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.

And it’s disheartening to me that you think a minority is too “rare” or too small to deserve human rights. How many people would be enough? 1 million? Or a full 1-2% of all humans?

Very well put

@PlanDeRaccordement

And it’s disheartening to me that you think a minority is too “rare” or too small to deserve human rights. How many people would be enough? 1 million? Or a full 1-2% of all humans?

It's not that they don't deserve human rights - it is that their rights do not supersede the other 99% .

f you take the time, you will find studies where women with Swyers have been fertile and given birth unassisted

I can't find any cases that suggest that to be possible at all.

@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 that's the case then why is it important not to 'misgender' people. It shouldn't matter if we say him/his or her/hers when we talk about people. If words aren't important why the issue in saying that a person with the xy chromosome is a man, no matter how he chooses to dress or present himself. He is more than welcome to present in whichever way he wants (or vice versa), take hormones or have surgery. He is still a man.

You can't say words have no meaning and then complain that people don't agree that he is a woman.

@Backtoschool101

It will spiral too. Im not on a deeper knowledge of this but the first thing i thought was ok... does that mean a transman that identifies as woman, will they acceot they could be effected by the pay gap... or will they still be a man when it comes to that....

Yes. A transman could be a mother or expectant mother. They are not far off uterine implants as part of surgery.

Also if they just stop cutting uteruses out of the Ovotestes DSD infants (1 in 83,000 births), these babies can grow up as boys but then have periods and ovulate and get pregnant.

I see you have compared sex to race and sexism to racism. However, are you also willing to take that comparison one step further and agree that like race, sex is also a social construct based on appearances?

No, absolutely not, that is where the analogy falls down. Ethnicity is indeed a social construct, as are countries. But sex is a biological fact.

There are many different ethnicities, many overlap (however you choose to categorise them), but sex is a distinct biological category distinct. Also there is no spectrum. You are either intersex or you are not, this is a clear binary. The vast majority of people are not intersex, a miniscule proportion are, and all are female or male, there is no third sex.

You are correct that biology is complex (I would add, fascinating) but you mistaken to think that feminists or those stating the fact that there are two sexes don't already know this.

@Erkrie

f you take the time, you will find studies where women with Swyers have been fertile and given birth unassisted

I can't find any cases that suggest that to be possible at all.

That’s why I said “if you take the time” a quick google won’t do the trick.

Some people, not a lot, but some people who call themselves men get pregnant. Whether you like it or not. This doesn't mean that you can't call yourself mum or woman or mother or anything else. Women are people. Females who call themselves men are people. This allows all of these people protection under the law. Good

Its not about like it is about fact. Only women get pregnant and give birth. Transmen are protected because to get pregnant and give birth they must be women.
People do not get pregnant women do.
Its not about what we call ourselves its about protecting our rights.

And it’s disheartening to me that you think a minority is too “rare” or too small to deserve human rights. How many people would be enough? 1 million? Or a full 1-2% of all humans?

And what human rights are trans people in this country denied? Gender is recognised as it's own category of equality.

Also, sex is not based on appearances. We all are very good at guessing sex based on appearances, we have evolved to be good at this. Women, especially so. But your sex is present in every cell in your body. It's mind boggling that people like you are trying to obsfucate this!

It cracks me up that the same people who say stuff like 'Woolly truisms like ‘language has meaning’ are pointless' are the same people who lose their shit about 'misgendering'.

Does language matter or not? I can't keep up!

Anyway back to the topic.

The speeches were great

If you get a chance to listen

@fastwigglylines

I see you have compared sex to race and sexism to racism. However, are you also willing to take that comparison one step further and agree that like race, sex is also a social construct based on appearances?

No, absolutely not, that is where the analogy falls down. Ethnicity is indeed a social construct, as are countries. But sex is a biological fact.

There are many different ethnicities, many overlap (however you choose to categorise them), but sex is a distinct biological category distinct. Also there is no spectrum. You are either intersex or you are not, this is a clear binary. The vast majority of people are not intersex, a miniscule proportion are, and all are female or male, there is no third sex.

