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.

@AnnaPotter

Woolly truisms like ‘language has meaning’ are pointless. What actual harm do you envisage? In the mumsnet echo chamber you might find a hundred people willing to say ‘you’re so right’ and save you the effort of actually thinking, but I want to know exactly what damage would be done to you by legislation using the term ‘pregnant person’ rather than ‘mother’?

@AnnaPotter I think I may love you. That is all.

CAN EVERYONE JUST CALM THE FUCK DOWN?!

This conversation is generating a lot more heat than light. For the sake of sanity, and tolerance, and for all the balanced people reading this who think they are alone - it’s perfectly possible to hold both the contentious views in this thread at the same time. It doesn’t have to be an either/or.

It’s perfectly possible to think that the word ‘mother’ is powerful and should be inserted into relevant legislation. And at the same time agree that no-one is harmed by using more inclusive language in this instance.

Joshua Rozenberg’s Twitter thread gives some excellent context on why the bill had the contentious wording in the first place. It’s part of a drive to eradicate gendered language in legislation and was designed to protect women. Eg to ensure that firemen became firefighters, chairman became chairperson etc. It’s a pretty sound principle.

In this instance, the Lords felt that it was more appropriate to use ‘mother’ here. I agree. I can’t agree with @AnnaPotter that language is unimportant - mother/maternity are descriptive, well-known terms that provoke a visceral reaction and I think it’s important to keep them.

But I do agree with her that this whole thread is out of proportion. No-one was trying to eradicate women here. No-one was trying to advance trans rights over women’s rights. No-one’s rights would’ve been harmed if the language had stayed as ‘pregnant person’

This is all a big stress out when it didn’t need to be

Now, can we all stop arguing amongst ourselves and get back to working together to destroy the patriarchy please?

@Mockolate

You lumped racism and transphobia together.

As in, they are all examples of hate crime.
Equally, but separately.
I didn't compare them to each other.

What the hell has racism got to do with maternity rights for women?

The first thing I heard on Sky the other day was a non-man presenter using the line "but vaccines are being tested on children and pregnant people."

It was like the ultimate mic drop.

Let us Women have our preferred mode of nomenclature. It's factual and should be recorded as such in law above all else.

Don't presume I'm happily Cis.

I'll refer to you however you desire. Afford me the same respect.

Two things: (1) there’s nothing to “listen to” on an internet forum

It's a figure of speech?!
and (2) no intelligent person would continue to visit a site they found upsetting. That’s masochism.
Trans people who are parents too might, funnily enough, be on a parenting site for parents wanting company and advice, just like people who aren't trans do.
Probably been on here years.
Why should they be told to go elsewhere, otherwise they're daft/unintelligent?
At least on FWR they can choose to visit these threads or not.
Don't have much choice when they can be anywhere it seems now.

Mock

Transmen are female. Women are adult females as are transmen. They are not excluded from this bill as only females require maternity rights.

@JackieWeaversZoomAc

What agenda is served by not referring to people who bare 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.

This is absolutely spot on.

Oh and also - important because of well, RIGHTS.

Women are protected by the legal definition of the word “woman” - an adult female. Born as a female sex.

That word protects us SO FUCKING MUCH. To causally announce it doesn’t matter is utter madness. To ignore the eradication of the word is like signing away your rights one by one by one.

When the word woman becomes unprotected then your protected rights no longer exist.

Have a long hard think about if that sits OK for you.

@Bookishnerd
Are you shouting?

Pc culture is about the destruction of the family. The reduction/removal of people's rights.

Eg to ensure that firemen became firefighters, chairman became chairperson etc. It’s a pretty sound principle.

A male or female can be any of those. Can a male or female give birth?

Eg to ensure that firemen became firefighters, chairman became chairperson etc. It’s a pretty sound principle.

We are absolutely NOT teaching our children any critical thinking in schools!

Did you mean to be so patronising @Bookishnerd?

