Coronavirus legislation ‘person giving birth’

[Whydoyouthinkthatthen]

New coronavirus legislation is out (Tier 2, 3 etc) and the giving birth exception is now ‘attending a person giving birth (M) at M’s request.

So cross.

Need to cross check whether the previous ones said ‘mother’. Or ‘woman’.

Equality Act protections for pregnancy, maternity and breastfeeding are sex based, so 'persons' is unnecessary and I find it dehumanising.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/pregnancy-and-maternity-discrimination/

I just don’t understand why we need to change language in a way that muddies health messages like this. The number of people it’s so desperately trying to be inclusive of is so very, very small. Just how many transmen gave birth in the uk last year, and do I need more than one hand to count them? Doubtful. As to ‘non-binary’, why does the overwhelming majority have to pander to them in this way?

Or is this something else a little more sinister, involving the use of the word ‘woman’...?

I understand that's a touchy topic, but I personally don't mind being called a person. In fact I'd rather (all things being equal, when referred to in the 3rd person) be called a person (in my own right) than a mother, as I find the latter reduces my individuality to my relationship to another human being (and comes with lots of implicit, and not necessarily happy baggage. Are mothers, as a class, as respected as "just any random person"? If my life experience tells me anything, the answer is "I don't think so...")

"Birthing person" sounds grammatically horrible, of course. But "person giving birth" doesn't shock me. And the implicit femaleness of this person is so obvious (only female people can give birth, goes without saying?), I don't feel it threatens my sense of identity.

Of course, there might be political implications to that particular phrasing (in isolation, not problematic, but in the context of the debate around trans rights... It is a bit of a Trojan Horse)

Legislation had been drafted in gender neutral language for several years now. Before that the default pronoun in legislation was male. I much prefer the gender neutral approach. In this one particular case it’s clunky but overall the move from the male is to be welcomed.

If you feel that 'birthing mother' reduces your individuality to your relationship to another human being (and comes with lots of implicit, and not necessarily happy baggage), 'birthing woman' or ' woman giving birth' would be better than 'birthing person'.

I much prefer the gender neutral approach. In this one particular case it’s clunky but overall the move from the male is to be welcomed.

How does the move away from male work in this context?

But "woman" = adult human female so to be accurate it would have to say "woman or girl giving birth". Or possibly "woman, girl or transman" if we're going to be totally inclusive.

In this context I'm happy with "person".

Just bumping this thread because in light of the change yesterday I am really proud that I pointed this out in the COVID legislation back in August!

I really hope they change this now (they probably won't as presumably the COVID legislation is temporary).

@Whydoyouthinkthatthen do you have a link to that legislation? Wish we'd spotted this then. These horrible dehumanising phrases must never appear in legislation ever again. Hopefully the review of the drafting guidelines, announced yesterday, will put an end to all this nonsense and stop woke Stonewall-trained civil servants using trans-ideological language ever again. The Government have finally woken up to the Stonewallification of the civil service!

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/schedule/3A

Here is an example - 7d under 'medical need' has 'person giving birth'.

I haven't checked but basically wherever they mean 'mother' in this legislation it will be there - it was deliberate drafting policy.

Its about not stomping all over everyone else in the process of creating provision for the very few. As the HoL discussed yesterday.

If you are keen to be called something other than a mother or a woman, absolutely this can be facilitated for you personally. You don't need to rip those words away from other women because it furthers a political agenda that reduces women's sex based rights and subordinates women in many ways in law and society. And in the process trample and cause trouble for women who don't feel as you do and don't consent to your handing over their rights. And leave women in a damaged state behind you, because you were all right Jack.

If you are keen to have access to mixed sex changing rooms and facilities, absolutely you can campaign for this. You don't need to rip those spaces and single sex provisions away from other women because it furthers a political agenda that reduces women's sex based rights and subordinates women in many ways in law and society. And in the process trample and cause trouble for women who don't feel as you do and don't consent to your handing over their rights. And leave women in a damaged state without any facilities or access to anything behind you, because you were all right Jack.

Think ffs.

Because you don't yet see a personal problem for you does not mean the political agenda you're helping is good for women as a class, or that other women won't be severely affected.