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.

"Its so that when dave the trans man with his 6 inch long beard attends his doctors appointment the doctor doesn't have to keep referring to him as the mother."

If Dave the Trans man can overcome his dysphoria long enough to do something so female as become pregnant, I'm sure he can cope with being called a mother.

@LastRoloIsMine

Of course it affects me! It affects my healthcare. My employment. My right to benefits. It affects my child's legal documents.

Are you really that stupid?

This whole debate is being framed by people at either extreme telling people on the other side they are stupid. I don't think it's a great – or particularly effective – way to persuade people of your case. Most of us don't know and don't care what term was being used in a specific bill and it's really not going to change the way we use language.

That doesn't mean we're thick, it means we are perfectly happy to let other people live whatever life they choose – as long as they don't set out to cause harm to others.

@turquoisewaters

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?

To achieve what? - to invert a hierachy. Yes, very similar to communusm but with gender and race instead of wealth. Why? - genuine belief that it is a solution to societies problems in some cases, power,influence and moral superiority in others and for some money ( drug companies and gender drs).

I think queer theory, like all social justice theories, believes in an oppresion hierachy (they call it the episteme).

They believe "cis" people (non trans people), ALL cis people, oppress trans people, because they are seen as normal by society. They have 'cisprivellege' . They call these 'discourses', (society wide conversations). They think you need to disrupt 'normal' discourses on sex and gender. Flatten everything and start again.

The trans issue has really been hijacked, since dysphoric trans people fit into the male female binary, they are not really challenging the discourse, though they want to swap sex. Debbie Hayton and Blaire White , Buck angel (and many others, infact I would say a majority of trans people who think of themselves as transexual) are trans and are fully aware of this. They understand and disagree with queer theory. They have also been living their best life without issue.

Queer theory in its purest sense is visible in non binary identities and people like Alex Hammond who are not even slightly dysphoric. Some 'allies' really are just kind, some are aware of the power to be negotiated.

Please do Google this, or try that YouTube clip that was suggested. This is very a well established political position. It is not the same as Marxism but it developed out of it and it is real.

My mother, in her 80s now, was working as a Midwife when she got pregnant. She was sacked, lost her much-loved job, for the crime of wanting to have a baby herself.
My dad was not sacked.

Legislation to protect mothers matters, the wording of this legislation matters.

Mother is one of the most important and powerful words in any language. It is ancient. It’s meaning cannot be erased. It is contemptible that in our generation people seek to do just that. Anyone, no matter how they view themselves, should be proud and honoured to be bestowed with the name Mother. To fight against this is misogyny of the highest order.

@VladmirsPoutine

Nobody would stop you referring to yourself as 'Woman' or 'Mother' or 'Breast-feeding' etc etc

Tell that to the people who feel offended because those words ARE used.

@AnnaPotter

I’m off to feed my baby, so please use this opportunity to dig really deep and find an example of actual harm instead of a trite catch phrase for when I get back. If you haven’t, I’ll know it’s simply because you can’t.

If you have time Anna , find and listen to the debate in the House of Lords. It was so refreshing to listen to intelligent people discussing an issue without resorting to snippy remarks, abuse and personal attack. If you don’t have time to listen then have a read through the contemporaneous post on the Feminism page where the debate is discussed.

Of course language matters, you have a baby, congratulations. As your baby grows and develops the language they hear and use will affect their thinking, their cognitive development, their view of themselves as a human being. They will learn how other people see them and value them through language, they will learn to express their own ideas through language, and will also learn that other people don’t always think the same way. They will learn that some “trite phrases” are just that, trite phrases, but that other “trite phrases” are used to hurt and to damage, to undermine people’s self worth . Unless we challenge the words that hurt and damage then they take root and grow and become embedded in our thinking.

IsThisJustLife

I am not trying to persuade anyone of my case. That was my response to being called "fucking ridiculous".

To not understand why the word woman is important in a maternity bill is stupid.

The difference between people and women is crucial.

For example (below are made up numbers just used for demonstration - I've plucked the numbers out of thin air to make the point)

A) 1 in 4 WOMEN will experience a miscarriage
B) 1 in 8 PEOPLE will experience a miscarriage

The wording changes the data due to the extra group now included. As men are people, they must now be included in the data. Now which set of data sounds more alarming? 1 in 4 sounds much more common, and is fact a more accurate reflection as a man can never experience a miscarriage.

Now let's take it one step further. Which set of data should be used for provision of medical services? If something occurs in 1 in 4 women, that sounds like something that a significant proportion of women will need medical assistance for at some point. But if you take the second set of data, you could view it as only 1 in 8 people will experience it, and therefore the provision should be less.

So how it affects us, is it marginalises women's experiences and specific medical needs. Less funding can be allocated to our specific needs.

This is just one example, but I hope those arguing can see that clear language is absolutely essential when it comes to legislation and data.

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

It's getting confusing now...

We specify words, subsets of humanity, when we want to acknowledge and discuss the specific experiences of those particular groups of people. To erase the specificity and the possibility of addressing issues that affect those groups of people is regressive and oppressive.

Yes. Language matters. One sign of dictatorship is people being forced to use a new vocabulary, and everyday words having their meaning changed or erased. It’s part of being forced to obey a new ideology. We should not accept it in a western democracy.

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

It’s as simple as that really isn’t it?

If you don’t use the word mother and just use person then who is the legislation for? How can you write a piece of legislation to protect the rights of a group of people without saying who those people are?

Consider that the word 'woman' or 'mother' was changed to 'person' as it was considered potentially upsetting for the 2 (I believe) transmen who have given birth in the UK.

Yet woman after woman coming on and saying how hurt they were at the removal/change of the word mother/woman is 'fucking ridiculous'.

