's pretty simple. Be whatever gender you want. But sex is protected characteristic under the Equallty Act. You cannot remove it because you want to prioritise gender.

Every 'person' that has becomes pregnant or gives birth is female (producing eggs not sperm) regardless of their gender identity.

It is not fair to remove the characteristic of sex in favour of gender in a matter entirely related to sex.

[quote AdHominemNonSequitur]@annapotter It's a very, very, very well documented tactic outlined in hundreds of social justice texts in the social sciences of academia. They have been teaching it for nearly 2 decades.

It is an area of study called Queer Theory (their name not mine) it comes from a feminist school of social justice thought and it specifically deals with the willful blurring of the meaning of words as a tactic.

It has jack shit to do with inclusion.

I encourage anyone not familiar with queer theory to Google it and read around it. [/quote]
There’s an excellent and accessible podcast on Queer Theory on Gender: a Wider Lens.
Worth a listen.

Maybe it’s there to help people are become parents through surrogacy. They physically are not pregnant but they are expecting a baby. They should be allowed time to attend appointments as if they were pregnant, have maternity leave as if they had the baby as they are now mothers and fathers.

I often wonder about same sex male parents. Do they only get paternity leave? Do they get any leave? Are they expected to use their holidays?

I have no problem with been referred to as pregnant person. I know I am a woman and will be a mother.
But if I was having a baby for someone else been a pregnant person would fit.

I suppose what it really shows is that women were always an "adjustment" to public life. Men don't have any of this crap, because man is just the default human (as indeed you can see in the etymology of "woman" - womb + man). Men don't have to adjust anything, because men never required any adjustments for maternity. The fact we have children is what has always shut us out, and continues to shut out billions of women worldwide. What makes me far more angry than some pansies with a penchant for wordsmithing is the fact they do not devote their considerable energies to fighting, say, for the rights of Iranian women. Or contraception in Africa, or Aids, or educating men that rape is a bit of a shit thing to do. The world has so many problems, and yet apparently we have time to give a shit about 3rd person pronouns.

It is certainly odd they wanted to pretend there is no such thing as a woman in legislation relating to pregnancy. If a transgender person with a womb decides to get pregnant, its farcical during that time to pretend they are still a “man,” or that “people” can get pregnant. If you want to be treated as a man and see yourself as a man, then don’t use your own womb.

Thanks @petitdonkey it sums up how I feel about the whole thing. I will always support any minority group being treated with respect through the use of terms they identify with, however I refuse to believe it can only happen if the terms of another group are removed- because then it isn't inclusive is it? Add terms in by all means, but don't remove existing ones.
I am also concerned about the fact it seems often only women's terms are the ones being put up for amendment and not men's... but that is probably another thread!

My DH is a psychologist and thinks the whole thing is bat shit crazy

I also sometimes try to find an answer to this madness from a psychological, social or anthropological angle, but I can't

@Biscuitsanddoombar thanks for sharing that ad- that goes even further to clearly illustrate how men's terms and spaces just don't seem to be expected to become inclusive in the same way women's terms and spaces do. Like you said- men get to keep all their space and terms and don't seem to be expected to make any effort to be inclusive in any way. Totally opposite expectation for women.
What a surprise- more expected from women than from men.

Anna Potter, name a single male person who has given birth. You can't. There are, as far as I'm aware, two people who think of themselves as male who have given birth — because despite how they identify they are female and have female bodies designed for conceiving, gestating and giving birth. Every person who has ever given birth is female and that is reflected in the language we use: pregnant woman, women, mother.

Transgender issues don't come into it. Everyone who gives birth demonstrates that they are female whether they want to be or not. There is no rational reason to take away these words. Do you want to pretend, in the face of all science, that men can give birth? Or do you want to chip away at women's right? Do you hate women so much that you'd have them nameless, unidentifiable as a category?

Language matters. If you can't name something specifically you can't protect it in law. Many women here see the bigger game: we see how first you remove the words we call ourselves so that our difference from the other 50% of the population disappears. You are erasing women.

@AnnaPotter

Woolly truisms like ‘language has meaning’ are pointless. What actual harm do you envisage? In the mumsnet echo chamber you might find a hundred people willing to say ‘you’re so right’ and save you the effort of actually thinking, but I want to know exactly what damage would be done to you by legislation using the term ‘pregnant person’ rather than ‘mother’?

What damage does it actually do to say only women can give birth? You would think none but apparently it can trigger suicide

@Kona84

Maybe it’s there to help people are become parents through surrogacy. They physically are not pregnant but they are expecting a baby. They should be allowed time to attend appointments as if they were pregnant, have maternity leave as if they had the baby as they are now mothers and fathers.

I often wonder about same sex male parents. Do they only get paternity leave? Do they get any leave? Are they expected to use their holidays?

I have no problem with been referred to as pregnant person. I know I am a woman and will be a mother.
But if I was having a baby for someone else been a pregnant person would fit.

I guess they get adoption leave which is comparable to maternity leave isn’t it?

I guess the thing is while the woman is pregnant she is the ones with the rights in law I guess. I think even with surrogacy it would be problematic to give the right to the intended parent of the baby rather than the person who was actually carrying the baby.

It is an area of study called Queer Theory (their name not mine) it comes from a feminist school of social justice thought and it specifically deals with the wilful blurring of the meaning of words as a tactic

A tactic to achieve specifically what? @AdHominemNonSequitur

How will social justice be achieved thought this? Is it like a PP said to remove everyone's rights? Like Communism or what would their utopic scenario look like?

Kona84

For those who choose surrogacy they are protected under the Adoption rights so have legal access to leave should they need it.
There is no reason to remove the word woman or mother from a maternity rights bill as it only covers women who are pregnant and give birth. It does not include anyone else.