SANDS sorry if upsetting

[InTheShadowOfTheMushroomCloud]

I have no words. This has upset me so much...

They are avoiding the word mother to not upset lesbian couples as in that case they are both mothers

So say ‘non birthing mother’ or ‘non birthing partner’.

Either way better than pretending in this situation of all situations that the word for somebody who gives birth is not ‘mother’.

If that mother happens to prefer to wear a beard and boxer shorts, who is that hurting?

Nobody, and the word ‘mother’ includes them too.

‘Mother’ is an inclusive word.

@EmpressJKRowlingSpartacus

twitter.com/sandsuk/status/1320255460356784130?s=21 “We are so sorry that this tweet has upset some people. Our tweet should have included the word mothers. It was an error and we apologise from the bottom of our hearts. Sands is here for everyone.”

Good for them. The tweet’s still up though.

Sorry if x was upset = non apology.

It could be worse. They’re at least admitting that they should have included ‘mother’ in the tweet, which is better than a self-justifying rant about how we should all be ‘educating’ ourselves.

But they do need to take the tweet down.

I must be missing something. This doesn't upset me in the least.
I've delivered a stillborn child, so SANDS has been a part of my healing. I don't think this is an erasure of mothers in the least. I think we live in a world- at least I do- where families do not always tick the 'traditional' male/female, mum/dad box. And actually, when I first read this, my initial thought was about DH, the father, the non-birthing parent, and how our grief felt so separate, how apart we both felt at times during our bereavement over the daughter we lost. We had to work hard at uniting during our grief. Grief is so isolating and at times, it is divisive. It was a big loss for me, for DH, for our baby's siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles. It's a collective loss.
I did not read into this statement what others on this thread overwhelmingly have. I don't care if you're the a purple spotted elephant with 5 dicks and a personality disorder. If your baby died, you have my love and my heart. That is all. Loss is loss and it is utterly devastating for anyone who has been through this.

The tweet sounded as though they were genuinely sorry.

I think this highlights the very serious muddle that "inclusivity" is causing. The same goes for disregarding women in certain cancers. Causing pain is not the way to be inclusive - organisations take note, PAIN is being caused

@TheVanguardSix

I must be missing something. This doesn't upset me in the least. I've delivered a stillborn child, so SANDS has been a part of my healing. I don't think this is an erasure of mothers in the least. I think we live in a world- at least I do- where families do not always tick the 'traditional' male/female, mum/dad box. And actually, when I first read this, my initial thought was about DH, the father, the non-birthing parent, and how our grief felt so separate, how apart we both felt at times during our bereavement over the daughter we lost. We had to work hard at uniting during our grief. Grief is so isolating and at times, it is divisive. It was a big loss for me, for DH, for our baby's siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles. It's a collective loss. I did not read into this statement what others on this thread overwhelmingly have. I don't care if you're the a purple spotted elephant with 5 dicks and a personality disorder. If your baby died, you have my love and my heart. That is all. Loss is loss and it is utterly devastating for anyone who has been through this.

You may not have been upset by the tweet, and it's great that you didn't find it hurtful. But many many grieving mothers did.

You personally not finding it hurtful does not negate the pain it caused.

I think we live in a world- at least I do- where families do not always tick the 'traditional' male/female, mum/dad box.

The word ‘mother’ is not a box that excludes anyone on the basis of gender norms.

”I think we live in a world- at least I do- where families do not always tick the 'traditional' male/female, mum/dad box.”

What’s that got to do with it? It’s not only mothers within nuclear family units who are mothers! Every child has a mother. Every baby in respect of whom Sands provides support has come from the body of a mother. And in some families, there are two parents who consider themselves a mother. No reason to erase the word.

The point is for them to ‘be there for’ - roughly in this order:

1. the ‘person’ who carried and lost a baby - the mum
2. the other parent (male or female, doesn’t matter what they are called)
3. everyone else.

TheVanguardSix

I absolutely agree with your last paragraph. Loss is devastating for all involved.

Sands do wonderful work. No arguments there from me. And I understand that they are trying to make sure that all experiencing loss are recognised. That is important.

I just wish they’d included the word mother.

We do indeed live in different times. It was over 25 years ago for me. But the word mother is all I have. Just the word. I don’t describe myself as that to anyone really. It is just for me.

Using birthing parent to be more inclusive felt wrong. It felt like it excluded me. And took away my word.

I really don’t want to upset anyone. The use of that word doesn’t mean that anyone else who feels this loss is less important.

But I’m glad they have acknowledged that ‘mother’ should have been in the tweet. It is how it should be.

for all

You personally not finding it hurtful does not negate the pain it caused.

I'm not here to negate jack shit. But this isn't an echo chamber. It's a forum. And my views deserve as much respect as yours. It's called having a discussion.

stillsomewhatsheldonesque

I completely understand your feelings about the word 'mother' not being used. You and I have the shared experience of the loss of a baby. And your post is so eloquent and yes, your feelings about the missing word mother are valid. I understand completely why this has upset so many mothers. It has not upset me at all. That doesn't mean I don't understand where mothers like you and those on this thread and across the country are coming from. Of course I understand. My mindset may be different. My view may be different. That doens't mean I am blind to the disappointment the missing out of the word 'mother' brings to you and others. There is a huge part of me that gets that. I have my views. I am certainly not here to offend but to bring a different perspective to the table, especially since I am one of those mothers who has held her lifeless infant and gone home empty-handed.
If it counts for anything, one of my personal examples is Jochebed, mother of Moses, buried in the tomb of matriarchs. Believe me, I am not anti-mother. I'm just pro-human.

