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 think the poster demanding we give her one good reason why the word matters has disappeared!
I really appreciate this forum as a place where women are able to discuss women’s rights and group to protect them. It’s just quite shocking that it has got to this point.

Why can't the legislation refer to women/mothers and transmen/(appropriate name trans community are happy for transmen who are pregnant /have given birth are happy to be referred to as)

Why can't the legislation refer to women/mothers and transmen

One problem might be that “transman” is not defined in law, so would then need to be. That’s quite a can of worms.

@FamilyOfAliens
I remember the difference too. I started work in the 80s. I was made redundant while pregnant in my first pregnancy and later a discussed promotion was suddenly no longer discussed and handed to a colleague with less experience within weeks of them learning of my pregnancy. Having said that the previous generation of women had greater difficulties. I do wonder if some of the problem is generational and to do with a lack of awareness of very recent history. One of the things I have found particularly disturbing is the no platforming of prominent feminists.

For all those saying it doesn't matter , why change it then ?
If it doesn't matter leave it as mother ( as had now been done )
We all know why it was being changed and it is only biological women who can get pregnant , thats a fact
Identify as who you like , most people really don't care but you can't change biological facts and for now only a biologicali women can carry and have a baby

@Jenasaurus

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 just don't get how you jump from this to that.They're totally unrelated

One problem might be that “transman” is not defined in law, so would then need to be. That’s quite a can of worms.

Yes!

Why can't the legislation refer to women/mothers and transmen/(appropriate name trans community are happy for transmen who are pregnant /have given birth are happy to be referred to as)

Because this bill already includes them and covers them as they are women/mothers. This is legislation. It deals in facts not identity. They can request their medical staff refer to them anyway they choose.

YABU
First, the bill never said “pregnant person” not once.
Secondly, it used gender/sex neutral language which is standard in legislation.
Thirdly, women fought FOR gender/sex neutral language in laws and policies and common language, and now you are going backwards by fighting AGAINST it. There is no equality if you have “woman” specifically called out in a law. There is stigma and being treated like a fragile, special needs not fully human person.

@Octane
It is quite clearly related. The argument made is that the word woman is not inclusive. This would also apply to learning about sexual reproduction. If you don’t understand that this is the trajectory I think you are extremely naive.A pp showed a ridiculous NHS pamphlet referring to percentages of people who will get pregnant within a specific timeframe which is an absolutely useless piece of data without knowing if they are referring to women.

@LastRoloIsMine

Why can't the legislation refer to women/mothers and transmen/(appropriate name trans community are happy for transmen who are pregnant /have given birth are happy to be referred to as)

Because this bill already includes them and covers them as they are women/mothers. This is legislation. It deals in facts not identity. They can request their medical staff refer to them anyway they choose.

The bill won’t cover anyone with a legal status other than “woman”. You are forgetting that transmen change their legal status to “man”. So no, they are not technically covered and that is why laws should be written in gender/sex neutral terms.

The U.K. has many laws that still need to be updated and made equal between the sexes. This is a step backwards, not forwards.

How does using a bureaucratic term interfere with our rights?

I think that the term 'pregnant person' is rather silly (how many trans people get pregnant anyway? - and if you want to be totally inclusive, why not just say 'parents'?) but so are all the euphemistic terms for pregnancy that people used in the past: 'in a delicate condition', etc.

When women were denied the vote, equal pay, etc., they were still called 'women' (or sometimes 'ladies' or 'girls') and this didn't have a bearing on our rights. Nor are current anti-feminist countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran particularly noted for using phrases like 'pregnant people'. In fact, being called a 'person' rather than a gender-specific term used to be something that feminists promoted.

[quote fastwigglylines]If anyone wants to get an idea of the passion of this debate, listen to Lord Hunt in the Lords today. Lots of really well informed peers spoke, but Lord Hunt was my favourite today.

This link should hopefully go straight to his bit:

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/3ca1efa2-16a5-489d-a5a0-5d929bff81f6?in=14:36:24[/quote]
Very interesting, thanks for posting this link.

Sex is a protected characteristic. I have the right to not be discriminated against based on my sex.

If you write sex out of the legislation that only affects women, you write out the ability to identify sexism.

It would be personism

Pregnancy is of course a protected characteristic in its own right. But if you can't link it to biological women, you can't identify any sexism connected to it.

Women's rights have to be based on the fact that they are women. Not on the fact that they are cervix havers, menstruators, or pregnant bodies.

Otherwise none of these things get linked to the sex that is considered 'lesser than'.

^
Fantastic post.

Gender Reassignment is a protected characteristic and rightly so, in my opinion. But the insidious campaign to remove Sex as a protected characteristic and replace it with Gender/Gender Identity will make sex discrimination difficult to define, let alone fight.

Without being rude we all have a sex of male or female biologically thats just biology ,
So as only a biological female / women can get pregnant thats what you are, if you identify as a trans man you are still biologically female otherwise you wouldn't of been able to get pregnant and have a child.
Maybe what needs defining is biological sex is one thing and gender you choose another as such.
If have a female body then you will have female issuses , vice versa if you are male . People can't change that fully

Your biological sex stays the same.
Your gender you can choose

The Freddy McConnell case also shows that Freddy is a mother. So the terminology does in fact protect Freddie.

PlanDeRaccordement

It is impossible to be sex neutral within Maternity legislation. You know that only 1 sex can be pregnant/give birth right?

Actually it did say pregnant person. I think there is a screen shot on this thread of the bill.

