Minister’s Maternity Bill - States people not women

[UppityPuppity]

Saw this on Maya’s twitter- Pregnant women who are government ministers to get maternity leave for the first time. Great - long time coming, but the bill states ‘people who become pregnant’ not pregnant women.

mobile.twitter.com/MForstater/status/1357759056790847491

publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0255/200255.pdf

Erasure of women in women only/related legislation must not happen. This will set a precedent.

Not sure what to do.

Is anyone on twitter (I’m not on the cesspit) who could notify the Baroness/Jackie DP/Joanna Cherry...etc or anyone else who might be able to do something so it states pregnant women instead?

This isn’t trivial - language in law matters.

This isn’t trivial - language in law matters.

Indeed it does, and if the word woman were used exclusively then that could be used to deny this protection to trans men with a GRC who are legally men.

In that case jj, it should state women and transmen.

Indeed it does, and if the word woman were used exclusively then that could be used to deny this protection to trans men with a GRC who are legally men

Thanks for the immediate derail - You mean rights and language around womanhood and pregnancy should be erased for the infinitely tiny numbers of transmen who commit to living like a man by becoming pregnant and giving birth?

Point still stands - the word woman should not be untethered in law re pregnancy.

Exactly.

Weelllll pregnancy and maternity are protected characteristics and they don't mention sex I believe.

Eg acas says

Employees are protected against unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or maternity. This means an employee or job applicant must not be disadvantaged because of their pregnancy or maternity. For example, they must not: be subjected to unfair treatment because of pregnancy or maternity.

I don't mind it being non sexed as per the above.

I do not like the term pregnant people though. They can do better surely.

women and transmen

This is inclusive without erasing women.

@BaronessWrongCrowd

In that case jj, it should state women and transmen.

Transmen (one word) are not a legal entity. Trans men (two words) would be better but even then it might run into problems with people who are non binary etc. It's about the law, not ideology, people covers everyone with no room for manoevere. Women and people who are pregnant would probably do the same job though and I doubt anyone would object to that.

It's about the law, not ideology, people covers everyone with no room for manoevere.

As only women can get pregnant 'women' covers all the 'people' who can get pregnant, regardless of how they identify so that is equally in line with your argument.

This has become the new "house" style for Government documents. No doubt due to Stonewall training.

I cant remember exactly but I remember recently posting on here are a government document talking about pregnant people, or it might have been people who need abortions.

What we are seeing now is the culmination of years of work by Stonewall and others who have infilitrated and are now part of the establishment.

They did this to the media decades ago which is how gender suddently came into use (and sex workers).

All under the guise of being kind.

@jj1968

This isn’t trivial - language in law matters.

Indeed it does, and if the word woman were used exclusively then that could be used to deny this protection to trans men with a GRC who are legally men.

The protected status is being pregnant- the pregnant person can call her, him, their or whatever they like.

@OhHolyJesus

It's about the law, not ideology, people covers everyone with no room for manoevere.

As only women can get pregnant 'women' covers all the 'people' who can get pregnant, regardless of how they identify so that is equally in line with your argument.

Well it might not if someone had a GRC and was legally a man. Why leave it ambiguous so some smart-arsed QC can try take it apart in the future?

Would you have a problem if it said women and people who are pregnant?

@jj1968
Please define binary
I've never managed to work out how to identify a binary person ....

Well I'm no lawyer but yes, I would object to 'women and transmen' and 'women and people who are pregnant' as crimes against language.
Only women can get pregnant and transmen are a subset of women, not men. So the 'and -' is at best superfluous and at worst, misleading. And I don't trust misleading language whether or not it appears to be legally correct.

Would you have a problem if it said women and people who are pregnant?

Yes

Why leave it ambiguous so some smart-arsed QC can try take it apart in the future?

Indeed. There should be no ambiguity. (See Angela Ames' tribunal). Hence why it should remain the law should be a) based in reality b) based in fact/science/evidence and not feelings of a tiny minority.

How many GRC holders are female and have been/are/intend to be pregnant and how many as a sub-category of that group would deny they are female, and further how many would be offended by the word 'woman' in law?

'People' don't get pregnant, as that includes men. If that offends you or anyone else then really I'm pleased that all you have to worry about.

Indeed it does, and if the word woman were used exclusively then that could be used to deny this protection to trans men with a GRC who are legally men.

I don't think that's quite right as there is always s6 of the Interpretation Act to fall back on.

Having said that, I can't get too worked up about this. I am content for the legislation to be neutrally drafted, but I am not content for midwifery services starting referring to birthing people and let's not forget the dehumanising "black birthing bodies" and I won't forget about Sands' tweet.

Agree with Floisme.

To go back to the point of why I started the thread in the first place - For those of us who think legislation should reflect material reality and want the word women included - any ideas of what we can do?

I have given my suggestions upthread, but I’m not in twitter.

pregnant biological women
thus covers those who identify as a unicorn
but are biologically women

Transmen (one word) are not a legal entity. Trans men (two words) would be better but even then it might run into problems with people who are non binary etc. It's about the law, not ideology, people covers everyone with no room for manoevere. Women and people who are pregnant would probably do the same job though and I doubt anyone would object to that.

Whilst I find myself agreeing with you on your last sentence (which is an incredibly rare occurrence so I might mark it in my diary), I don't appreciate at snark around the one word two word. It's a fucking space for pity's sake and one which I refuse to use.

Women get pregnant.

Any transman who gets pregnant has
de facto
admitted that they are a woman

as if they were living as a man
they would not get pregnant

You may not identify with society's stereotyped expectations of women, you may not identify with femininity, but if you can get pregnant you are a woman. Adult human females are women. If you are an adult human female and don't want to be considered feminine, fine. If you are an adult human female and want to be considered masculine, fine. But you don't get to erase women because you don't want to be called a woman. And you don't get to erase women because you are a male who wants to appropriate the word woman.

Well said @JellySlice

What Jelly said.

And there was I getting excited by this from the EHRC just a few hours ago.
twitter.com/EHRC/status/1358004093407662081?s=19

The Equality Act protects women from being discriminated against because they are pregnant, including due to pregnancy-related illness, or if you are a new mother.

Find out more about the 9 protected characteristics ➡️ t.co/Wf2lAH4lDl t.co/QH7bjTIS8Q

I think there’s a second problem which is that it applies to Suella Braverman as AG but not to any backbench MPs, effectively making mat leave a perk of promotion.

The wording of the bill can be challenged by an amendment. Amendments aren’t guaranteed to be debated in the Commons but unless they’ve changed it the Lords tend to debate all amendments put down.