Decision to 'Move away from the use of the term 'mother'

[Silvetmoon]

Long-time lurker, first time poster.
I've learned a lot from you ladies, but I'm too angry to formulate my thoughts. I'm in Australia, so Aussie mums particularly welcome to reply. Received this email in my inbox the other day from our breastfeeding group, and I'm livid. 'Mother' is a term they are considering moving away from. There's opportunity to give feedback but I. Am. Too. Furious. To. Think. Any suggestions for what to write would be most welcome.
Thank you. And thank you all for getting it.

The email itself:

The [Group Name]'s mission is to create a breastfeeding-inclusive society. In order to do this, we understand the importance of using inclusive language. It has been policy to use gender-inclusive language for a number of years, for example using the term ‘partner’ rather than ‘husband’.

The WHO defines gender-inclusive language as:

Speaking and writing in a way that does not discriminate against a particular sex, social gender or gender identity, and does not perpetuate gender stereotypes. Given the key role of language in shaping cultural and social attitudes, using gender-inclusive language is a powerful way to promote gender equality and eradicate gender bias. Source: United Nations (www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/)

Recently, some members have been in touch to ask whether there are plans to change language, in order to better meet the needs of the LGBTIQA+ community. While there has been some discussion about this, we confirm that no decision has been made to make these changes to our language.

Other community members are concerned that [we've] ...made the decision to move away from the use of the term, ‘mother’ to the more generic term, ‘parent’. Similarly, there has been no decision made about this. We use the term ‘mother’ or ‘mum’ in many contexts such as ‘Some mothers experience mastitis’ while the term ‘parent’ is appropriate in other situations e.g. ‘Parents are welcome at our Breastfeeding Education Classes’.

We do feel that this is an important issue. We plan to conduct a broad community consultation with Australian parents to understand the needs around gender and LGBTIQA+ inclusive language. We would love to receive your feedback and thoughts on this issue at: [email]. All responses received will be included in our consultation process.

I hope this clarifies [Group's] position at this stage, and look forward to updating you on the outcomes of the broad community consultation.

Kind regards,

@Ohalrightthen

I have to say i don't see the issue with this. Mothers are parents. No one is being excluded by the use of the word parent, but there may be people who do feel excluded by the use of the word mother. Surely making breastfeeding support as accessible as possible to everyone of all identities can only be a good thing?

No-one may be excluded by the use of the word parent, but the gender identity (loosely defined) of every woman who identifies as 'woman' in gender terms because she has a female body is utterly erased.

The term 'parent' refers to both parents who can lactate and parents who cannot. So lactating becomes gender-neutral, too. And we are going to have a birthing parents' day and so on. This then absolutely requires that someone answers the question: What is a woman if it has nothing to do with being biologically female?

And given that the oppression women face is sex-based, how do we tackle it if we no longer have any name for the group which consists of biologically female people (and those whom others see as biologically female even if they are not)?

Why do some feel excluded if the word 'mother' is used? That is the word which has been used for those who give birth for a very long time, and it should be possible to interpret it in those terms.

The real problem which is being debated is that the gender identity school just lumped all existing old-type women, however they identify (or even if they don't know what the concept means or even if they don't identify as anything) into a category which is treated parallel to the categories of transgender and nonbinary individuals.

Because the latter two groups don't want to identify with their biological sex, the gender identity school simply postulates that the same is true of the first group. But I think it is quite likely that many in that group, if not most, actually identify on the basis of their biological sex and not in some manner unrelated to it.

There has been no studies asking if most people actually possess abstract gender identities which are not dependent on their biological sex, and the vast majority of people don't even know that they are now assumed to have such an identity or what that might mean.

Does anyone know how many women who do not identify as women actually give birth any year?

It can’t be many, or those who do would not be able to sell their stories to the press under ”Man gives birth?” headlines. As long as they do, and get their 15 minutes of fame and a wad of cash, why is anyone pretending this (“Man” gives birth) is a normal state of affairs that needs to be accommodated?

The health and wellbeing of the overwhelming majority should not be compromised by using bizarre linguistic contortions that pander to the narcissistic demands of a vanishingly small minority who are perfectly capable of understanding what is meant - and are therefore in no way “excluded”.

Again, for the dubious benefit of exactly how many people are organisations doing this? What are the negative impacts of their actions on the vast majority of women whose interests they are meant to be serving? If they exclude the majority of women by their language then they are failing big time.

They need to sort out their priorities, as do funders. It is not unreasonable or “bigoted” to expect a tiny minority to accept what is beneficial for the vast majority. I also suspect that those in that minority who are reasonable are in the majority and that they do not actually give a damn.