Odd, isn't it? How come some people's feelings matter but women's don't? How come women are to just shut up and not say how we feel, or learn to live with those feelings, or even accept that those feelings of attachment, love, pride, etc that come with the words 'woman' and 'mother' are ... wait for it .... bigoted.

The words matter. They matter to me and most women. We will not give them up.

It was a good day indeed op. Thank goodness the hol stood up for women.

Yes, a lot of this erasure of the word 'woman' and words that refer to womanhood is coming from transwomen (not all of them of course) . Using 'woman' when talking about giving birth, cervical cancer, periods etc emphasises the fact that they are not actually women, and therefore they want to erase that sort of language and replace it with 'people'.

It's for the same reason that when talking about male healthcare, 'man' is still always used. Because again some transwomen don't want it emphasised that they are in fact the 'people with prostates' or the 'ejaculators'.

And this what Michael Cashman had to say about a Maternity Bill.... Its defamatory to..... Transwomen, apparently? A Maternity Bill?

The more that this whole thing rumbles on, the more clear it becomes that despite all the claims to the contrary, in reality everyone still knows who are the men and who are women.

@Glamflimfloogety

The difference between people and women is crucial.

For example (below are made up numbers just used for demonstration - I've plucked the numbers out of thin air to make the point)

A) 1 in 4 WOMEN will experience a miscarriage
B) 1 in 8 PEOPLE will experience a miscarriage

The wording changes the data due to the extra group now included. As men are people, they must now be included in the data. Now which set of data sounds more alarming? 1 in 4 sounds much more common, and is fact a more accurate reflection as a man can never experience a miscarriage.

Now let's take it one step further. Which set of data should be used for provision of medical services? If something occurs in 1 in 4 women, that sounds like something that a significant proportion of women will need medical assistance for at some point. But if you take the second set of data, you could view it as only 1 in 8 people will experience it, and therefore the provision should be less.

So how it affects us, is it marginalises women's experiences and specific medical needs. Less funding can be allocated to our specific needs.

This is just one example, but I hope those arguing can see that clear language is absolutely essential when it comes to legislation and data.

Anyone else old enough to remember the 'thought experiments' where feminists argued for the inclusion of 'woman' in 'man' and 'mankind' as not being fair used these examples?:

'Mankind gestates his young for nine months'
'Man breastfeeds his young'

etc.

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

Because language really is important. They just don’t like to admit it.

Look at Freddy McConnell. Desperate to be named as the child’s father. If language isn’t important then what’s wrong with being the child’s mother?

Look at the forensic medical bill. We were gaslighted beforehand, it’s just a word. It means nothing, why are you so desperate to change it?
The bill gets amended from gender to sex and apparently it’s a disaster.

Language matters.

@AnnaPotter

How? How are those things affected by a piece of legislation using the phrase ‘pregnant person’ instead of woman? Be specific - what harm would that phrase do to you?

What harm would it do you to use the word mother?

AdHominem, Alex "Broadening the bandwidth of what it means to be a woman" Drummond, even.

@turquoisewaters

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

But shouldn't people get counselling for this? Lots of things can affect MH and people seek counselling (sorry if I'm being too simplistic)

I probably should have put trigger suicide in “” I don’t believe that a simple truthful statement like this can actually “trigger suicide” but it has been claimed it’s the case. My point was that people are saying words don’t matter but only if it’s the words they choose to use, anyone else’s chosen (or factual) words matter so much they are LITERAL VIOLENCE

@Tanith

"Its so that when dave the trans man with his 6 inch long beard attends his doctors appointment the doctor doesn't have to keep referring to him as the mother."

If Dave the Trans man can overcome his dysphoria long enough to do something so female as become pregnant, I'm sure he can cope with being called a mother.

But surely just because the legislation defines him as a mother doesn't mean the doctor has to refer to him as that ...i.e Dave says to doctor I would like to be referred to as "parent" then doctor refers to Dave as that ...he is still has the protections of the legislation as a mother for the purpose of the legislation but no one actually has to physically call him mother during his care

@BarbaraofKent

Yes, a lot of this erasure of the word 'woman' and words that refer to womanhood is coming from transwomen (not all of them of course) . Using 'woman' when talking about giving birth, cervical cancer, periods etc emphasises the fact that they are not actually women, and therefore they want to erase that sort of language and replace it with 'people'.

It's for the same reason that when talking about male healthcare, 'man' is still always used. Because again some transwomen don't want it emphasised that they are in fact the 'people with prostates' or the 'ejaculators'.

And this what Michael Cashman had to say about a Maternity Bill.... Its defamatory to..... Transwomen, apparently? A Maternity Bill?

The more that this whole thing rumbles on, the more clear it becomes that despite all the claims to the contrary, in reality everyone still knows who are the men and who are women.

Oh look, a man who wants to remove rights that aren’t his How unusual

So will children be taught in school that a man and a person create a baby and then the pregnant person has the child. Will there not be any facts attributed to the pregnant person having to have a female anatomy? This is bonkers

I really do recommend listening to the speeches from the HOL.
To finally hear the word woman said without hatred or anger is very much needed.
At no point were women called cis women.
It is clear in law that the word is woman it has nothing to do with identity.

@CupboardOfJoy

My mother, in her 80s now, was working as a Midwife when she got pregnant. She was sacked, lost her much-loved job, for the crime of wanting to have a baby herself. My dad was not sacked.

Legislation to protect mothers matters, the wording of this legislation matters.

It’s hard to believe something like that would have happened, and shows how important are the gains women have made by challenging discriminatory laws and campaigning for fair ones.

I was told I couldn’t return part-time when I had my first child (early 1990s). I had to hand in my resignation before HR finally agreed my request was reasonable. My best friend at the time was the first solicitor in her firm (second largest law firm in the UK) to go part-time. She had to fight for it all the way.