History in the making! Watch Parliament Live at 2.30pm!

[Sunkisses]

According to @SexMattersOrg on Twitter the Govt have backed down on the MOMA (Maternity) Bill and will now use the word 'mother' not 'person' in the legislation!

Women did this! We are winning!

Tune in live here at 2.30pm to see history in the making: www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3ca1efa2-16a5-489d-a5a0-5d929bff81f6

Shocked but not surprised that Women's Hour have not deigned to cover this today (and I'm truly fed up with the ever present feeling of resigned disappointment with the BBC).

I agree that the BBC's coverage of this issue is in line with what one would expect from an organisation found to have breached EA legislation just last year.

Possibly a stupid question, but when you click on a Peers’ profile on the HoL page the contact info listed for the emails looks like a generic one. Do they get filtered on to the appropriate person or is it an algorithm to stop you seeing their actual email address.

If anyone has a list of direct emails I’m ready to fire off some appreciation over lunch!

@CaveMum

Possibly a stupid question, but when you click on a Peers’ profile on the HoL page the contact info listed for the emails looks like a generic one. Do they get filtered on to the appropriate person or is it an algorithm to stop you seeing their actual email address.

If anyone has a list of direct emails I’m ready to fire off some appreciation over lunch!

Yes I got this and was confused by it

So I sent one with four names in subject header to generic address and they’ve all responded individually so it is forwarded on to right person

In others news, mimmy has retweeted a gc site that promotes non gendered toys (Let Toys be Toys) re Emma Willis allowing her son to choose pink clothing but seems to be very clear that she has a son).

I am now really confused, has the high quality debate in the HofL changed her mind??

Thanks @MarshaBradyo

I did feel a bit for the one Baroness who did stand up and try to press the idea that women's rights are detrimental to trans people.

As usual, when it comes time to carry the can, a woman is left to do it alone and unsupported by those who sent her to do it. It cuts the same way for women whatever their views and alliances, doesn't it?

I'm trying to write thank you emails to all those wonderful Lords and Baronesses who stood up for women yesterday but bit confused about the email addresses. Many of them are just listed as [email protected]

Does anyone know if I send emails through there that they will get to the right person?

You are too nice Michelle. Baroness Barker knows what she is doing - well, sort of.
What the hell has happened to the Lib Dems?

I am really surprised this doesn't seem to have been reported in the Guardian

@MichelleofzeResistance

I did feel a bit for the one Baroness who did stand up and try to press the idea that women's rights are detrimental to trans people.

As usual, when it comes time to carry the can, a woman is left to do it alone and unsupported by those who sent her to do it. It cuts the same way for women whatever their views and alliances, doesn't it?

I didnt feel sorry for her especially after what she said about JCJ but I did wonder where the likes of Ruth Hunt, Michael Cashman et al were as she was pretty much there on her own dragging TW into an issue that had nothing to do with them....

Ooh got my reply from Lord Winston. He's lovely!

Thanks for those helping on the Home Office page, as suggested, started a separate thread for us all.

You're awesome x

Truly wonderful.

I knew something wonderful was going to happen. Baroness Nicholson has hinted that it was in hand for a few weeks now.

Thank you to all the Lords and Ladies who have spoken out for women's rights. I am eternally grateful.

Ruth Hunt was going to set up her own business when she left Stonewall, so she probably has better things to do than argue for the erasure of women in law.

Metro coverage here:

metro.co.uk/2021/02/26/government-agrees-to-call-pregnant-women-mothers-in-new-maternity-bill-14149590/

Same headline as the BBC but a much better coverage of the debate and why this is significant.

@RozWatching

Ruth Hunt was going to set up her own business when she left Stonewall, so she probably has better things to do than argue for the erasure of women in law.

This is it. It's a change and inclusion consultancy firm. Clearly trying to model the money for old rope Stonewall model with Champion Schemes and what not.

Absolutely terrible web design. They really need to work on that.

www.deedsandwords.co.uk

Sorry if this was already posted but Holly Lawford Smith did a great interview on Sky Aus which also referenced this bill. Wish the BBC would allow such clear conversations.

www.skynews.com.au/details/_6235535700001

@Mercedes519

Metro coverage here:

metro.co.uk/2021/02/26/government-agrees-to-call-pregnant-women-mothers-in-new-maternity-bill-14149590/

Same headline as the BBC but a much better coverage of the debate and why this is significant.