Which leaves a minority of a minority, the political agitators and narcissists, holding sway and compromising services for the majority.

This is not reasonable or acceptable.

How many women are being excluded and ill-served by this nonsense? Far more than would be supposedly “excluded” by using language that everyone understands anyway.

Making this about “inclusion” is a sick joke.

Does anyone know how many women who do not identify as women actually give birth any year?

I think data from Australia exists? If I recall correctly, the numbers are quite low. I do happen to know that the number of trans men seeking abortion in the US a few years ago was very small indeed. Perhaps less than ten per year (though the exact number escapes me).

Indeed, one of the first feelings of discomfort I had about this new trend of erasing the female biological sex altogether was when I was trying to understand why a tiny and marginalised minority was so very powerful that language had to be changed for everyone in order to include them, especially as they started as women so knew whom the term referred to.

It was not enough for reproductive rights sites to insert columns specifically aimed at trans men (or nonbinary people with vulvas); all language had to be rewritten.

So it sounded to me as if bog-standard women are unimportant, however many millions of them there are, and that special people identifying out of womanhood are important.

I can't think of any other organisation which would change its language in such a manner for the sake of less than two percent (to be liberal in my estimate) of those who are its members or clients.

My comment above is really about the fact that all this is part of the project to erase the old meaning of terms such as 'woman' and 'girl' and 'mother.' That way there is no difference between trans and what the movement calls cis; everyone identifies on the basis of a bundle of personality traits. It is about validation.

Maya Forstater () has been doing some visualisation of this "distorting everything to appease a minority" thing recently. Two posts here. First one seems most relevant:

There used to be a word for us...

And related:

On numbers and rights

Personally, I'm with Spock. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Clearly minorities need to be protected from being ignored or steamrollered by an environment that doesn't consider any special needs or requirements they have.

But changes to systems in their name could easily have a net negative impact summed over the entire population - something that benefits 0.1% but harms 49.9% is not a net win.

And this is not meeting a clear need. Wheelchair users need accessible spaces and facilities so they can participate in society. And those do not have a significant negative impact on anyone else. (Only real issue is extra regulatory requirements for organisations).

But women who think they're not women do not need the word "woman" (or mother, or breast) erased from the language so they can participate in society. It's far from clear how doing this benefits them. And doing so will have a clear negative impact. It seems clear to me that women greatly benefit from the word "woman" to be present in the language so they can maintain their ability participate in society.

Thanks for those links NecessaryScene1
Great post.

I actually find it hard to fully comprehend why most of the demands aren't rejected outright.

They're inherently paradoxical - no system can grant those rights.

The "right to be classified as a member of a group one is not" and "the right to not be described as you are" clearly cannot ever be granted.

To anyone.

Any system that permits such paradoxes immediately suffers logical collapse, as all classification and description is thrown out of the window.

This is intuitively obvious to me, but I'm a mathematician. (Like Helen Joyce ). We intuitively grok that letting this one mistake pass dissolves the entire system.

Check out Helen's interviews with Benjamin Boyce - she talks about the this a bit in the first one.

Great posts Necessary

There are no studies asking if most people actually possess abstract gender identities which are not dependent on their biological sex

D'you know, I'd love to see what properly designed, vigorous studies would look like here.

Never mind gender identities; there's precisely zero evidence of any identity, personality, conception of self, existing a priori, independently and without the existence of the body. Which is sexed.

The daft part is, if certain people weren't so invested in pushing a particular narrative, they could phrase the thing inoffensively and none of us would be complaining about it.

Gender identities as a real, existing, innate component of human biology is up there with soulz. Sexed identities, though? We all have those. You've learned that there are two body types, and you understand yours is the gestatey boobed up bleedy sort, and you learn that the word for this in our language is woman. And then you move through the rest of your life with the understanding that you're a woman.

Only trouble with that way of describing things is it's triggering for people who reject their sexed label. But I'm inclined to say fuck it, because their way triggers the proper feminists, so someone's going to be pissed off either way.

A mother is a person of the female sex so nothing to do with ‘gender identity’. I suspect most of the minority supposedly offended by this word, are fine about it. Obviously any individual from that minority should be treated respectfully but there’s no need to change general language.

And what about the supposedly inclusive word “parent”? Not everyone calls themselves that. Should we add in every possible word to cover them and update it daily?

I’d aim my comment at the cultural importance of the word Mother, the effect of changing language on the vast majority of mothers who treasure that ‘identity’ compared with the minuscule number of people who might object.

I’d also mention possible confusion with a term that wasn’t explicitly “mother” in general and specifically for those for whom English is a second language or who are on the autistic spectrum or have other differences that might be relevant.

