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.

Then changing the wording would support them too.

Not really. Again, for the small amount of adoptions we do not need to alter the language for the vast majority of women. And those women who do have children adopted are generally referred to as birth mothers. Of course, in their own personal lives they can refer to it as they want. I haven't seen any evidence that they would have an overwhelming desire to change that to birth person anyway though...

Even if your child is adopted, that mother is still entitled to maternity rights. Why is this so hard to understand?

Even if your child is adopted, that mother is still entitled to maternity rights. Why is this so hard to understand?

Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

It's not that I don't understand I just don't agree. That's all. Just a difference of opinion. I'm not an imbecile I just don't see things the way you do and that's ok. I'll bow out now and leave you folks to it.

@Mylittlesandwich

It's not that I don't understand I just don't agree. That's all. Just a difference of opinion. I'm not an imbecile I just don't see things the way you do and that's ok. I'll bow out now and leave you folks to it.

The law is very clear. Every single human that gets pregnant or gives birth is female. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact.

@MrsBrunch

Even if your child is adopted, that mother is still entitled to maternity rights. Why is this so hard to understand?

My DCs' birth mum still is, and sees herself as a mother.

It's not that I don't understand I just don't agree. That's all. Just a difference of opinion. I'm not an imbecile I just don't see things the way you do and that's ok. I'll bow out now and leave you folks to it.

Ok. It's fine to disagree. You are in the minority because obviously it's important for women to have the words to describe themselves in order to be protected in law.
But thanks for your input...

@MrsBrunch as the law stands at the moment yes but this thread isn't about that, it's about what almost changed. Anyway as you all requested I'm going back into my cave.

@Mylittlesandwich

This is what I don't understand. Nobody is stopping you from referring to yourself or other people you know by the phrase "mother". If you called me one I'd feel you were being a little formal but I wouldn't be offended. By allowing people to use other terms it's just allowing them to be acknowledged and accepted. Nobody is going to be arrested by calling themselves a mother.

No one is stopping trans people from referring to themselves in any way they wish.

Transmen can identify as transmen and be referred to as such with all their healthcare etc if they decide to do the distinctly unmanly thing of having a baby and the hormone treatment they have received allows them to get pregnant and sustain a pregnancy to term.

It is extremely questionable if doing this is in line with the legal GRC declaration of 'living as a man until death'. Men cannot have babies so whatever definition you manage to find of 'living as a man' is unlikely to include gestating a baby but hey ho.

'Mother' is a legal term that confers automatic primary parental responsibility whether we like it or not. When we make laws we have to use exactly the correct language that has exactly the correct meaning otherwise we leave it open to challenge. If a maternity law is left open to challenge, who will feel the detriment? It will be women.

People includes men and women. 'Women' and pregnant mothers only include women. This is important.

I am intrigued as to why you are so angry about this thread? What specific harms do you think will be suffered by how many people?

Today in The Times, the journalist Janice Turner wrote about gender politics leading to the closure of refuges for women fleeing domestic abuse (this is happening because they are not deemed inclusive enough).

Janice Turner references the term ‘luxury beliefs’ - ‘coined in the US to describe opinions that confer status upon the holder at no personal cost’. I’ve seen that in action on this thread - women who enjoy the supposed ‘status’ of being kind, being inclusive. ‘Oh look at me, this doesn’t bother me and even if it did shouldn’t we think about ‘X/ Y/ Z? I’m so much better than all you nasty unkind women..’ There is no personal cost to you by saying this. You have the luxury of saying this because your life isn’t affected - but there are many people whose lives are.

These aren’t your rights, your words, to give away. Giving away sex based rights and allowing ‘women’ to be erased in law affects vulnerable women, women with mental health problems, women who are discriminated against, women who want medical care for reasons based on their biological sex. The list goes on.

Thank you to the men and women in the House of Lords who stood up and defended women yesterday. I am truly grateful.

Mylittlesandwich

Nobody told you to go back to your cave.

Your first post was to tell me I shouldn't post in AIBU and stick to the FWR boards as you don't want to see this.

You offered no opinion you just gave me orders like you own the joint

Please do voice your opinion. If you do not agree that the word mother should be used in a maternity bill say so. Others already have.

But if you voice your opinion do not be upset when others share theirs.

[quote Mylittlesandwich]@MrsBrunch as the law stands at the moment yes but this thread isn't about that, it's about what almost changed. Anyway as you all requested I'm going back into my cave.[/quote]
Yes. It's about this law and many others where attempts have been made to change legislation without proper consideration of the implications. These are very important issues that directly affect and potentially disadvantage women.

The fact that so few women know about it illustrates how stealthy these potential changes are. We should be consulted, there should be debate, it should all be out in the open.

Even here, on mumsnet, talking about maternity law which specifically affects mothers, we are told to leave, get back into the feminism box, shut up, stop talking. Which is why I am now saying No. No more telling me what to do, move over, be kind, remove your safguards, be subservient.

No.

What vitriol, Mylittle? The only one here flinging swear words and insults about is you.

"The legal terminology for a female who has given birth is mother"

hmm...interesting. I did a bit of googling...

The male spouse of a gestational parent is their legal father, however the female spouse of a gestational parent is their legal parent as is a female adoptive parent.

A male biological parent of a child is their biological father, and automatically has parental rights if they are named on the birth certificate, however a female biological (but non-gestational) parent has no rights or status.

a female biological (but non-gestational) parent

What is that, an adoptive parent? A partner to a mother?

Cailleachian

That comes under surrogacy/adoption law/egg and sperm donation.
That has no bearing here as we are discussing expectant mothers and mothers. An egg donor does not get pregnant or give birth.

Again not the gotcha you think it is.

@ArabellaScott

What vitriol, Mylittle? The only one here flinging swear words and insults about is you.

To be fair, I did swear too but only because Cailleachian used the example of a raped 11 year old as an attempt at a gotcha. Badly done.

@MrsBrunch

a female biological (but non-gestational) parent

What is that, an adoptive parent? A partner to a mother?

It's referring to an egg donor.

I think @Cailleachian thought it was somewhat of a gotcha.

@Cailleachian can you share the google results you mentioned so I can have a look? I'm adopted and always interested in stuff like this. I googled the sentences in your post to find them myself but it said no direct matches.

@MrsBrunch

a female biological (but non-gestational) parent

What is that, an adoptive parent? A partner to a mother?

Egg donor to her wife who gave birth?

Even here, on mumsnet, talking about maternity law which specifically affects mothers, we are told to leave, get back into the feminism box, shut up, stop talking. Which is why I am now saying No. No more telling me what to do, move over, be kind, remove your safguards, be subservient.

👏

This thread is nearing its end and frankly I am surprised it survived past page 4.

I started this thread simply because I wanted to know if IWBU. I mean that is the topic after all.

It was quickly deemed a hate thread, a pointless thread and I bet there were so many reports to have it removed.
Some posters tried to make this about something it wasn't. Since when did discussing maternity rights on MUMSNET become deletion worthy?

Over 1900 member looked and voted on this thread. I know that's not huge given the membership size but it does make me think that being confined to the FWR boards is an act of out of sight out of mind. If 1900 people are interested then maybe its time this sort of thread came out of the shadows.

I agree @LastRoloIsMine and I appreciate you creating this thread.

If 1900 people are interested then maybe its time this sort of thread came out of the shadows.

It's absolutely time.

If 1900 people are interested then maybe its time this sort of thread came out of the shadows.

Hear hear.

Yanbu.
I find it deeply offensive to have my womanhood devalued and erased at the altar of some kind of weird trans cult-like behaviour. I also find it DEEPLY offensive to be referred to as ‘cis’.