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.

As was said in the HoL yesterday

'For a group to be protected in law, they must be properly identified in law'.

'Person' is meaningless, it could be anyone. 'Mother' is who we are talking about.

Anyway, if 'words don't matter' and 'you can use whatever word you want for yourself' then why are TRAs so up in arms about the word 'mother' being used on a Maternity Bill to describe a female who has given birth?

Would any of us honestly be here if this site was originally set up as person's net?

@nancywhitehead

Sigh.

This has been vastly misinterpreted all over the place and now seems to be causing mass hysteria.

They aren't replacing the word "mother" at all. They are just adding another term in order to be more inclusive. Why anyone sees this as a problem is beyond me. They are saying you can choose the term you want. If you want "mother" then that is obviously absolutely fine.

Complete mountain out of a mole hill. As if the term "mother" would ever actually stop being used.

Incorrect.

On the Maternity Bill discussed in the HoL yesterday (which is what this thread is referring to) the word 'Mother' has been replaced with 'person'. This was about getting the word 'mother' back on the Bill. 'Person' could mean anyone.

@nancywhitehead again you are another person who's confusing gender and sex. It makes no difference what a person IDs as, whether its their religion, gender, if they believe the earth is flat or not.... personal beliefs do not trump facts. When it comes to matters that involve a biological process, only terms referring to one's sex matters. 'Mother' means 'maternal', it is not about if you want to be called 'mum, mummy, her royal highness' or whatever the male equivalent of these terms across your life. If your are pregnant and giving birth, you are using female functions to do so. You can't self-ID out of biology and you can't change these terms to save your feelings.

Or shall we also stop calling everything to do with pregnancy and birth Maternal/Maternity in the same 'inclusive' vein?

Not to be obtuse, but is there a reason it can’t say ‘woman and pregnant person’ in the legislation?

I completely agree that woman/women should not be erased? I also see that most people do recognise a trans persons rights, we’re just asking that they not be included by erasing the words that matter legally and socially to women? That isn’t transphobia.

Erasing ‘woman’ from legislation DOES matter not only legally but does nothing to fight misogyny and sexism. Instead it bolsters it. You only have to look at how what Trump said incited violence and racism during his tenure. Of course what is in government legislature informs the electorates behaviour. That’s why it matters. That’s why ‘woman’ can not be erased. You can protect one group while not marginalising the other and all sides should be listened to.

The problem with replacing woman with person is that it equalises childbearing responsibilities between men and women. The argument that men can get pregnant too doesn't recognise that the number of trans men choosing to give birth is incredibly small.

We are going to lose the ability to point out that there is sex specific discrimination. The risk is that the whole discourse around maternity for women shifts to perinatal and people but this doesn't change the lived reality of women, eg the fact that employers will still continue to discriminate against women of childbearing age and not men.

@Brumbroo thank you for this insightful comment.

100% correct. The language used in this proposed legislation is contributing to the erasure of women. End of!

I don’t see how this has anything to do with transgender rights. It is all to do with an attempted rejection of the fact that there are sex differences between males and females. Only a woman has a womb. You can be a woman without a womb, or a man without a womb, or a person without a womb, but if you have a womb, you’re a woman. If you use that womb to carry a baby, you’re admitting to that fact.

Using the word 'person' is not inclusive. It is excluding women. Only women can get pregnant.

Someone way back suggested that the pressure to remove the word woman was coming from transmen.
There have been some fairly high profile transwomen stating that as they are women and they cannot get pregnant/give birth/breastfeed then the word woman should be removed.

If the word woman becomes obsolete it has knock on effects regarding discrimination, especially maternity rights (which are a protected characteristic)
Same as sex discrimination

think of the fact that the Liberal democrats said that they would be happy for the 'increased representation of women in politics to have 50-50 and for the womens 50% to be filled by transwomen.

Think about the glass ceiling for CEOs, and men like Pippa bunce 'equalling up' the under representation

@CaptainVanesHair

Not to be obtuse, but is there a reason it can’t say ‘woman and pregnant person’ in the legislation?

I completely agree that woman/women should not be erased? I also see that most people do recognise a trans persons rights, we’re just asking that they not be included by erasing the words that matter legally and socially to women? That isn’t transphobia.

Erasing ‘woman’ from legislation DOES matter not only legally but does nothing to fight misogyny and sexism. Instead it bolsters it. You only have to look at how what Trump said incited violence and racism during his tenure. Of course what is in government legislature informs the electorates behaviour. That’s why it matters. That’s why ‘woman’ can not be erased. You can protect one group while not marginalising the other and all sides should be listened to.

Because legislation needs to be accurate. Women and pregnant people implies people other than women can become pregnant but they can't.

This is about sex, not gender identity. Sex is a protected characteristic, not gender identity.

