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.

A pregnant person is entitled to leave after giving birth" - fine. "A pregnant person is entitled to time off for appointments" - again, can't see how not using 'mother' makes absolutely any difference there.

Who actually gets pregnant?

What is the word we used to describe half the population? Can any person get pregnant? Is every employee entitled to maternity leave?

It took 100 years for women to be recognised S part of society why do you want to erase that?

Are people passed over for promotion because they have just got married and are of child bearing age?

Or are women?

Now there is a headscratcher!

@AnnaPotter

I’m off to feed my baby, so please use this opportunity to dig really deep and find an example of actual harm instead of a trite catch phrase for when I get back. If you haven’t, I’ll know it’s simply because you can’t.

Can you do the same where you find an example where not doing it causes harm?

@Thelnebriati

If the language used in legislation harms no one, why change it? If it matters so little then why get so enraged that women want to keep the words that are accurate terms and definitions? Of course language matters, especially in legislation. New terms can be used as well as sex based terms of replacing them.

The Inebriati has hit the nail on the head, why change the language? @AnnaPotter You are the one that's being abusive here, can you explain why it's so very important to you that the word Woman is removed.

@AnnaPotter

I’m off to feed my baby, so please use this opportunity to dig really deep and find an example of actual harm instead of a trite catch phrase for when I get back. If you haven’t, I’ll know it’s simply because you can’t.

Well we are also waiting for you to come back and evidence the actual harm you think has been caused by using the words mother and women in legislation about mothers.

[quote AnnaPotter]@MrsBrunch typo - I meant legislation.[/quote]
Well legislation needs to use clear language.

@AnnaPotter

I’m off to feed my baby, so please use this opportunity to dig really deep and find an example of actual harm instead of a trite catch phrase for when I get back. If you haven’t, I’ll know it’s simply because you can’t.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@AnnaPotter

If all 7.8 billion people could give birth it wouldn't matter but only 51% are the sex that can. We are women not just people and we deserve rights.

And what rights are at issue here? What right do you currently have that wouldn’t exist if a piece of language used the phrase ‘pregnant person’?

People don't become pregnant, women do. It is a biological fact, not a gendered one. Again, it is about protecting sex -based rights, especially since it's women that face discrimination in light of pregnancy. When it comes to protecting women's rights and equality, part of that is recognising why women are treated differently or worse compared to men. Especially in a work place, it is down to biological functions such a pregnancy. By removing the word 'woman' it is removing the protection barriers of sex discrimination.

How many non women in the U.K. have actually giving birth? And by non women, I mean women who decided they were men but felt so against their female body they thought they'd birth a baby (the most womanly thing you can do).
I reckon it's a handful, not sure but probably less than 10. So why on Earth would you change a word that's been used for centuries (mother) just to meet the needs of this group of people!? It's actually madness

The bill was about maternity rights. That applies to women who have given birth. However you identify, if you give birth, you're a mother. However you identify you are entitled to the same maternity rights as other mothers. Freddie McConnell wanted to be called father. That has been rejected twice in court because Freddie gave birth. The likelihood of any trans man being affected by this is minimal. It's not about inclusion when people argue against this result.

This is nonsense;

8 out of 10 people under 40 will get pregnant within a year if they have sex without contraception regularly

there's a really good thread about this over on feminism and in Active cnvos. It followed the live Lords debate where numerous peers, including Robert Winston spoke against the wording of "pregnant person" etc.

This thread is about the Maternity bill. My title is appropriate.

It affects mothers. I agree all women are affected as all women are of the sex who can be pregnant however the maternity bill only affects pregnant women or mothers.

@AnnaPotter

I’m off to feed my baby, so please use this opportunity to dig really deep and find an example of actual harm instead of a trite catch phrase for when I get back. If you haven’t, I’ll know it’s simply because you can’t.

Are you chestfeeding your baby? Because only uterus havens can do that.

I do hope you aren't asking your baby to describe you as 'mum'.

Please let them call you birthing parent.

Bit of a mouthful, but it makes zero difference to anyone right?

Also, I really do hope you haven't assigned your baby a gender. That would be so transphobic.

Wait until they get to "menopause".. conundrum to come

AnnaPotter Thu 25-Feb-21 22:26:23
So women aren't allowed to refer to themselves as women or use the usual womanly terminologies now??
Of course you fucking are. Where does it even remotely suggest that you can’t? Stop making shit up to suit your agenda

This
Well fucking put
You can still call yourself mother, honest to God the scare mongering hyperbole shit on here is getting ramped up by the day I see!!
If I was still pregnant today (fair few years ago since I last was) I'd still get to be called a mum.
Not like "sorry, no you're not, you're a birthing person now!"
It's just if a trans man is pregnant too (yes, yes, biologically female, blah blah) is it so hard to afford them the common courtesy of respecting their identity as well?
I'm still a mum, I wouldn't have "lost the word" at all.
Just they might have had the right to be referred to as a birthing parent etc as they wished too.

I would point blank refuse to use pregnant person or any such new definition that is replaced by the word 'woman'

Its getting out of hand now.

@LastRoloIsMine

Both I guess 🤷‍♀️ I'm a person, I'm also a mum because that's what I like to be referred to as when it comes to my children. No one will stop me referring to myself as mum/mother. Same as I will use the word breastfeeding not chest feeding. They're not going to physically put their hand over my mouth to stop me saying it.

How many non women in the U.K. have actually giving birth? And by non women, I mean women who decided they were men but felt so against their female body they thought they'd birth a baby (the most womanly thing you can do)
I reckon it's a handful, not sure but probably less than 10

There's a number plucked out of thin air if ever there was one - you "reckon probably less than 10?"
Oookay

It’s interesting how dreadfully important language is when talking about trans people.

But apparently so completely unimportant when talking about women...

Strange that.

Why do people think it's not up to women to decide what we want to be called? Women are saying they don't want to be referred to as chest feeders and pregnant people. Doesn't make me transphobic.

You are not being unreasonable OP. Words matter

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'.

I have used this argument before.
Replace the scenario with calling all people ‘people’. Not black people, white people or people of colour. Then you’ve solved racism right? Because if a black man is just a ‘man’ then he can’t have been shot by the police because he is black....
But of course this is bollocks, people are targeted for their race, just as women are targeted for their sex, not gender, sex. We need properly descriptive words, particularly in law for a very good reason.