Sex Matters - new briefing on the Minister's Maternity Bill - why doesn't it say "women"

[MForstater]

The MOMA Bill is getting debated in the Lords on Monday.

MPs said "woman" 300 times in the debate in the commons, but it doesn't say woman once in the bill.

The explanatory notes say

"The Bill does not refer to biological sex or use gender-specific terms when referring to a Minister’s pregnancy and maternity. This reflects common practice of avoiding gender-specific terms when drafting, further to drafting guidance first introduced in 2007."

More political erasure of sex. I hope the Lords will kick up a fuss.

If you can't talk about biological sex in relation to gestating another human being inside your body for 9 months and all the gory stuff that goes with that when can you??

drive.google.com/file/d/1r6SMDWVXIMIVZGqgimLcSClDePnkURpk/view

@CharlieParley
Since then research has found that gender neutral language does not level the playing field, it simply serves to make women invisible.

Source? Link? Anything to back this up? Personally I think gender neutral language has made a difference. Children don’t grow up anymore thinking of firemen but firefighters or policemen but police officers for example. This has to have encouraged girls to these professions and others, narrowing the gender gap. As the research I linked pointed out. Which you quoted out of context by the way.

@CharlieParley
The available literature shows only 14 cases of people with DSDs who had both ovarian and testicular tissue becoming pregnant. All of these individuals had a uterus, at least one functioning ovary and a vagina, otherwise pregnancy would not have been possible. All of these individuals were raised as women, including the only one with a predominantly male mosaic karyotype.

There are a few reasons for what that 2009 study found. First, in the western world, when an intersex person is born with both sets of genitalia, genital mutilation is traditionally performed on them as infants to remove their penis and scrotum sack. Why? because it’s safer than doing a full hysterectomy and vagina removal on a newborn. The baby is then raised as a girl. As a girl, she is socialised to desire childbearing and believes that is her reproductive role. But she has been denied from birth her identity as both man and woman, intersex. I don’t think this is a good thing. Nor is the socialisation that only girls can get pregnant when intersex people can and do too. It is a western tradition that is outdated and oppressive, because forces every human that can get pregnant into the box of woman.

Outside the circa 2009 western centric bubble, intersex people are not mutilated directly after birth but often raised as intersex, and then choose themselves whether to live as a man or woman. This minority is fortunately becoming more recognised now in 2021.

A quick google comes up with a few examples, raised as men who could become pregnant if they wanted to...

There is Krittapak Duangchai, raised as a man in Lampang province, Thailand who in 2012 wanted to ordain as a monk at his local temple, just like nearly all Thai Buddhist men do at some point during their lifetimes. But he was banned as he is a hermaphrodite. With both vagina/uterus/cervix/menstruates and functioning penis/scrotum.

There is Xxxora from Ealing, West London. Raised as a boy, Xxxora went through art school at Goldsmith's College living as a man but later switched to a female persona, although now refers to herself as nonbinary and rejects being described as either male or female - and wants the government to recognise Xxxora as both, with a legal addition to official gender categories.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/androgyny-all-around-us-meet-xxxora-hermaphrodite-crusade-9217497.html

One article on Xxxora. It is important to remember that intersex is not a gender identity. It is not related to trans ideology at all.

For me personally, and I understand why this conversation is happening.

I'm just not that bothered by this.

The wording is clear.

I would not want some arsehole challenging a non binary female or trans man around this.

(The idea that such females would be in parliament is, hmmm, not that likely? Sexism...)

But I'm just not seeing this personally as a thing that is too bothersome.

I actively wouldn't want, in the extremely remote circs a transman becomes an MP and has a baby, that they should have to fight for mat leave.

Of all the things going on this is good us me a non event.

That's my view and I know others disagree.

@NiceGerbil

I agree with you. Whether intersex or trans, doesn’t matter to me. We are all human and no matter how tiny or rare a minority type of human may be, they are still human and have the same rights and entitlements. Gender/Sex neutral language is inclusive language and has gradually progressed into use in most civilised societies. There is no justification in my opinion for regression back to the past with gender/sex specific language.

