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.

You’re being ridiculous. Your experience isn’t defined by legislation. If you consider ‘mother’ to be the right word for you then use it freely, as is your right.

The word 'mother' is defined by legislation. It doesn't refer to gender and doesn't make any judgement. It is a technical word that is inclusive of anyone who has a female role in the reproductive process, regardless of gender.

We need to continue to fight to keep our words as mother, woman, female, breastfeeding woman and the like.

Language matters - in particularly being able to define woman, mother, breastfeeding etc in order to ensure that women's sex-based rights can be named, defined and therefore protected. In the absence of sex-based language we will find that our daughters and granddaughters will lose the sex-based rates (e.g. protection around sex discrimination, pregnancy and breastfeeding not to mention women's single sex spaces and sports categories for females) that we have taken for granted. Not to mention a roll back of progress on protecting women in the third world.

This came up on my FB feed today Breast feeding mother case

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

Yes, it's madness to legislate for such a minuscule minority that it renders the law completely unusable for the majority

@Walkaround

It is certainly odd they wanted to pretend there is no such thing as a woman in legislation relating to pregnancy. If a transgender person with a womb decides to get pregnant, its farcical during that time to pretend they are still a “man,” or that “people” can get pregnant. If you want to be treated as a man and see yourself as a man, then don’t use your own womb.

This exactly! Men can’t get pregnant🙄

We nearly lost the word mother and all that comes with it?

Nope. That's not an accurate reflection at all of this issue. No one decided to delete the word mother from the language.

How tenuous some of your identities and sense of selves must be if you lose them as soon as someone describes you as a person who is pregnant rather than a mother.

@merrymouse

You’re being ridiculous. Your experience isn’t defined by legislation. If you consider ‘mother’ to be the right word for you then use it freely, as is your right.

The word 'mother' is defined by legislation. It doesn't refer to gender and doesn't make any judgement. It is a technical word that is inclusive of anyone who has a female role in the reproductive process, regardless of gender.

You don't have to give birth to be a mother.

PlanDeRaccordement

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

Most likely you are old enough to remember that these arguments were used once upon a time by feminists to advocate for women's rights.

But they appear to have been hijacked, turned into a boomerang, backfiring big time

The strategy needs to be different now, these views are no longer working for women but against them

@unmarkedbythat

We nearly lost the word mother and all that comes with it?

Nope. That's not an accurate reflection at all of this issue. No one decided to delete the word mother from the language.

How tenuous some of your identities and sense of selves must be if you lose them as soon as someone describes you as a person who is pregnant rather than a mother.

My understanding was that the new maternity terminology would exist optionally for those who want to use it, alongside but not as a replacement for, the existing and widely used terms of "mother", "breastfeeding", etc. Have I misunderstood this?

Nope. That's not an accurate reflection at all of this issue. No one decided to delete the word mother from the language.

I never said in language. It was clearly in reference to legislation and the Maternity Bill.

How tenuous some of your identities and sense of selves must be if you lose them as soon as someone describes you as a person who is pregnant rather than a mother.

I do not identify as a woman I am one because I am female and that needs to be recognised in laws that protect my rights.
Every woman who has ever given birth is a mother.

You don't have to give birth to be a mother.

Nobody said you did however as this is a Maternity Bill you do have to have given birth for it to include you.

@JackieWeaversZoomAc

What agenda is served by not referring to people who bear children as mothers and woman? It's really not an agenda that deserves any say in the wording of this legislation.

Pregnancy maternity and motherhood has fuck all to do with transgender rights. It's 200% about women's rights, motherhood and women's place in society. Language is important. We have language that has meaning and it should be used properly especially in our legislation.

Absolutely spot on. Thank you.

I never said in language. It was clearly in reference to legislation and the Maternity Bill.

Was the argument for replacing those terms completely, or was it for including additional optional terms for trans men? I genuinely don't know - that's why I'm asking.

@unmarkedbythat

We nearly lost the word mother and all that comes with it?

Nope. That's not an accurate reflection at all of this issue. No one decided to delete the word mother from the language.

How tenuous some of your identities and sense of selves must be if you lose them as soon as someone describes you as a person who is pregnant rather than a mother.

Ironic

How tenuous some of your identities and sense of selves must be if you lose them as soon as someone describes you as a person who is pregnant rather than a mother.

😂😂😂

The irony.

Increasingly I think we should abolish the Commons and keep the Lords

Mediaeval times, here we come again!

X posted there!