I'm an British expat, and my local language skills aren't the best. I certainly know the local words for "mother" and "woman", and can't imagine anyone doesn't, but I can't immediately recall "uterus" or "cervix", and not sure if I'd recognise them... I guess context would help.

Anyway, here's Helen Joyce again in a new interview with Meghan Murphy.

Also worth remembering that there are a large number of mothers who have poor literacy skills or learning difficulties. In the UK around 7.1 million adults have 'very poor literacy skills' according to the National Literacy Trust.

A pp said no one is being excluded by the use of the word parent as though it's a win-win to adopt this terminology. That's incorrect. Many women will be excluded if the language used to signpost them to services is not clear, recognisable and specific. I'm a native English speaker with a postgrad degree, but I am also autistic and get confused by information every day, more so if I'm stressed or depressed as I was when breastfeeding.

Potentially this could create an unnecessary barrier to many women getting support. There must be a better and fairer way to be inclusive of trans parents without disadvantaging some mothers.

@SnuggyBuggy

I'd worry that by making the language unnecessarily complex you'd alienate some women who don't have English as a first language or women from social groups less likely to be supported to breastfeed by peers. These women should be prioritised.

I agree, I think if needed one of the examples above of "Mothers and parents who breastfeed." could be used.

"mother" encapsulates the experience of the person who is pregnant, feels the baby grow inside them, gives birth, feels their body change, produces milk, experiences that bond and the term mother needs to stay there too. Language matters and the people who will be affected the most by removing the anchor of this word from that experience will be those most vulnerable to mental health problems/ people who don't have English as first language or (as mentioned above) people who are not neurotypical.

There may be people who do not feel affected by the decision to remove the word mother to make it "more inclusive", but we cannot give away the rights of a whole group without considering those who will be affected the most by a change.

Research shows that the language used matters, particularly for those who are at risk of depression.

For reference see Scharp, K. M., & Thomas, L. J. (2017). “What would a loving mom do today?”: Exploring the meaning of motherhood in stories of prenatal and postpartum depression. Journal of Family Communication, 17(4), 401-414.

It's not inclusive to exclude people who prefer the term mother. It's exclusive. It's that simple.

Here's what non-native English speakers think of the word "mother":

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/mother-is-the-most-beautiful-word-in-the-english-language-according-to-a-survey-of-40000-people-534512.html%3famp

Surely making breastfeeding support as accessible as possible to everyone of all identities can only be a good thing?

What about women with learning difficulties or who speak English as a second language? Do they get included or is the priority people who are educated enough and middle class enough to write into support orgs and request special inclusive language for their special nebulous identity?

Results from the Program for International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) survey found that around 1 in 7 Australians (14%) have very poor literacy skills and 1 in 3 (30%) Australians have literacy skills low enough to make them vulnerable to unemployment and social exclusion

ala.asn.au/adult-literacy-and-numeracy/

If words like woman and mother become out of bounds... does that mean the whole medical community will have to do without words like maternity, midwife or gynaecology? (Or is Latin/Greek not triggering)

@Canwecancel2020

If words like woman and mother become out of bounds... does that mean the whole medical community will have to do without words like maternity, midwife or gynaecology? (Or is Latin/Greek not triggering)

Odd how this thing works. It's only now, in the context of this thread, that I realise how everyone is bending over backwards for an incredibly tiny minority who is expected to rule the language millions of people use, in the name of inclusiveness which actually strips the language of all terms meaning biologically female.

So the name for the female person who gives birth must be one which does not trigger dysphoria in some individuals, even if losing the word 'mother' feels like a kick in the stomach for many times more individuals.

There are many words I would like to redefine, but nobody pays any attention to my list of triggering expressions or the pain seeing them used causes me...

*Odd how this thing works. It's only now, in the context of this thread, that I realise how everyone is bending over backwards for an incredibly tiny minority who is expected to rule the language millions of people use, in the name of inclusiveness which actually strips the language of all terms meaning biologically female.

*
And in so doing excludes many more people. I'm confounded by this daily.

Yes I agree with this bending over backwards. Thank you for all of your replies.

If the terminology used when I attended a breastfeeding group was that Breastfeeding “parents” are welcome - my now ex would have seen that as an invitation to come along and control further my “parenting” role

This is a very, very good point.

I read the email (at face value) that they have not made decisions but are coming under some pressure to and are looking for input. It is REALLY important that women respond. You can be sure that TRAs will. Over and over I see consultation about how trans policies are affecting trans people, but little interest in how trans policies are affecting everybody else. Here is a call for input from the service users at large. Please please use it and encourage your friends to do so too.

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." Orwell, 1984

Without words to define ourselves, we cannot organise and defend ourselves as a class.

'Mother' was a dirty word in 'Brave New World'.