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

Another one just so emotional at this thread

Stonewall has erased gay women far more effectively than Margaret Thatcher managed. Sounds like there is perhaps the start of a campaigning slogan in that...?

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Some men are able to produce liquid from their nipples, mind. It would be unkind to suggest it's not possible.

How nourishing it is for a baby I have no idea.

Male galactorrhea produces a milky coloured discharge but it's non-nutritive and a sign that something may be awry.

Galactorrhea (guh-lack-toe-REE-uh) is a milky nipple discharge unrelated to the normal milk production of breast-feeding. Galactorrhea itself isn't a disease, but it could be a sign of an underlying problem… But galactorrhea can happen in men and even in infants.

medication side effects or disorders of the pituitary gland all may contribute to galactorrhea….

www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/galactorrhea/symptoms-causes/syc-20350431

It's possible to use drugs to induce gynaecomastia and some fluid.

I'll start a clock for someone to come and tell us about lactating male Dayak fruit bats and Bismarck masked flying foxes.

@JiggeryWokery

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.

Just catching up but yes.

If men can get pregnant and give birth then men also need abortion and therefore abortion is not just a women's issue but a men's issue too.

It is therefore discriminatory to say that men's views on abortion should not be given equal weight to women's.

The fragility of provision of services related to women's reproductive health - contraception, access to pre natal and care when giving birth, freedom from people pushing stuff on them (thinking formula bit in the UK the bounty women are a fucking nightmare), being pressured into long term contraception that hcps don't want to remove even, abortion. And then stuff like terrible periods, endometriosis... Etc etc

NONE of this is a women's issue. They affect men too.

When we have the NHS saying on their site that 8/10 people under X age will get pregnant if they have unprotected sex for a year....

It's nonsense. And it's worrying. IF men need an equal say in pushing for abortion rights because they need abortion too. IF men need abortions too. The amount of 'people' dying due to unsafe abortion HALVES.

And for those who say that won't happen not a problem. Please refer to the 8/10 pregnant stat posted by the NHS.

Stonewall has erased gay women far more effectively than Margaret Thatcher managed.

Stonewall seriously need to be stopped from influencing the policies and vocabularies of statutory agencies. Whose job would it be to scrutinise their agenda and practice? Who oversees these things?

@LyingWitchInTheWardrobe

That is an astounding post, vivarium. I'm not a regular on this board but I think I'll be coming in often to quietly read and learn. There is so much that I do not know and so many issues that I can't un-know.

I was pretty much where you are a year ago (there are many good women on this board (and many that got deleted for saying things that our monitors didn't want others to hear) that were here many years ago trying to broach the same topics).

I read an article about self- id on the news and started thinking about how that could work and how it might go badly wrong and since then I have had that feeling that I can't look away - I can't un-know what I know now and I HAVE to do everything I can to help rectify the situation - I have two daughters, a mum and a mother in law.

I have seen the absolute inhumanity of the policy of our local Hospital Trust. Specifically stated in the policy - if a convicted sex offender (male) chooses to be placed on a female ward (based on self-id even if part-time) and are 'deemed to be a risk' to the women (vulnerable, ill, too weak to advocate for themselves), they 'may be offered anti-libidinous medication' to mitigate their risk (obvs many sex offenders are not motivated by sexual desire but a desire for power over someone else). (bear in mind that policy is the best case scenario - the thing that they aspire to.....)

I spoke to friends about this - none of whom understand the issues - one of whom is a Head of PHSE at my children's school and informed me that if my daughter was uncomfortable sharing a changing room with a male born child having gender issues, SHE would be the one who had to find somewhere else to change. This teacher was also involved in socially transitioning another child without the consent (and possibly the knowledge) of the parents. Social transition sets a child on the path to medical transition - it creates their 'thing' and for a vulnerable teenager is often a path that is impossible to leave.

