SANDS sorry if upsetting

[InTheShadowOfTheMushroomCloud]

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

@JustAmotherOne

I’m a lurker here, but feel moved to compelled to speak up on this.

My child died.

Seeing SANDS dragged out and accused of all sorts for this is horrible.

They are a major source of meaningful support for parents going through a truly terrible life changing experience.

They have apologised, and said the word mother should have been there.

Time to let them get back to doing what they do best, for all parents and families who lose a baby.

Think about the people who are searching today for SANDS because it’s happening to them today. Let SANDS spend their energy helping them, not dealing with an inbox and Twitter full of complaints from people objecting about this when they’ve already said sorry.

Like some other other bereaved parents here in this thread, the absence of the word mother on one tweet, to me, does not even twitch the needle when I think of SANDS. Their place in my life and my family’s life, is enormous and significant in surviving a major traumatic loss.

I’m actually quite affronted to see this happening. It feels like they are being unfairly used and attacked as a point scoring thing.

One of their great strengths is that they are there for parents and families, not only mothers.

Using that as a stick to beat them with, and to make a big noise about charities being influenced by activists, and claim they are are being bullied is so wide of the mark.

I don’t know, this has made me feel really uncomfortable.

Not every case of inclusive language is a calculated move to appease trans people or an attempt to erase women.

I’m sorry for your loss and I agree that the work SANDS does is excellent. I will continue with my monthly donation whatever language they use.

Your reaction to the language used is completely valid and no one should tell you otherwise. However other bereaved parents feel differently and have been upset by it - some on this thread and plenty in response to the tweet. Their reaction is valid too, and I don’t think these bereaved mothers should have their reaction labelled “point scoring”. As their follow up tweet says, SANDS is for everyone and it’s important those for whom the use of the word mother is important to their experience are respected, even though lots of bereaved mothers do not feel strongly about it.

Not every case of inclusive language is a calculated move to appease trans people or an attempt to erase women.

Not sure this is true, unfortunately. I think, as Melroses said, this is part of a massive and deliberately insidious campaign that is spreading through the charity sector, both through carefully placed staff and through transactivist companies engaging on all levels, but especially targetting anything that relates to women.

I’m sorry if you feel personally hurt by this, but the reality is that the charity that helped you, and is still helping others, is now also being used to drive a different agenda.

This is not the fault of those wonderful people who helped you, nor even the people on the ground right now, who continue to help families. But we bury out heads in the sand and pretend it’s not happening at our peril.

I have worked in complaints, many years ago, and the apology given is a professional apology, not a sincere one that indicates that the voice of the women who have been hurt by this have been heard and understood. I hope a proper apology will come in due course, but until it does, those who are in pain have every right to express that.

So peased to see that we all recognise the good work that SANDs does. I'm not sure why jj has decided to speak for lesbians. This lesbian mother is very clear that I (and all the other lesbian mothers I know) have no problem with the language of women.
Let's hope that this has been an object lesson in understanding that women and parents - especially when facing a profound loss - should be treated with respect and care and should not be used by any political movements to further their own ends.

Not every case of inclusive language is a calculated move to appease trans people or an attempt to erase women.

If this were true then why is it only language associated with women and being female that is being erased in the interest of being 'inclusive'. Men are still referred to as men, prostrate cancer campaigns refer to men not prostrate-havers...

@JustAmotherOne

I'm so very sorry for your loss, and am so glad SANDS helped you when you so desperately needed them to.

JustAmotherOne

I am sorry for your loss.

I honestly don't want to disrupt Sands' work. I'm not emailing them. I think enough voices have been heard that I don't need to add to the avalanche of feedback they're receiving.

But at the same time, I think this mis-step at the top is deeply sinister and it's worthy of discussion.

Not all women found that tweet to be insensitively phrases. But many did, and it was easily predictable that they would find it hurtful, so something has gone very badly wrong in their management. I just don't have faith that they'll get back to doing what they do best if we give them the benefit of the doubt and stop discussing it entirely.

