To be so annoyed by the term birth givers

[UniverseSeekerUK]

Having seen that some NHS trusts have decided to use the term Birth Giver it has really annoyed me. It feels as though while they are trying to be inclusive, they are slowly ridding women of everything that is unique to them. Periods, breastfeeding, giving birth are now being generalized and it almost feels as though being a woman won't even be a recognized thing anymore.

Is there no way we can achieve inclusivity without reminding ourselves that women are the sex that do all of these things?

AIBU to be so annoyed by the term birth givers?

@Butteryflakycrust83

I am a woman.

I do not care.

I am still referred to as a breastfeeding mother.

The term birthgiver does not apply to my circumstances.

If only people could extend the same apathy towards woman/mother and just IGNORE if it doesn't apply to them.

If it’s so triggering to be called a woman then why would a trans man be doing the most womanly thing it’s possible to do?

They can request to be referred to however they wish in their personal care but to change all the terminology for an absolutely tiny minority is beyond ridiculous.

The terms birth givers and chest feeders are offensive and dehumanising to women. NO THANK YOU!

YANBU. The term is mother.

Happy Birthgivering Sunday.

I care about the women who might be missing out on important healthcare information and cancer screenings because of unclear or misleading language. A recent study found that nearly half of women don’t know what a cervix is, or at least not well enough to correctly identify it on a diagram. So phrases such as “women and people with a cervix”, “uterus-havers” or “people who menstruate”, might not be clear enough.

The women who are most likely to miss out are women who speak English as an additional language, women with literacy issues and women with learning difficulties.

Some trans people, particularly trans men, are also being put at risk:

There are concerns related to medical records of transgender people. In some countries, individuals are able to change sex markers in their medical records on the basis of their gender identity (109, 161). The case of an inaccurate sex marker which may have contributed to a delayed identification of pregnancy with a resultant stillbirth, illustrates the potential adverse impact of this practice (162). Problems associated with cervical cancer screening have also been reported where sex markers have been altered (163).

A woman was fired from employment for stating 'there are only two sexes

A woman recently received a visit from Police at her house for stating that the crisis service she runs for those who have lost a pregnancy due to domestic abuse (by men) is single sex, despite this being a legally allowed exemption in the Equality Act 2010

Joanna Cherry received credible rape threats from a member of her own political party for saying that women deserve single sex spaces.

Kirkcaldy Police investigated stickers on lampposts which said 'women won't wheesht' as a hate crime

These are only a few examples. There are countless others

The chilling effect means that women who cannot afford to be fired from employment cannot speak up. Women's free speech is being actively demonised and stifled.

'Whining' on Mumsnet is a women's rights movement. There is campaigning, fundraising, links to petitions, sharing of information and links. That's why the FWR board is under constant attack
I know.
So how do we turn the tide?
Sentiments such
I am WOMAN, hear me roar mean nothing unless there is action.
I've never been over political before but I am getting more and more angry that we are being 'erased'.
The tiny majority found their voice being listened to. How do we get ours back and listened to as well?

@Viviennemary

Does it really matter. All this frothing. Who cares.

OP and quite a few people it seems.

Honestly I think it's ridiculous. I wish they'd focus on changing some genuinely insensitive terms like 'spontaneous abortion' for describing a miscarriage (miscarriage is bad enough!).

I care, it's offensive and it's misogynistic language to try and remove all references to women from a biological process that is entirely female. Only women give birth, we are women not birth gives or chest feeders. We need to object loudly to this drive to erase women from society. We have reached a stage where vocal activists claim the only requirement to be a woman is to wear a dress and be able to bully and sprout crap on social media.

I recoil at this.

It is dehumanising and it reduces us to a function.

I am a person. A whole person with multiple facets. One of the most important aspects of my identity is my female biology and all that brings. Especially when my biology relates to being a mother.

The reason the extremes of gender ideology has gotten so far is primarily because so few people have been aware of it until recently (and this was deliberate - the Denton document is eye-opening and the agenda of 'no debate' served it's purpose). The general person on the street has only just started to see the change in language, change to spaces and changes to Governmental and educational policies and are starting to ask questions. The tide is turning.

In terms of what to do - I contact my MP's and MSP's about various issues (I use www.writetothem.com ) , I sign petitions, do FOI requests, ribbbon and slate, contribute to crowdfunders and read the discussions, links and evidence on the FWR board.

Biggest thing though? Women are starting to ask questions. Those who've up until now been unaware of what's going on. I've had two such conversations with acquaintances who had read JKR's essay and wanted to ask just what it was that she said that was so wrong. In many ways, it's a quiet underground revolution - women talking.

@Whatsnewpussyhat

There should'nt even be any bloody debate.

ONLY women give birth. Almost all will want to be called mum or mother.