I agree with you. Whether intersex or trans, doesn’t matter to me. We are all human and no matter how tiny or rare a minority type of human may be, they are still human and have the same rights and entitlements. Gender/Sex neutral language is inclusive language and has gradually progressed into use in most civilised societies. There is no justificzation in my opinion for regression back to the past with gender/sex specific language.

Funny that gender neutral language is only used when replacing women's words. Men's words don't disappear. Even gay men are allowed to refuse to include transmen , because they are not considered to be me, in their clubs and men's health remains Men's Health.
Are there no vanishingly rare people with complex medical problems who want to object to calling people with prostates men?

@334bu

*I agree with you. Whether intersex or trans, doesn’t matter to me. We are all human and no matter how tiny or rare a minority type of human may be, they are still human and have the same rights and entitlements. Gender/Sex neutral language is inclusive language and has gradually progressed into use in most civilised societies. There is no justificzation in my opinion for regression back to the past with gender/sex specific language.*

Funny that gender neutral language is only used when replacing women's words. Men's words don't disappear. Even gay men are allowed to refuse to include transmen , because they are not considered to be me, in their clubs and men's health remains Men's Health.
Are there no vanishingly rare people with complex medical problems who want to object to calling people with prostates men?

Sigh, this thread is about a bill in Parliament, or LEGAL TEXT FOR LAWS. These at the very least must be gender neutral to cover all humans.

The fact that gender neutral language is not used universally is not an argument against using it in legal texts like laws, treaties, contracts and so on. You do understand that? That any language that is universally gender neutral or universally gendered would be an illogical and oppressive extreme. Language needs both gendered and nongendered terms, the debate is where and when is it appropriate for one or the other to be used.

These at the very least must be gender neutral to cover all humans.

Even when all the humans involved are female?

PlanDeRaccordemont People with intersex conditions are fetishised as “hermaphrodites” but there has never been a case of true human hermaphroditism recorded. You are scraping the barrel with a newspaper report about a monk in Thailand.

Intersex people have also raised doubts about Xxxora, whose claims to be a hermaphrodite are clearly false and whose own fetishisation of “hermaphroditism” has raised suspicions that this is yet another trans person appropriating an intersex identity.

BTW “Slavery” is not synonymous with “Transatlantic Slave Trade” but I suspect that you know that already.

@PlanDeRaccordement
The requirement for gender neutral drafting is “as far as it is practicable to do so”.
If you are discussing something that can only affect one sex and relates to the protected characteristic of Sex under the Equality Act then arguably it is not practicable to use gender neutral language as that would obscure the fact that these are sex based rights.

See 2.1
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/892409/OPC_drafting_guidance_June_2020-1.pdf

You claimed to already know of hermaphrodites raised male who had given birth PlanDeRaccordement, so it's not much use to tell me that someone raised male or neither male nor female may give birth in the future when seeking to refute my comment disagreeing with you. Yes, that may happen, but you claimed it already did. It hasn't.

FAOD, if such individuals have a functioning female reproductive system to get pregnant and give birth with, which means a female puberty and menarche, this means they are indeed female, regardless of how they are raised. That takes nothing away from their right to understand themselves differently or to identify differently of course.

I would also urge caution on believing stories about true hermaphrodites in humans. There are to date no documented cases in the literature of a human with functioning male and female reproductive systems, i.e. individuals producing both sperm and ova.

(Also, I don't know why you think I'm referring to a study from 2009. I checked out the available literature published up to 2018 and talked about the total you get from all of them.)

Regarding the gender-neutral language study, I didn't quote out of context, I quoted their conclusion. There the authors of the study you cited state clearly that they have no evidence for their assertions. This isn't unusual in this type of research, which is why it's always worth reading the full text.

As for the evidence on how gender-neutral language is not as beneficial as we once thought and might actually be harmful, I referred you to the book by Carline Criado-Perez, who explores the issue in detail. It's called Invisible Women.

@MoleSmokes
there has never been a case of true human hermaphroditism recorded.

This is so false it’s laughable. There have been many recorded. Just do a search on science direct.

Also, I don't know why you think I'm referring to a study from 2009. I checked out the available literature published up to 2018 and talked about the total you get from all of them

Maybe because you never post any links sources but think you can just say something and have it accepted like an oracle. When you said there were only 11 cases of pregnancy in true hermaphrodites, the only study that states this was one published in 2009 at pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19155947/

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude
One of my points is that pregnancy doesn’t affect just one sex, but two: female and intersex. Intersex are both male and female. So gender neutral makes the most sense as it is fully inclusive when writing a law regarding maternity leave in my opinion.