And they got woman and mother into the headline! Yay!

Deeds and words is the name of Ruth Hunt's website?

Wow, that's some appropriation.

@Fishdoggy

As we are all contacting the wonderful Baronesses and Lords may I ask you draw attention to the stealth misuse of language on the Government Home Office page. (Also see the Passport Office and the Parole and pg 5 of the Legal Aid)

See the Equality Objectives
We will not discriminate on grounds of age, caring responsibilities, disability, gender, gender identity, marriage and civil partnerships, part-time working, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation or any other factor irrelevant to a person’s work.
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/about/equality-and-diversity

Across the country, charities and small hobbies are using this page to use as the EDI in their constitutions. This is deliberate by civil servants, it's embedding "gender" not Sex deep into our culture. Obviously my own group listened to me and changed the wording to follow the EA2010 but others won't realise.

My MP understands my point but doesn't think the Home Office are trying to re-write the EA2010. I disagree with him, it's imperative the words are accurate and correct at the source of information.
There is a complaint form at the bottom of the page but I am finding as fast as I report, my cases get closed without response. I've told Baroness Nicholson and copied in Liz Truss. I've been advised this is a numbers game and to make a nuisance of myself until the page is corrected.

Good Mumsnetters, please can you do what you do so well? Add your voices, write to the HoL and your MP and please let's disinfect the rot of stealth misinformation.

Thank you. Wendy Johnson. (I am not afraid to be named)

I do not know too much about my MP but suspect that as she is new, she toes the Labour Party line.

What I do know is that she is very critical of Priti Patel, in quite a personal manner. As if the views are not the problem but that a BAME woman might dare to hold those views.

I might write, couching it as a Patel error and a failure of Patel to understand the sisterhood and the need to protect vulnerable women.

Who knows, it might slip through.

I have emailed lots of the lords and Baronesses who spoke up yesterday. Just had a reply from Lord Triesman which has made my day! They're all [email protected]

If people have time, I think it's great to show our appreciation. It's been the most heartening thing for quite some time.

@MichelleofzeResistance

I did feel a bit for the one Baroness who did stand up and try to press the idea that women's rights are detrimental to trans people.

As usual, when it comes time to carry the can, a woman is left to do it alone and unsupported by those who sent her to do it. It cuts the same way for women whatever their views and alliances, doesn't it?

I did... but then remembered she's a trustee or something for the Peter Tatchell foundation.

I reset my sympathy button.

Adding my thanks to those who spoke up for common sense and language.
You were a voice for the voiceless.

Thank you so much.

I've emailed thank yous at the generic HOL email on the HOL site and did this as syggested above:
I sent one with four names in subject header to generic address and they’ve all responded individually so it is forwarded on to right person.

It was just amazing to see the clear good sense spoken without fear. I'm a HOL convert.

I was mulling all of this over on my walk this morning and one thing really struck me - this idea that seems to be in danger of getting embedded in laws: that men can have get pregnant and give birth. Just like women. I can't quite articulate my problem with it (apart from the blimmin' obvious), just that if you divorce women's rights and maternity rights from any female-specific physical reality, then our protections lose their meaning. Sorry I can't put it any better!

It seems wrong to zero in on a specific trans person but since Freddy has sought publicity for their legal case I'm going to use their example. The only justification for Freddy getting to keep their GRC is if the law allows that actively seeking to get pregnant and then carrying a child and giving birth is a normal part of ' living as a man'. So legally living as a man and living as a woman are to all intents and purposes the same (since reproductive biology is the biggest difference between the two sexes).

So... there's no difference between men and women... men can have the rights and protections women have fought for... or even better why don't we abolish women's sex-specific rights entirely since they are irrelevant?

Apologies for the meandering logic; I think what it boils down to is that retaining the GRC is dangerous for women's rights, even though my social conditioning is telling me that abolishing it would be awfully unkind.

Thank you Baronesses and Lords , it's the first time I've ever involuntarily clapped watching speeches in Westminster