Where is the word 'woman' on here?

[EarthSight]

www.mygov.scot/surrogacy/

I don't like the word 'surrogate'. It dehuminises a very human process. It's designed to detach people's emotional response compared with using the word 'woman'.

A surrogate is a WOMAN. Not a fucking robot or womb for hire.

There was a surrogacy consultation in England a few months ago which was barely publicised and didn't seem to consider women to be stakeholders.

I agree the choice of language is deliberate. Those advocating for greater "access" to surrogacy don't want the inconvenient truth of women being human and having rights getting in the way.

Not only that, there's no 'mother' and no 'father' just the gender neutral 'parent'. Eggs from another parent, sperm from another parent...

You are right it is to airbrush reality.

I'm sure the phrase was 'surrogate mother' back in the day.

FFS. There's a feedback button, if you choose an option you can add a comment to help them improve the site.

Yes, this is dehumanising. If they've avoided the word 'woman' to be 'inclusive' ...would a transman or 'Nonbinary' who can't bear to be associated with the word really choose to go through pregnancy for someone else?

@Antibles

Not only that, there's no 'mother' and no 'father' just the gender neutral 'parent'. Eggs from another parent, sperm from another parent...

You are right it is to airbrush reality.

I'm sure the phrase was 'surrogate mother' back in the day.

Airbrushing reality is correct. In July the New York Times posted a piece on surrogacy in the context of something called 'fertility equality.'

This appears to be a new movement which argues that every person,, whether partnered or not, has the right to pass his (mostly his,, really, but presumably also her) genes on.

If this is to be seen as a social justice issue, it helps a lot to cover up its shadow side which is that someone must then gestate all those children the movement wants to be produced. Dystopian ideas of a breeder class cropped to my mind when I read the article. Not calling the surrogates women can help in that cover-up effort.

I think it's ok to have 'intended parent(s)' given that there can be one or two, of any combination of female and male. And the focus of this particular page is more for women considering being a surrogate than on them

On one of the deleted surrogacy threads @BrassicaRabbit wrote an excellent analysis of why the word woman is being erased (which I screenshot and sent to a friend). I attach it below.

Effectively, it's the logical apotheosis of neo Marxism logically. Instead of "women" there are simply “Uterus owners”. Uterii are a resource. No one should be an owner because Marxism.

Therefore resources must be equitably distributed.

Even though most of the page is addressed to 'you', there should still be clarity around who the 'someone' is.

Thank you for that, @SebastianTheCrab! The idea of uterus-as-resource was almost-there in my head but that really makes it clear, and it's terrifying.

It's so genderwashed though Errol: "This is when an embryo is inserted into your body. It could be an egg from: an intended parent..." "The sperm comes from either a donor or an intended parent."

Previously they would have said "the intended mother" and "the intended father". Because they can't say the evil sexed words, and they can't say "the intended parent" twice because it makes it sound like there's only one, they've gone for "an intended parent". It's a mealy-mouthed workaround imo.

I think the positive/negative rights distinction came up with the notion that people have the right to have sex. That's clearly wrong: surely the right is to not be prevented from having sex with another fully and freely consenting adult.

Uterii as a resource, yes. But I would note that it only matters where women have the resource and men don't. If men had it already and women didn't, they wouldn't be getting too het up about it.

@Antibles

It's so genderwashed though Errol: "This is when an embryo is inserted into your body. It could be an egg from: an intended parent..." "The sperm comes from either a donor or an intended parent."

Previously they would have said "the intended mother" and "the intended father". Because they can't say the evil sexed words, and they can't say "the intended parent" twice because it makes it sound like there's only one, they've gone for "an intended parent". It's a mealy-mouthed workaround imo.

That part is about reproductive biology, so I agree it should not have avoided correct sexed terms. It's the later references where 'parents' seemed to me to be a reasonable general term - being a parent isn't a role dependent on sex.

They also, really weirdly, haven't used the word 'uterus'?

This is when sperm or an embryo is inserted into your body. The sperm comes from either a donor or an intended parent.

I think this is also part of trying not to use any gendered language at all but it has the effect, intentional or otherwise, of majorly brushing over the physical reality - if it's an embryo it really is quite a lot more involved and unpleasant a process than 'put it in your body' suggests.

Glad to have been able to give them useful feedback.

Interestingly whilst the push for "fertility equality" is largely driven by gay men, this UK advert for egg donors chooses to emphasise women helping other women. 🤷‍♀️

www.londoneggbank.com/donors/why-become-an-egg-donor/

@Antibles

Not only that, there's no 'mother' and no 'father' just the gender neutral 'parent'. Eggs from another parent, sperm from another parent...

You are right it is to airbrush reality.

I'm sure the phrase was 'surrogate mother' back in the day.

And it should be but they don't want to use that because it's a little too uncomfortable, too truthful. It points out what it really is. One of my pet peeves is corporate language and jargon that is bullshit and reframes things that benefits the company. This is similar.

I've left feedback at the bottom. Please do the same.

where 'parents' seemed to me to be a reasonable general term

Yes I see your point too there Errol

I will earthsight

One of my pet peeves is corporate language and jargon that is bullshit and reframes things that benefits the company. This is similar.

Language is just as useful for deception and obfuscation as it is for clarity and truth.