Plan if someone is capable of bearing a child then I don’t think defining them as women for the purpose of maternity legislation is problematic. You could even specify that the term woman in this legislation refers to any person who has the biological ability to bear children. This would be in line with the ruling that a trans man who bears a child is listed as the mother on a birth certificate even though he is regarded as male for other purposes.

one of my points is that pregnancy doesn’t affect just one sex, but two: female and intersex. Intersex are both male and female. So gender neutral makes the most sense as it is fully inclusive when writing a law regarding maternity leave in my opinion.

You are really going there, using a group of humans with complex health issues to support your ideological position. Wow!

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

Plan if someone is capable of bearing a child then I don’t think defining them as women for the purpose of maternity legislation is problematic. You could even specify that the term woman in this legislation refers to any person who has the biological ability to bear children. This would be in line with the ruling that a trans man who bears a child is listed as the mother on a birth certificate even though he is regarded as male for other purposes.

Sure that’s you opinion. I think it would be problematic down the road to have “she” and “woman” in the law when a person who is legally defined as a “man” and goes by “he” but can and does get pregnant and then is denied maternity leave on the technicality of not being legally a woman, but a man. It’s a risk. One easily avoided by having gender neutral language. Which doesn’t exclude women at all. Creates no problems for us at all. So why fight it? Why fight to exclude the intersex or trans that are legally men but can get pregnant and therefore should get maternity leave? It makes no sense to me to say, oh we can just amend the law when that happens. Why not write the law so that it works for many years to come and not just for today.

@334bu

*one of my points is that pregnancy doesn’t affect just one sex, but two: female and intersex. Intersex are both male and female. So gender neutral makes the most sense as it is fully inclusive when writing a law regarding maternity leave in my opinion.*

You are really going there, using a group of humans with complex health issues to support your ideological position. Wow!

I make no apology for arguing for the rights of a minority group of humans.

Yes
Write the law so it will be fit for purpose.

Women and transmen.

Your intersex information is waaaaay out of date, unsupported by science, by the way!

The reason I am fighting it to use your phrase is because women still face structural discrimination due to childbearing. Therefore, it is important to clearly recognise that the act of bearing children creates specific social, economic and health consequences for a specific group of people i.e. people with female (entirely or sufficiently) biology. In everyday parlance - women.

Brilliant posts ChazsBrilliantAttitude!

I agree with your position wholeheartedly.

I make no apology for arguing for the rights of a minority group of humans

As this is globally a matter of a few cases over a period of years. I would think in the UK using woman in a Maternity Bill is hardly problematic. It also ties in with the use of women meaning a female adult or child.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]Also, I don't know why you think I'm referring to a study from 2009. I checked out the available literature published up to 2018 and talked about the total you get from all of them

Maybe because you never post any links sources but think you can just say something and have it accepted like an oracle. When you said there were only 11 cases of pregnancy in true hermaphrodites, the only study that states this was one published in 2009 at pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19155947/[/quote]
I said 14, not 11.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@ChazsBrilliantAttitude
One of my points is that pregnancy doesn’t affect just one sex, but two: female and intersex. Intersex are both male and female. So gender neutral makes the most sense as it is fully inclusive when writing a law regarding maternity leave in my opinion.[/quote]
This is wrong. Intersex does not denote someone who is both equally male and female. The word "intersex" refers to a group of 40 different conditions that affect the development of sex characteristics. Each condition specifically affects one sex, it's a difference in the development of the sex characteristics of either the male or female sex. The outcome may be a female-bodied person with a y-chromosome or a male-bodied person without a y-chromosome.

As sex chromosomes are the starting point of sex differentiation and not the endpoint, what is used to determine whether a person is male or female is the body they develop. That's why medicine refers to XX-males or XY-females for instance.

Just to be clear:

There is only one sex in humans capable of creating large immobile gametes, bearing young and giving birth. That sex is female.

Intersex is not a sex but a collective term for 40 different medical conditions affecting the development of sex characteristics.