YANBU OP.

It worries me that so many people don't realise that language matters. Language especially matters when enshrined in law.

You’re being ridiculous. Your experience isn’t defined by legislation.

Of course a person's experience is defined by legislation, what a stupid thing to say. Let's not forget marital rape was only made illegal in 1992! If it were an isolated situation, changing pregnant woman wouldn't be so bad, but it represents part of a move to change sex to gender. If we erase sex, we erase our protected characteristic.

Also, given that medicines have a different effect on men and women, it is actively harmful to pretend that there is no such thing as men and women and that we are all just “people.” Differing physical characteristics, internally and externally, and different natural hormone profiles are extremely relevant. If there weren’t genuine differences between males and females, nobody would need to physically mutilate themselves and take drugs in an attempt to make their bodies look the way their brains want them to.

@WholegrainCustard

Someone way back suggested that the pressure to remove the word woman was coming from transmen. There have been some fairly high profile transwomen stating that as they are women and they cannot get pregnant/give birth/breastfeed then the word woman should be removed.

What an illogical point of view; there are many women for various issues that cannot get pregnant (and also of course those that do not want to) you don't see them shouting that the words women , breastfeeding etc should be removed! So if women that can get pregnant aren't offended why does the offend (some) transwomen so much?

@drspouse

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.

Exactly, in employment law women are protected from sex based discrimination, so as you've experienced absence due to pregnancy for example can't be used against you. For those asking "what's the harm" well that would be a very specific and real harm to women who become unemployed due to absence as a result of pregnancy if they lose that sex based protection "because men can get pregnant too".

@nancywhitehead

Sigh.

This has been vastly misinterpreted all over the place and now seems to be causing mass hysteria.

They aren't replacing the word "mother" at all. They are just adding another term in order to be more inclusive. Why anyone sees this as a problem is beyond me. They are saying you can choose the term you want. If you want "mother" then that is obviously absolutely fine.

Complete mountain out of a mole hill. As if the term "mother" would ever actually stop being used.

It'll never happen?

Grab a cuppa and have a read of this.

It will never happen

Not specificially about maternity but examples of how changing language puts women at risk.

Without the word women in relation to just adult human females then there can be no such thing as womens rights.

@WholegrainCustard

Someone way back suggested that the pressure to remove the word woman was coming from transmen. There have been some fairly high profile transwomen stating that as they are women and they cannot get pregnant/give birth/breastfeed then the word woman should be removed.

One of the most distasteful things I ever read from a TW was a comic they had created referring to themselves as a 'barren woman', as the transition had left them a sterile male. It was visually perverse, tone deaf and so offensive. So yes, unfortunately a few TW do think that transitioning means being able to appropriate the idea of female biology and terms as well. Even horribly outdated and offensive ones such as 'barren'.

However, in terms of actually being pregnant and having babies, TM are the ones who don't want to be reminded of the fact that underneath their labels they're still female, and that's the only realistic way they can get pregnant at all. If that's how they want to perceive their pregnancy, that's fine but the line should be drawn at respecting the individual at the time, not changing sex legislation to suit a tiny minority who cannot accept basic biology.

@DaisyHeadMaisey

You’re being ridiculous. Your experience isn’t defined by legislation.

Of course a person's experience is defined by legislation, what a stupid thing to say. Let's not forget marital rape was only made illegal in 1992! If it were an isolated situation, changing pregnant woman wouldn't be so bad, but it represents part of a move to change sex to gender. If we erase sex, we erase our protected characteristic.

Yep.

This is just one part of reclaiming women’s sex protected rights, we have seen a coordinated push to destroy anything for women. We have been expected to believe that men are women and allow them into our women and lesbian groups and our organisations. This has happened because we were kind . The same men destroyed said groups. It comes down to the facts that men are not women, and we all know that Women cannot be men, and to pretend they are will ultimately mean that women’s protections are destroyed. The language we use is important but is just one step to preserve these rights. I do not understand why some women can’t see that while they believe it is not important , many of us think it is a crucial issue. Thank you to the OP for putting the issue on this board. I really don’t understand the hostility

@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’?

If language isn’t important, then why not just keep it women?

The worst affect of this 'inclusive' shift in language around pregnancy and motherhood was when a charity dealing with mothers of stillborn babies announced they would be using it. They never thought about the impact it would have on their clients. Women who had lost their babies were being told they would no longer be referred to as mothers. It was awful. Thankfully they reverted back to mother pretty sharpish.

Thank you @Clymene I was sitting here trying to figure it out and going round in circles but that makes perfect sense.

@CaptainVanesHair

Thank you *@Clymene* I was sitting here trying to figure it out and going round in circles but that makes perfect sense.

You're welcome