It was over 25 years ago for me. But the word mother is all I have. Just the word.

I just want to add that this really cuts deeply. Because this, I understand completely. We have the word orphan for a motherless/fatherless child. But I remember wondering, what is a woman who has lost her child? She is always a mother. Always.
You have my entire sympathy for a loss that remains with you, life long.

I understand how upsetting this could be but transgender parents who still want to be referred to as daddy despite birthing the child do exist albeit the minority. Also surrogates I think some women may not want to be referred to as mothers in this situation but are obviously still deeply impacted by grief. I think it was just to include the minority groups aswell.

Thank you vanguard

I know you know. I know you understand. Your first post about grief being divisive and the collective loss hit home.

We all march on the best we can in our own ways. We all have our own views, our way of dealing and different perspectives.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I wasn’t sure if I’d made sense so thank you for getting what I was trying to say.

@Wereeaglesdare

I understand how upsetting this could be but transgender parents who still want to be referred to as daddy despite birthing the child do exist albeit the minority. Also surrogates I think some women may not want to be referred to as mothers in this situation but are obviously still deeply impacted by grief. I think it was just to include the minority groups aswell.

And in being ‘inclusive’ has actually excluded the majority. This is not progressive.

to you, Vanguard.

This tweet and reaction illustrates quite well, though, what I think people sometimes don't seem to get wrt the erasure of women. It hurts women to take those words away. It's not about negating other people's experiences. It's not about denying other people their feelings.

But women and mothers are as deserving of compassion, it hurts them as much to have their names and words removed.

It may seem a delicate balance - the word 'mother' or 'woman' apparently hurts some people by excluding them, so they wish to use a different word. But by replacing 'mother' or 'woman' with 'cervix haver' or 'birthing parent' and so on, if you don't also use 'woman' or 'mother' you are completely erasing those identities. It's hurtful, upsetting, offensive and causes pain.

Weird how the identities of some people apparently matters, but when women/mothers ask for theirs to be respected, it's 'bigotry' 'hatred' and 'weaponising their trauma' etc.

'Inclusive' has too often meant removing the word woman, instead of adding the other words that people find to apply to themselves.

Women are not invisible, or to be dismissed. Use 'birthing parent' for those whom it comforts, absolutely. But don't push away the word 'mother'. Please.

Sexnotgender

Yeah I completely understand what you are saying. And I don't think they are right in what they are saying I just think so many people are so worried about offending someone and the backlash, that the backlash comes anyway because like you have said it then excludes the majority.

It does seem to be a theme running through the charity sector, irrespective of what the aims of the charity are. Charities seem to becoming an amorphous mass, with those at high levels flitting from one to the other and carrying with them the latest guidance, that must be permeated top downwards.

It has been obvious for some time that larger charities have been stepping back from their core aims as the whole sector has become corporatised. Many people have moved from supporting them, instead going for the more focused small local charities.

It also does not appear to be a one off tweet, from looking at their website.

In a wider view, decoupling the word mother from the process of conception, and pregnancy takes the emotion out of the experience, which makes way for others in the charity sector to press forward their competing aims.

It is like the whole of the charity sector is now taking on shared goals.

Using small outlying minorities as a lever is emotional manipulation - people who are hurt and upset are usually very open to be compassionate of the hurt and upset of others.

What a powerful thread and thank you to everyone for sharing their personal stories.
For me this taps into something very deep in terms of loss. Not just the overwhelming loss of the bereaved but also the loss of those words that relate to our roles - women, mother, female

Can they show one ‘birthing person’ who has gone through pregnancy and miscarriage/stillbirth and been offended by the use of the word mum or mother?

Can they then ask for those who were offended by the use of the term ‘birthing person’ and then think again.

Melroses
Somewhere on here is a fantastic powerful post from RedToothBrush about how the charity sector are failing to be 'client centred' and are pandering to the niche demands of their employees - usually young, white and middle class. The NSPCC is a classic example as is the Eve Appeal (women's gynae cancers) both of whom have deeply offended their target audience by getting involved in minimising porn (NSPCC) and the Eve appeal misnaming women as 'people with cervixes'.

@Wereeaglesdare

I understand how upsetting this could be but transgender parents who still want to be referred to as daddy despite birthing the child do exist albeit the minority. Also surrogates I think some women may not want to be referred to as mothers in this situation but are obviously still deeply impacted by grief. I think it was just to include the minority groups aswell.

But ‘mother’ includes genetic mother, mother who gave birth and mothers who foster and mothers who adopt.

It’s an inclusive word that doesn’t imply any kind of gender identity.

It’s possible to understand why some people reject the word ‘mother’ and also sympathise with their reasons, and also believe that ‘birthing parent’ is an unhelpful euphemism at best and deeply hurtful at worst.

@Melroses

It does seem to be a theme running through the charity sector, irrespective of what the aims of the charity are. Charities seem to becoming an amorphous mass, with those at high levels flitting from one to the other and carrying with them the latest guidance, that must be permeated top downwards.

It has been obvious for some time that larger charities have been stepping back from their core aims as the whole sector has become corporatised. Many people have moved from supporting them, instead going for the more focused small local charities.

It also does not appear to be a one off tweet, from looking at their website.

In a wider view, decoupling the word mother from the process of conception, and pregnancy takes the emotion out of the experience, which makes way for others in the charity sector to press forward their competing aims.

It is like the whole of the charity sector is now taking on shared goals.

Using small outlying minorities as a lever is emotional manipulation - people who are hurt and upset are usually very open to be compassionate of the hurt and upset of others.

I see it was reported by the bbc that the charity commission are investigating the National Trust for straying away from its purposes.