It's just like Always taking the female symbols off the packets to appease the same teeny tiny minority. I'm sure most of the said teeny tiny minority don't care. Still waiting for the flowers and cute kittens to appear on the condom packets...

@Ugzbugz

I wonder how long it will be until there is no gender given at birth and it is simply a baby.

The baby will still be either a boy or a girl, whose sex was determined at conception.

@Bookishnerd

CAN EVERYONE JUST CALM THE FUCK DOWN?!

This conversation is generating a lot more heat than light. For the sake of sanity, and tolerance, and for all the balanced people reading this who think they are alone - it’s perfectly possible to hold both the contentious views in this thread at the same time. It doesn’t have to be an either/or.

It’s perfectly possible to think that the word ‘mother’ is powerful and should be inserted into relevant legislation. And at the same time agree that no-one is harmed by using more inclusive language in this instance.

Joshua Rozenberg’s Twitter thread gives some excellent context on why the bill had the contentious wording in the first place. It’s part of a drive to eradicate gendered language in legislation and was designed to protect women. Eg to ensure that firemen became firefighters, chairman became chairperson etc. It’s a pretty sound principle.

In this instance, the Lords felt that it was more appropriate to use ‘mother’ here. I agree. I can’t agree with @AnnaPotter that language is unimportant - mother/maternity are descriptive, well-known terms that provoke a visceral reaction and I think it’s important to keep them.

But I do agree with her that this whole thread is out of proportion. No-one was trying to eradicate women here. No-one was trying to advance trans rights over women’s rights. No-one’s rights would’ve been harmed if the language had stayed as ‘pregnant person’

This is all a big stress out when it didn’t need to be

Now, can we all stop arguing amongst ourselves and get back to working together to destroy the patriarchy please?

More inclusive language?

Mother is inclusive.

If a TM has a baby they are still a mother. This is the law. it was challenged recently and the courts ruled a TM is absolutely to be recorded on child's birth certificate as "mother". Children are legally entitled to know who their mothers are even if their mother is TM.

Yeah @Thewithesarehere. Because it feels like the only way to get a bit of calm and reflective time. Counter-intuitive. Sorry if the shouting disturbed you!

@LastRoloIsMine

Just to clear things up.

At no point have I stated this is a trans thread....but its funny how talking about a maternity bill that only affects women leads to me and others being called transphobic....

This is a thread about women's rights.
Specifically maternity rights which unless you are an idiot only affects women no matter how they identify.

well said. Thank you OP.

No-one’s rights would’ve been harmed if the language had stayed as ‘pregnant person’

I disagree. If women accept that they are not allowed to be named for the sex class that they are in legislation that relates only to them as a sex class, it is very harmful indeed. It will make it easier to remove the word woman from all other legislation and thus remove their rights.

@Clymene

Did you mean to be so patronising *@Bookishnerd*?

No, and I’m genuinely sorry if that’s what came across. But it’s really difficult to read these threads as a mother and a feminist, and to not get increasing pissed off by those taking entrenched positions and shouting down those in the middle.

I see now that I shouldn’t have bothered

I have spent 40 years immersed in feminism insisting that people could be female and that their femaleness did not negate their personhood.

Finally we get it linguistically recognised that those who are gestating are people, and somehow people think this is a bad thing.

I get the concerns over gender identity movement, and I share some of those concerns, but this is a positive step forward for anyone who is pregnant.

@soapboxqueen

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 is great.

I really couldn’t care any less about this and don’t think I know anyone IRL who cares.

What the legislation says or doesn’t say is utterly irrelevant to me.

Bookishnerd

I dont need reflective time.
I am 43 a mother of 4, died in child birth obviously was revived...and a CSA victim.

I am perfectly happy content and sure of my support and vocalisation of womens rights.

I'm waiting for Mumsnet to change its name to 'personwithparentalresponsibilitynet.com' don't want to be using the word mum if mother is so offensive.