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.

@Artesia

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 you quoting me out of context, those are two separate cases. 1) can get pregnant 2) Uterine implants obviously mean men (transwomen) soon can get pregnant,

Why would you link them? That’s your reading issue not my understanding issue.

@LastRoloIsMine

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.

The same law that is currently being challenged for reform. As I said this bill is being written for today with no thought of tomorrow.

Uterine implants obviously mean men (transwomen) soon can get pregnant,

There is no soon about it!

Are you sure you are a woman?
You cannot just pop in a Uterus and pop out a baby 9 months later.

The same law that is currently being challenged for reform. As I said this bill is being written for today with no thought of tomorrow.

Why what difference will tomorrow bring?
Women will still be the only humans who can give birth.

@Octane
You may call it a small bubble on the Internet. It is one of the largest forums in the country where women speak together though. Women speaking together are often dismissed.You are in touch with what most people think you claim. Well, we could all claim that couldn’t we.
You are right that there would be protests if it was applied to sex education in schools. That is because it would be a very obvious example of the ideology, that was challenged yesterday, in action. A lot of people don’t follow politics particularly closely so a lot goes under the radar particularly as the BBC for example are clearly reluctant to report.
It is exactly the same ideology.

The same law that is currently being challenged for reform. As I said this bill is being written for today with no thought of tomorrow

I would say it's given a lot of thought about tomorrow for the protection of women and girls. I know that doesn't make some people happy.

11:40BarbaraofKent

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!

So True Barbara, the hypocrisy or gaslighting is astounding. Either language matters or it doesnt. Over the choice of erasing the word that refers to 51% of the population, to accommodate the 5 transmen that give birth, i know what most sensible people would opt for.

@LastRoloIsMine

Cailleachian

Can anyone get pregnant?
Can anyone be black?
Can anyone be a child or a pensioner?

This is not a bill that exists for anyone. It is specific because only women get pregnant and because of that we need laws to protect us.

No, not everyone can get pregnant

There's a fairly specific set of conditions.

No-one over 70 has been pregnant, no one under 5, no one without a uterus and and no one who has a Y chromosome.

Only female people become pregnant. If you insist that female people must be women, your argument become circular. I think female people can be anything they want.

Fuck being a women, its shit. Demanding to be a woman rather than a person is a form of Stockholm syndrome.

Gender abolitionist?

I'm a person. I'm male. Awesome as I am, I cannot become pregnant and then give birth to a brand new person. Never can, never will. It's utterly impossible. My contribution to this is far less impressive. (biologically...I mean biologically)

Who did this miracle? My wife. My wife, who is a woman and a mother to my children. You can sod off if you think I'm lumping her in with males as a "person".

No, not everyone can get pregnant

I never said everyone could. I said only women can.

Only female people become pregnant. If you insist that female people must be women, your argument become circular. I think female people can be anything they want

Women are human females. Men are human males.
Of course they can be anything they want that doesn't change the fact only women get pregnant and give birth.

Last Rollos

Are you sure you are a woman?
You cannot just pop in a Uterus and pop out a baby 9 months later.

Human bodies are just the same as Mr and Mrs Potato Head, or at least they are in TRA La La land

Women have a hellish time with their female medical needs. POCS, endometriosis, unexplained infertility, denied smears when we have unusual bleeding, told extreme periods and the hormonal imbalances that effect us every month is 'just part of being a woman', as is the damage and after effects for those of us who do give birth.

It takes on average 7 years for a woman to be diagnosed with endometriosis, but it's more important for the scientific community to work on how to shove a uterus taken from a woman into a male like some sort of Frankenstien experiment on people? If science is more set on making males be able to gestate than any attempt in all of modern medicine to help or fix the health issues that actual women have been suffering for years, it proves more than ever that this isn't about 'being inclusive' and all about men taking from women in every way possible.

Demanding to be a woman rather than a person is a form of Stockholm syndrome.

Isnt that what transwomen do ?

Yes, women give birth and are the only humans to be able to do so.

Language is very very important in the development and preservation of rights. It provides the focus, the exact foundation and meaning, upon which intent and action are taken. Without language to define it, the rights of individuals everywhere are under threat. So you see, @AnnaPotter, it presents a real risk to the consolidation and permanency of women's rights to not call mothers "mothers."

This is why the House of Lords sought to overturn the proposal of the use of the word "person," as it is factually incorrect when discussed in the context of "motherhood."

That is sex not gender. Gender is the stereotypes associated with sex. It used to mean the same. Now it very much does not. The power of language again.

Human bodies are just the same as Mr and Mrs Potato I have loved that thread the last few days

Men who identify as “ Women” can be extremely aggressive.
Women who identify as “Men” are not nearly so aggressive.

@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: "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."

I want to try to understand this argument, but despite reading the statement a number of times, I’m struggling to get to grips with it. Are you saying that defining “woman” in law stigmatises women and therefore leads to discrimination or am I totally off the mark there?

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?

Christ on a bike, give me strength....

@Flapjak

Demanding to be a woman rather than a person is a form of Stockholm syndrome.

Isnt that what transwomen do ?

Woman refers to sex, you can't identify out of sex. Sex implies nothing about a person other than biology. My biology doesn't really restrict me. The imposition of gendered expectations based on that biology does though. Gender is the way a girl or woman should behave or is expected to behave based on assumptions, which are loosely based on biology. Believing gender stereotypes, now that is stockholm syndrome.

YANBU. It’s a gross insult to women everywhere. Thank goodness for the Lords. Increasingly I think we should abolish the Commons and keep the Lords

Demanding to be a woman rather than a person is a form of Stockholm syndrome.

I'm both. And I'm not demanding. I am a person who is a woman. The distinction on what type of person is important

🤢🤢🤢🤢

I think it's possible to feel very supportive of people in minority groups, without having to change all our language to match their experience.

I totally support the trans men who give birth, or the very rare intersex people with XY chromosomes and female biology. But I think we can still talk about mothers and pregnant women in the main. If I was talking to an individual pregnant trans man, that would be different and I'd change my language.

In the same way I totally support people with disabilities. But I would think it was daft and unfair if we were never allowed to mention "going for a walk" again because some people use a wheelchair. Or never allowed to say we "saw something" because some people are blind. Obviously if I was talking to an individual who used a wheelchair, I would have some sensitivity and not go on about the fabulous run I just went on. But I'd be annoyed to be told I could never say "walk" or "see" again when talking about general situations.

Well to all women who stood up for this and the men with common sense who spoke up backing women.

And fathers don’t worry when HoL discussing your rights to be called father and not people I will be backing you too