You are correct that biology is complex (I would add, fascinating) but you mistaken to think that feminists or those stating the fact that there are two sexes don't already know this.

Sex isn’t a spectrum. But it overlaps. Like this. With the light blue area being intersex. Not much different from being biracial.

PlanDeRaccordement although if there was a case of a person with swyers that actually was able to produce ova / give birth unassisted, then the legislation protects them anyway. So I'm not convinced that changing the word mother to suit a couple of people with a rare condition is really the way forward at all.

I cant work out what argument you are trying to make, are you saying people with Swyers who get pregnant are not women and thats why we need to have the language changed?

Why are people derailing by talking about incredibly rare DSDs and the like?

Throughout history, we have all known who are the men and who are the women. We all know which class of human has been oppressed on the basis of biology. Why, now that we are talking about rights for that particular class of human, has it suddenly become oh so complicated?

@BarbaraofKent

Why are people derailing by talking about incredibly rare DSDs and the like?

Throughout history, we have all known who are the men and who are the women. We all know which class of human has been oppressed on the basis of biology. Why, now that we are talking about rights for that particular class of human, has it suddenly become oh so complicated?

Well exactly 🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️

Don’t look here don’t look here

Look over there 🤷‍♀️

A transman could be a mother or expectant mother. They are not far off uterine implants as part of surgery.

Aside from the fact that the above shows a total misunderstanding- transmen wouldn’t need uterine transplants because they are born female- it’s also ridiculous. Do you really think all you need to gestate a baby is a uterus? Never mind the whole endocrine system needed to support a pregnancy, trigger labour, allow the ligaments to soften so that the pelvis can spread for labour. No- slap in a uterus and you are good to go

Why are people derailing by talking about incredibly rare DSDs and the like?

Because Plan believes that woman and mother is sexist and that not only women get pregnant.

Which is obvious complete tosh.

I hope this change now spreads in to other laws, policies and situations where the services and rights of women are defined and used by those they are meant for.

Annapotter 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 actual harm does it do to use the word woman or mother? Please i would really like to know

@BrumBoo

And it’s disheartening to me that you think a minority is too “rare” or too small to deserve human rights. How many people would be enough? 1 million? Or a full 1-2% of all humans?

And what human rights are trans people in this country denied? Gender is recognised as it's own category of equality.

A bill for leave due to pregnancy and childbirth that refers only to “mother or expectant mother” excludes anyone who is not legally registered as a woman and/or is genetically XY male but due to DSD can become pregnant and give birth. These are humans too.

Government has used gender neutral language in legislation since 2007 so this wasn't about 'erasing' language at all although there is a concerted effort by transphobic/homophobic people to get people outraged.

That is not true at all. The Equality Act 2010 has correct use of woman and man all over it as have many more recent pieces of legislation.

The ‘gender neutral’ drafting was to combat the use of male as a default to show that job roles for eg are not only intended for males but women were included too.

Only women can get pregnant and the word mother is a very specific legal term in relation to a baby, conferring automatic primary parental responsibility.

The use of woman and mother in the legislation is entirely correct and necessary.

Scientists estimate that DSD is as frequent as red hair or green eyes among humans. Do ginger people then not deserve rights? Or those with the rarest eye colour of green?

Not "scientists". One gender studies professor, Fausto-Sterling, who claimed that as many as 1.7% of people have DSDs. This has been thoroughly debunked as she was including all sorts of people who would not think of themselves intersex.

The figure is more like 0.018, so 100 times lower. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264

It really doesn't do much for your credibility to keep on quoting the gender lobbyists's mantras and talking point. The time of no debate is over and we can see right through them.

The Emperor has no clothes on!

A bill for leave due to pregnancy and childbirth that refers only to “mother or expectant mother” excludes anyone who is not legally registered as a woman and/or is genetically XY male but due to DSD can become pregnant and give birth. These are humans too.

Yep and they are included in the bill.
Anyone who gives birth is a mother. The law has already made that clear.