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.

@AdHominemNonSequitur never have I wished more that MN had a like button.

@secular39

*To those struggling with why this is important, it's actually fairly simple.

If I say 'some people' are discriminated against in employment, healthcare, the justice system or anything else and it needs sorting, the first thing that should be asked is which people and for what reason.

If my response is just some 'people' are denied access to effective healthcare, some 'people' are denied jobs, some 'people' are denied suitable housing or some 'people' are denied access to justice, how effective do you think the solutions will be?

You can't solve discrimination and oppression against groups of people if you don't know who they are or can't describe them accurately*

This ^

Most importantly in research too?! When will it end?!

I don’t have time to read the 150 new posts, so just popping back in.

This is muddying the waters. The fact that laws should be written gender/sex neutral does not mean you cannot do scientific studies or surveys or censuses asking for gender, sex, race, sexual orientation etc.

So the idea that writing laws gender/sex neutral means you can’t track sexism or racism or any ism is a straw man argument. It wouldn’t happen and we know this because every crime other than rape is on the books as “person commits an offence..” and yet we absolutely do track the differences in sex, ethnicity, religion, national origin, etc etc of perpetrators and victims. Then we analyse the differences and report on any disportportionate representation and injustices or gaps.

Having “minister” or “person” in this MOMA bill would not affect that at all. You have never needed in the past and still don’t need “mother” put in a law to be able to track these differences.

How on earth do we track sex without using the correct words? Some kind if magical divination?

Words must be accurate. In a social context, an emotional context, in a legal and policy making context. You are trying to argue for the removal of any mention of "female'.

Do you support the single sex exemptions of the Equality Act, Plan?

You're wrong Plan because crimes are being recorded by gender rather than sex and that does matter. Data matters because it's used to define policy etc.

@Doyoumind

You're wrong Plan because crimes are being recorded by gender rather than sex and that does matter. Data matters because it's used to define policy etc.

No, I’m right. The law says “person” but that doesn’t stop us from tracking crimes by any characteristic we want to. Like gender. Like sex. Like race. Nothing stopping us in the law. The fact that some crimes are not tracked by sex but by gender isn’t because the law was written in gender/sex neutral terms, go to ONS and look up any crime, homicide, theft, etc

Having “minister” or “person” in this MOMA bill would not affect that at all. You have never needed in the past and still don’t need “mother” put in a law to be able to track these differences.

The word mother in law is not to track differences it is to correctly name the woman who has given birth. The law needs to be clear and accurate and having words that identify specific groups of people in order to enforce laws to protect them ensures that those minorities or disadvantaged groups are.

Its pitiful watching this endless justification for erasing the word woman / mother, it truly is. Thank goodness the HoL have more sense.

@ArabellaScott

How on earth do we track sex without using the correct words? Some kind if magical divination?

Words must be accurate. In a social context, an emotional context, in a legal and policy making context. You are trying to argue for the removal of any mention of "female'.

Do you support the single sex exemptions of the Equality Act, Plan?

Yes words must be accurate. But laws are umbrellas and so are meant to be inclusive of humanity as possible. You only need to have labels if you are analysing differences in people as part of a study or survey. You don’t need them in the law itself and a primary tenant if justice is that all should be equal before the law. You don’t have equality if you have special laws calling out specific types of humans.

We have equality laws?

@LastRoloIsMine

Having “minister” or “person” in this MOMA bill would not affect that at all. You have never needed in the past and still don’t need “mother” put in a law to be able to track these differences.

The word mother in law is not to track differences it is to correctly name the woman who has given birth. The law needs to be clear and accurate and having words that identify specific groups of people in order to enforce laws to protect them ensures that those minorities or disadvantaged groups are.

The entire minority groups of transmen and intersex are excluded by use of word “mother or expectant mother”

Use of the word “minister” and “person” covers all women, transmen and intersex individuals.

@Doyoumind

We have equality laws?

Do I really need to explain to you that passing a law saying thou shall not murder doesn’t instantly stop all murder? The same with the Equality Act, passing a law saying all are equal doesn’t instantly stop all inequality in society. A root to branch transformation in society has to happen for either of those objectives to be reached.

You don’t have equality if you have special laws calling out specific types of humans.

So we just abolish all laws that are specific to certain groups and then what?
When I cannot get a job because of my disability and businesses no longer have to provide me with an equal opportunity as there is no law to protect me how is that equality?

The entire minority groups of transmen and intersex are excluded by use of word “mother or expectant mother

No they are not. If a transman or intersex person gives birth then they are a mother. There is no exclusion.

@BrizzleMaverick

I don't see this as taking away the rights of women to be called mothers. Rather those who are biologically female and are pregnant but don't identify with the gender e.g. someone who identifies as non binary.

I think sometimes things like this people jump to the conclusion that it is men taking away the female/mother identify when this change could have come from those who don't see themselves as females so maybe the title of mother doesn't feel right for them either as most people associate the word mother with being female.

most people associate the word mother with being female

Yes. I refer you to Professor Lord Robert Winston who explained this so succinctly.

@LastRoloIsMine

The entire minority groups of transmen and intersex are excluded by use of word “mother or expectant mother

No they are not. If a transman or intersex person gives birth then they are a mother. There is no exclusion.

See the legal precedent re Freddie McConnell. A trans man who gives birth is the child’s mother. It’s not exclusionary language, it’s science and it’s legal.

What a trans man wishes to call themselves while pregnant is a discussion for them to have with their medical advisors. But when the baby is born they are its mother.

The entire minority groups of transmen and intersex are excluded by use of word “mother or expectant mother

Not true. Those who give birth are mothers. Freddy McConnell is legally a mother. So thus not excluded.

You have to be seriously mentally ill to think you are still a man whilst pregnant.

Why are we even mainstreaming delusion?

most people associate the word mother with being female.

But this can change. Language is flexible. Transmen can be mothers, get over it etc. No need to ride roughshod over the existing 51% of the population who don't need or want their biological functions to be renamed.

who don't see themselves as females so maybe the title of mother doesn't feel right for them either as most people associate the word mother with being female.

If one wants to move themselves away from womanhood and identify as male then that's absolutely fine. They cannot however expect to remove the language that women use to describe themselves in order to accommodate their transition.

Only a woman (ie person of the female sex) has a womb, can get pregnant and can successfully carry that baby to term. If you can do these things, you are a WOMAN, a FEMALE human. There is no grey area on this one. If you want to live life as a man or a “person” then don’t do something clearly only possible for someone definitively female.

You don’t have equality if you have special laws calling out specific types of humans.

Oh, dear.

@ArabellaScott

You don’t have equality if you have special laws calling out specific types of humans.

Oh, dear.

Fgs.

That’s exactly what you have...

Read some legislation, maybe?

You don’t need them in the law itself and a primary tenant if justice is that all should be equal before the law. You don’t have equality if you have special laws calling out specific types of humans.

I'm going to assume tenant is autocorrect and you mean 'tenet'. However, before throwing around phrases like 'tenet' and 'root and branch' you really should go back to basics and understand how UK law actually works.

You could start with a question like 'why can bus companies charge different prices for tickets?'.

You don’t have equality if you have special laws calling out specific types of humans.

You do when you have specific types of humans who are treated with inequality. You have to address it.

plan, you are saying that we need to eliminate sex specific words, and say things like sibling, parent, and also eliminate them in laws, then suddenly slot them all back into place, when people ask you how you can identify discrimination and target individuals, without them.

Sounds like you want to put something in place, and then pretend it isn't in place in order to address the reasons why it shouldn't have been put in place in the first, er, place.