I recommend anyone who views this thread as an unnecessary pile-on to check out Freddy McConnell's tweets as referenced up thread. This is not going to go away.

@Floisme

I recommend anyone who views this thread as an unnecessary pile-on to check out Freddy McConnell's tweets as referenced up thread. This is not going to go away.

Good point.

If we are respectfully silent, it makes it sound as if Freddie is the only person who has strong views on the matter.

Freddie is happy to directly address bereaved women as "bullies" for speaking up. Got a hell of a lot of likes for it, too. What happens if we let him be the loudest in the room?

Oh my goodness, you are right! He said:

"The backlash to this isn't a fear of cis women being excluded.

It's a cynical attempt to erase trans and nb birth. And to essentialise/police womanhood in a way that hurts all women."

That's what it's about. Whoever is pushing this language change views natal women keeping the words that identify their experiences as being "hurtful to all women" or. Trans-women.

In the history of women giving birth at no point were they referred to as just "the birthing parent" rather than "mother" for fear that it would hurt infertile women or single women.

Why do trans-women want to take these words from us?!

Yes Sands do good work but they need to think about the very people who they are supposed to be supporting and who I'm sure make up the bulk of their donated income - mothers.

And Freddie McConnell can describe himself however he likes. However his child's birth certificate is clear that, as Freddie gave birth, Freddie is that baby's mother.

I will not have that word taken away.

Maya helpfully reminded me that Freddie lost Freddie's appeal because:

the Court of Appeal upheld the term "mother" is inclusive of all who grow another human being inside their body even if they identify as men (or non binary)

Judgment quotes:

The status of being a "mother" arises from the role that a person has undertaken in the biological process of conception, pregnancy and birth.

Being a "mother" or "father" with respect to the conception, pregnancy and birth of a child is not necessarily gender-specific, although until recent decades it was invariably so. It is not possible, and recognised by the law, for a "mother" to have an acquired gender of male, and for a "father" to have an acquired gender of female.

So the Court of Appeal came down on the sensible side of sex versus gender. Yes Freddie's "gender" is "male", but that does not change the reality of Freddie being a mother.

As, thanks to recent gender reforms, the gender people have got what they asked for - "mother" is not gender-specific. (But it does remain sex-specific, due to reality, of course).

So why didn't Freddie as for 'birth parent' on the child's birth certificate and not Father?

@InTheShadowOfTheMushroomCloud

So why didn't Freddie as for 'birth parent' on the child's birth certificate and not Father?

Because Freddie, being a bit 1960s, thinks a moustache is what makes one a father? The case was a little weak.

Because that’s not the point is it?

Absolute drivel, I have lost my patience with this bullshit

I really don't think anyone here wants to drag, cancel or attack Sands. But it wouldn't be the first time a good charity went badly off course. It's wonderful that so many women care enough about their good reputation and the need for them to continue their work to tell them when they've got something wrong - at some cost to themselves. This has been caught in time for the charity to take a careful look at what they're doing and refocus on the people who need them the most.

Do we suspect that this is the result of organisations/companies/ charities bringing in outside agencies to give training?

Could be. Or people moving within the sector.

Tweet appears to have been removed.

Hopefully someone will be getting some further training (or have their access to social media accounts curtailed)

Not necessarily Awning, sometimes it is senior management or trustees who work their way round charities instilling destructive ideologies whereever they go.

It's almost like 'mother' and 'woman' are dirty words. Men and father are still ok though.

@334bu

Tweet appears to have been removed.

I can still see it. I did report it.

The apology is a good one.

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.

They recognise that the word 'mother' can be especially important to one who has empty arms. Inclusion is 'as well as' - not anyone's erasure.

It's almost like 'mother' and 'woman' are dirty words

Yes, this is the effect.

‘Birthing parent’ isn’t inclusive language, it’s just a way of depersonalising a woman’s role in the reproductive process to a level that somebody suffering from dysphoria might be able to bare.

It should be obvious why denying reality isn’t beneficial to most women.