Why do we need to pander to the demands of the minuscule number of females who want to use their female body to get pregnant whilst claiming to not be women?

It isn't 'inclusive' to dehumanise the majority because a few females are seemingly triggered by words, but not their biology? How convenient to pick and choose.

Men don't get pregnant or give birth. We don't need to pretend otherwise.

Very well said! I concur absolutely! This is us being told that the biological reality of our womanhood is of no consequence. It is stealth misogyny IMO and bloody dishonest to boot!

But its not an either/or scenario is it?

So why is it erasure?

I think the word is grim and I am sure those who do not want to be called Mother would prefer a different word too.

The word is mother but remember some babies have 2 female parents, both destined to be the legal mothers, other babies are sadly going into immediate foster care or prearranged adoption - they do need to identify who gave birth, I would personally prefer birth mother rather than giver.

@Viviennemary

Does it really matter. All this frothing. Who cares.

Yes it does. And I do.

Either identities matter, in which case mothers and women are entitled to be referred to as such, or they don't, in which case women and mothers are the correct terms.

@Aria2015

Honestly I think it's ridiculous. I wish they'd focus on changing some genuinely insensitive terms like 'spontaneous abortion' for describing a miscarriage (miscarriage is bad enough!).

YES, THIS!!!

I saw this Tweet earlier today and noticed that father was still acceptable but not mother. 🤔

So if this was turned the other way round can all men now just be known as a sperm donor rather than father? Just in case one day 'women' are able to produce sperm or we need to differentiate from the 'birth givers'.

@BriocheForBreakfast

I saw this Tweet earlier today and noticed that father was still acceptable but not mother. 🤔

THIS is an actual issue, I agree. The same way other PPs have pointed outt he change in language rarely seems to extend to make gender neutral terms in mens healthcare settings.

I agree that men are not usually subject to the same language changes.

However here's Dr Xand van Tulleken talking about "people with prostates":

twitter.com/BBCMorningLive/status/1481560315057868802

I'm totally happy with the idea of healthcare professionals using different terms for individual patients who have expressed a preference.

However - we need to be allowed a word that means "biologically female person". As well as one for "biologically male person".

I work in health research and sometimes need to present data by males and females. So I need a word for these!

Also as others have said, when you're giving health messages to the general public, you need to consider that many people have poor understanding of health and biology, and others have English as a second language. So the language needs to be clear.

THIS is an actual issue, I agree. The same way other PPs have pointed outt he change in language rarely seems to extend to make gender neutral terms in mens healthcare settings.

Exactly and this is because the erasure of the words " woman", mother etc has nothing to do with including transmen and non binary people of the female sex, but rather a campaign to separate the word woman from anything to do with female biology, because male people who identify as women are not included in this biological group. This is why TRA activists objected to people wearing pink pussy hats at The Women's Marches in the USA and Monroe Bergdof ,who identifies as a woman, berated women discussing women's health matters on the Women's March in London. This is also why there are absolutely no campaigns to erase the word man in male health matters.
The word woman must be removed from its biological context because males feel excluded.
The word man can remain because nobody cares about transmen, after all they are only another group of females.
Patriarchy in action!

Also a thought experiment. I'd love to hear any answers!

If I read "people with a cervix" then I know it means female people.

But what if my son asks me, Mum, will I need to go for a smear test? How do I explain to him in "inclusive" language how I know that he (and his male friends) will not need to go for a smear test?

Does it really matter. All this frothing. Who cares.

I care. I am not and will never be a mother but I am a woman and I refuse to answer to 'menstruator' or 'cervix-haver' And I care that the erasure of women is being dismissed as 'frothing'.

Thank you @Cattenberg for the article and excellent quotes, which I have saved for future reference.

@DisappearingGirl

I'm totally happy with the idea of healthcare professionals using different terms for individual patients who have expressed a preference.

However - we need to be allowed a word that means "biologically female person". As well as one for "biologically male person".

I work in health research and sometimes need to present data by males and females. So I need a word for these!

Also as others have said, when you're giving health messages to the general public, you need to consider that many people have poor understanding of health and biology, and others have English as a second language. So the language needs to be clear.

This is the crux of the issue.

And the problem is that whatever word you come up with for "biologically female people", some biologically female people will start saying they don't identify as that, and some biologically male people will start saying they do identify as that.

If nobody said they believed the word "woman" meant anything other than "biologically female person" or the word "man" meant anything other than "biologically male person", there would be no issue. But that would mean that using toilets for women or entering sporting competitions for women would be a statement about your biological sex and not your gender identity. And that wouldn't allow male people to use women's spaces or compete as women in sports.

Removing our ability to talk meaningfully about biological sex is the whole point. It is a feature, not a bug.