There is no equality if you have “woman” specifically called out in a law. There is stigma and being treated like a fragile, special needs not fully human person.

When it comes to pregnancy and giving birth there is no equality between the sexes as again only women can do those things.
Typical misogynistic response to women standing for their rights is calling us fragile.

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.

When suffragettes were fighting for the vote there were many women who sat back and didn’t know and didn’t care.
Thank god there were women then willing to speak out.
Thank god there are women now willing to put their necks in the line in order to protect women and children.
The debate as a whole has often been framed as extremists on either side.
Extremists from one side issue threats, “extremists” on the other offer science and facts.

@PlanDeRaccordement

YABU First, the bill never said “pregnant person” not once. Secondly, it used gender/sex neutral language which is standard in legislation. Thirdly, women fought FOR gender/sex neutral language in laws and policies and common language, and now you are going backwards by fighting AGAINST it. There is no equality if you have “woman” specifically called out in a law. There is stigma and being treated like a fragile, special needs not fully human person.

Wuh?

This is a Maternity Bill. It is vitally important that it is made clear in law whose rights are being protected by this bill. Nothing to do with treating anyone like a 'fragile, special needs' person.

[quote Blackberrycream]@Octane
It is quite clearly related. The argument made is that the word woman is not inclusive. This would also apply to learning about sexual reproduction. If you don’t understand that this is the trajectory I think you are extremely naive.A pp showed a ridiculous NHS pamphlet referring to percentages of people who will get pregnant within a specific timeframe which is an absolutely useless piece of data without knowing if they are referring to women.[/quote]
I don't think I'm naive. I think I just am in touch with what most people actually think, rather than small bubbles on the internet.

Most people don't care about the exact word being used in a piece of legislation if the outcome for them is no different. At the same time, most people would care if no "facts were attributed to the pregnant person having to have a female anatomy" in school classes for their kids. There's obviously a difference. The latter would never happen because 99% of people would complain about how stupid it would be.

The bill won’t cover anyone with a legal status other than “woman”. You are forgetting that transmen change their legal status to “man”. So no, they are not technically covered and that is why laws should be written in gender/sex neutral terms.

Only women get pregnant only mothers give birth. Transmen are covered by this bill as if they are pregnant they are a woman as only women can. If they give birth they are a mother.

The U.K. has many laws that still need to be updated and made equal between the sexes. This is a step backwards, not forwards.

There can be no equality of the zexes for a MATERNITY bill as only 1 if the 2 sexes chill needed it.

@donewithitalltodayandxmas

For all those saying it doesn't matter , why change it then ? If it doesn't matter leave it as mother ( as had now been done ) We all know why it was being changed and it is only biological women who can get pregnant , thats a fact Identify as who you like , most people really don't care but you can't change biological facts and for now only a biologicali women can carry and have a baby

This completely 👏

The bill won’t cover anyone with a legal status other than “woman”. You are forgetting that transmen change their legal status to “man”. So no, they are not technically covered and that is why laws should be written in gender/sex neutral terms.

No.

Freddie McConnell lost the court case to try and be recognised in law as 'father'. Freddie is still 'mother' and is therefore protected in law. If Freddie had been allowed to use 'father' then in order to get protection in law then any legislation around maternity rights would have to say 'mothers and fathers' - which doesn't reeeeaaallllly make sense does it?

@PlanDeRaccordement

YABU First, the bill never said “pregnant person” not once. Secondly, it used gender/sex neutral language which is standard in legislation. Thirdly, women fought FOR gender/sex neutral language in laws and policies and common language, and now you are going backwards by fighting AGAINST it. There is no equality if you have “woman” specifically called out in a law. There is stigma and being treated like a fragile, special needs not fully human person.

@PlanDeRaccordement what is 'sex neutral' language in the context of being pregnant/giving birth? Are you really confusing 'women want fair and equal rights' with 'women ant to be treated exactly like men in every circumstances, otherwise we're seen as lesser'? Of course the equality comes from women having specific laws and legislation where it's appropriate . Laws on rights to our female anatomy, such as no longer being considered male property in marriage, the right to abortions, the right to sex-segregated sports - there are many many examples where the word 'woman' is extremely important as a sex definition to protect the rights that women fought and are still fighting for.

@dd1
Exactly, it doesn’t interfere with women’s rights or entitlement to maternity leave in the slightest to use neutral language as the original bill did. All it does is create legal challenges in the future when intersex ministers assigned male/man at birth get pregnant or when transmen ministers who have legally changed their identification to “man” get pregnant. All that could have been avoided with no harm done to any woman anywhere in Parliament. Its intolerance and exclusion at its worst. It is I have my cake but refuse to share with any human that doesn’t fit into what I perceive as the right kind of person who can get pregnant.

The original bills started out saying:

Payment of maternity allowance: Ministerial office
A person designated as a Minister on Leave under this section is to be paid an allowance in accordance with section 2.
The Prime Minister may designate a person as a Minister on Leave if— 5
(a) the person appears to the Prime Minister to satisfy either of the
conditions in subsection (3), and
(b) the person ceases to hold a ministerial office (“the first ministerial office”) but remains a member of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom by virtue of immediately being appointed to another 10 ministerial office (“the designated ministerial office”) for the purposes
of being designated under this section.
The conditions in this subsection are that—
(a) the person is pregnant and it is no more than 12 weeks before the
expected week of childbirth; 15
(b) the person has given birth to a child within the previous 4 weeks.
In subsection (3)(b) “child” includes a still-born child within the meaning of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (see section 41(1) of that Act).
Read full text at publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/172/5801172.pdf