“Birthing parent” language in work policy – inclusive or erasing women?

[InvisibleBumble]

Our workplace has just emailed all staff about changes to parental leave. Throughout the email they repeatedly use the term “the birthing parent”. There is no mention anywhere of women, mothers or maternity leave.

I’m honestly really uncomfortable with it. In trying to be “inclusive”, it feels like women - and our lived experience of pregnancy, childbirth and recovery - are being erased from a policy that is specifically about leave after giving birth.

I’m not anti-inclusion, but I do struggle with language that refuses to even acknowledge women or mothers in this context. Childbirth is not a neutral experience, and maternity leave exists for a reason.

It’s really bugged me, but I’m nervous about pushing back at work in case I’m labelled difficult or “not inclusive enough”.

Am I being unreasonable? Has anyone challenged this kind of language at work, and if so, how did it go?

It doesn't matter what they identify as, it's what they ARE. You can't identify out of biological reality, and we don't need to pander to the notion that you can.

Language doesn’t change because some women are delusional. Pandering to delusion isn’t inclusivity. Pretending that childbirth isn’t an exclusively female undertaking is, as I said, profoundly misogynistic and very damaging to women as a class.

Oh, and some men who identify as women are fathers but you’ll notice that male words are usually left as they are - it’s only female words that are deemed worthless or unnecessary.

I’d hope to goodness this never going to be relevant in a workplace policy.

Giving birth is really hard, extremely painful and dangerous.

The female, taking all that risk and absorbing all the pain needs to get her due.

The endeavor is not, by its very nature, inclusive.

If the partner, of whatever sex, is pissed off or offended by that, then they are absolutely unfit to be a parent.

The words Mother and Woman are amongst the oldest 20 words known to womankind, loaded with at least 200,000 years of meaning.
To take those words away, to unlink them from women or to try to make any change to their meanings is utterly shocking and dystopian.
It is a purposeful, assault on women, and a slap in the face and demotion for Mothers at the time they should be proudest.
That's how much the Trans lobby hates women.
They insist you use their new or distorted words and believe that men can become women by using menacing threats.
Yet show no respect whatsoever for women.
They are setting up a future where money can be made from women's and children's bodies.
Just imagine the future with no Mothers and anyone can be a "birthing parent". It's a pedophiles dream.

wtf? I would think some women suffering from a miscarriage would find the term ‘birthing parent’ deeply upsetting.

I get what you mean, but a lot of men have been criticised and worse for using terms like chairman/linesman/workmen/mankind. Maybe women have too, I don't know, but I do know someone literally screamed at a man saying he should never be allowed a daughter for using one of these phrases.
My kids say postie, and assistant referee!

I think you can’t underestimate a) how many pedophiles walk among us and b) how many are intertwined with trans. Trans makes a sacred caste of a subset of men and that always ends badly for women and children.

Anyone who literally screams something like that a man for using the word postman or whatever is an idiot who can be safely ignored.

This isnt inclusive language though. It excludes women who do more than "birth" their baby. They do mothering, feeding, recovery etc

There are other ways to include them without excluding every other mother.

I feel excluded when the name I call myself isn’t included. That’s how I define exclusion. Who are you to tell me otherwise? That’s how this works isn’t it?

Birthing parent is a vile term to use when so many other words could be used such as "mother who has given birth"

It doesnt eradicate the sex class whilst including and allowing clarity for lesbian couples that the work policy only applies to them if they are the one that has gone thru pregancy. Or a simple disclaimer at start of maternity policy that it only applies to women who are pregnant. I think most lesbian couples would get it.

Using 'children who give birth' and lesbians to prop up your defence of destroying women's language and womanhood is particularly despicable.

I've known of this term be used in reference to lesbian couples and genuinely don't see an issue with it.

If you are a parent and gave birth, you were a birthing parent.

Isn’t it more concerning about the rest of the message? If this was in a parental leave policy, how much leave you’re entitled to, how much pay etc., than the wording used?

Yes, you were a birthing parent. But more accurately, you were the birth mother. A woman.

In the context where “birthing parent” is used, e.g. parental leave, post natal care, etc., the fact that the person feeds and cares for their baby is irrelevant. It doesn’t exclude all these parents that raise the child they brought into the world. It just focuses on the activity that is pertinent: the birthing.

Actually this is an interesting point. All birth mothers are birthing parents. But not all birthing parents are birth mothers.

Yes they are. All birthing parents are birth mothers, by definition.

No there's not as legally only 1 is the mother and thats the woman who gives birth.

Maternity leave is legally mandated and the law uses specific terms and language, any policies based on that law should use the same language and terms.
Many people on this thread seem to think that language can/should be mangled to prevent upsetting a very small number of people, forgetting that the majority matter more than the few and it causes confusion as can be seen on this thread. Adoptive parents, are not covered by maternity laws nor are men or the 2nd woman in a lesbian relationship or people who buy babies through surrogacy as such how they feel about the language in a maternity and pregnancy policy is irrelevant, the language needs to be clear and legally accurate to truly be inclusive.
You also shouldn't lump maternity and pregnancy in with general parental leave as they are two different things covered by two different laws and only pregnancy and maternity are a specific protected characteristic that only covers pregnant women and new mothers (mother being the legal term for women who have given birth) and should discuss all the legal rights of pregnant women and new mothers. Policies that don't use the correct legal terms or mix in other parental leave laws will not survive a legal challenge

Oh dear. You are very fixated in your personal subjective view. Which rather proves my assessment.

No you are the mother with all the legal duties that go with that word and no other person has.

The problem is that this parental leave policy covers both maternity leave and parental leave these are two different laws with two different sets of rights and employers obligations. Mixing the two together is a mistake and leads to confusion add to that the mangled legally nonsensical language used means the policy is not fit for purpose and is deliberately confusing and risks discriminating against pregnant women and new mothers who dont speak English as a 1st language, have learning disabilities or just cant understand the made up language and makes people like adoptive parents think that they have rights that they don't have (as can be seen on this thread).

Again wrong the word mother ie woman who gave birth comes with legal responsibility to do the feeding and caring for the child or find a suitable person to do so. So its not irrelevant infact its very relevant and giving birth is not the pertinent part of it as the women's MATERNITY and PREGNANCY rights kick in the moment she gets pregnant hence why birthing parent is nonsense and obviscates the rights of pregnant women