AnnaPotter, I regret the idea that probably the oldest word in our language is supposed to no longer be used, or have meaning for women because a minority - who want to be men but still have a baby using their female reproductive systems - don’t like the female word.

The existence of this bill explains exactly why it is so important to be able to use words like woman and mother in legislation.

Generally childbirth has not interrupted affairs of state. 4 of the last 5 prime ministers have had children while they were either prime minister or in a senior cabinet position. Recent leaders of the Labour Party and the Lib Dems have had children while in office.

When Harriet Harman argued that MPs should get maternity leave in 2018 she said that only 17 MPs had given birth since 2010. But surely this is just a personal choice? 100s of other MPs managed not to engage in this clearly niche activity during the same period...

The point of the bill is that absence of maternity leave prevents WOMEN, and only women from participating in government.

As I see that intersex has been dragged into this discussion as some kind of gotcha, here is a link to a submission made to the Scottish Government by a group of parents of DSD children which clarifies the statistics around the number of children born with DSD.

consult.gov.scot/hate-crime/consultation-on-scottish-hate-crime-legislation/consultation/download_public_attachment?sqId=pasted-question-1467894590.05-55511-1467894590.71-30316&uuId=553341609

Contrary to assertions earlier in the thread that 1 or 2 are born every day in the UK, this document illustrates that the figure is more like 130 per year (so approx 1 every 3 days). However it goes on to say that of these, the overwhelming majority will be identified as either male or female following tests. The number of genuinely ambiguous cases is estimated at 7 or 8 per year.

How tenuous some of your identities and sense of selves must be if you lose them as soon as someone describes you as a person who is pregnant rather than a mother.

Isn’t that ironic? Isn’t the whole movement behind pushing to remove sex from the meaning of the word woman all about trying to affirm people who have issues with their identities? Why don’t they have a stronger sense of self?

Also to what damage this does. If you cut up the definition of woman into parts: menstrators, people with vulvas, people who are pregnant, menopausers etc as if there’s nothing connecting them, then you not only deny reality but also make movements weaker and cause divisions.

You don't have to give birth to be a mother.

Obviously. Words can have multiple meanings, sometimes technical, sometimes not. Mother can mean a person who gave birth or a person who has a specific genetic relationship with a child. It can refer to a formal or casual relationship, or even somebody who pours tea.

In legislation it is necessary to use precise words.

For comparison, a father may never have met his children, but that does not affect his genetic relationship with them.

There is a concerted effort to decouple the word woman from their biology.

Cervix havers, menstruators, birthing bodies, etc. And the truly inhumane rewording of FGM to mean forced genital mutilation, instantly erasing the sex to whom it happens.

Which only makes sense if you don't want sex to be biologically determined, but to be a matter of the way one thinks or feels. Irrespective of anatomy.

To make the word woman mean any sex, but someone who thinks in a certain way, relies entirely on detaching female biology from the word woman. (And replacing it with gender stereotypes.)

Therefore, women will not be oppressed or subject to sexism, on the basis of their biology. Because there are other women, the nonbiological kind, who simply do not suffer from it.

So sexism, based on sex, disappears.

Women will, of course, still be subject to sexism, as a uterus haver, a menstruator, pregnant person, victim of FGM, but there will be no one word linking all that together to describe them. No concept there is a cohort, considered 'lesser than' which needs representation.

In this case, the HoL used mother, not woman. It's interesting that many said they wanted to use the word woman, but perhaps found mother to be a suitable compromise which did not detract from women's rights.

But, there is no doubt, that the word mother is still comprehensively attached to biology.

The HoL were, however fully aware that the word woman is being erased.

Several referenced Freddie McConnell, the transman, who wants the term father to be equally detached from any biological meaning.

Fortunately, there is now no going back to the era of 'no debate'.

AnnaPotter “Woolly truisms like ‘language has meaning’ are pointless. What actual harm do you envisage?” 1984 gives some idea about how words, or the distortion of them is used to control thought.

Maybe the phrase from St John ( whether one is related grouse or not) “In the beginning was the word” gives a hint.

@TooManyMiles

AnnaPotter “Woolly truisms like ‘language has meaning’ are pointless. What actual harm do you envisage?” 1984 gives some idea about how words, or the distortion of them is used to control thought.

Maybe the phrase from St John ( whether one is related grouse or not) “In the beginning was the word” gives a hint.

Can I just say that “related grouse” is probably my favourite autocorrect of the week!