I know a beautiful girl. I've known her since she was quite little. She came out as a lesbian a few years ago, then started at a 'woke' uni. By the start of her second term, she thought she might be trans, 4 months to the gender clinic (during lockdown, so presumably online only), then 3 months later on 'T' and barely one year after the initial trans revelation achieved her funding goal and had a private surgeon perform a double mastectomy.

Good luck with your research LyingWitchin - it is a crazy ride. The amazingly educated and intelligent women on the Feminist board are an enormous asset (they've saved my sanity) and it seems like we might be making some traction - (loved the Mumsnet namecheck from Lord Hunt on this thread!!).

'Do any of you ever pause to think about the effect that your attitudes and posts have on the mental health and safety of trans men and women?'

Meanwhile

Post natal depression 4/10 women (so 2/10 people) and expected to be more

Under reported as women are not comfortable with reporting for a variety of reasons

Peri natal depression - rarely talked about but not uncommon. I had this. Won't go into it now. Bad scene. Fucked me over for about 10 years total.

Hormonal contraception. Well known and recognised side effect of MH issues. Dished out from when you're young, increasingly in a form you can't stop if you have adverse effects. Docs often won't remove.

Endometriosis/ vaginal mesh/ loads of stuff. You're imagining it. Anti depressants.

And, I mean. So so much.

I am sure I have read that when men go to doc with pain etc they are taken more seriously, in hosp their pain relief is better, they are sent for scans etc quicker. They are believed. The idea that women are essentially all hysterics persists.

The fastest growing suicide group is girls. Boys still more, but stable.

Yes. What about mental health?

Women still have to FIGHT to get help with all sorts of stuff. And get stuff that actively can fuck with MH put inside our bodies and when we say. This doesn't work for me. I've changed. I want to die. They are told. Give it a chance! Don't be so silly. Have some anti depressants. We're not taking it out.

If these things are person issues they are halved.

Even thought all but the most tiny tiny tiny % of people who are male or are legally men will never experience them.

It's not trivial.

@JiggeryWokery

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.

Absolutely agree. There was a discussion on this board recently about repealing the GRA which does make a lot of sense, it is totally redundant now - it was only introduced because the government at the time was trying to avoid legalising Gay marriage. Now that is legal, there is no argument to keep it imo. It just causes confusion.

The thing I only found out about Freddy recently is that they were a single parent (I assumed some sort of partnership) and started preparations for pregnancy six days after the GRC was granted - arguably, not in the spirit of 'living like a man until death'.

The big issue for me was that if Freddy had succeeded in Freddy's legal action to be named as Father on the birth certificate, it would have literally left the child without a Mother.

No registered Mother for that child.

I've been reading about the Eastern Bloc female athletes doped against their will alluded to by vivariumvivariumsvivaria with creeping horror. The consequences of teenage girls being put on similar drugs for life should be enough to give anybody pause, but this seems to be the last thing on the minds of organisations queueing up for their Stonewall medals.

The policy capture behind the erasure of women as a sex class is leading good people who want to "be kind" into supporting actions which are deeply unethical and directly damaging to women and girls.

fantastic news!

And my point here is that.

Different groups have different histories, challenges. The background to their problems is specific.

The current TRA people seem to be very keen on the whole oppression Olympics thing. Intersectionality which was a very important concept has been totally bastardised.

What most people, especially people from groups who are subject to discrimination, oppression, hostility, or are for historical reasons just not considered important. What they (we) want is the right services, delivered by people with expertise and who really care, and who really understand. In a way that makes the people they are helping feel safe, and amongst people who understand.

And this is a massive sticking point. Because women have fought and fought for what we have. As have other groups. There are so many people with various aspects of marginalisation.

But still it's not one size fits all.

The demand- which has been won on the whole. That grass roots women's orgs started decades ago open their remit. Not just to trans women (what of trans men? Non binary females?) but to men.

As soon as the original remit is undermined (a barrier is breached) then the rest is easy.

I think it's 3 areas recently where women's aid / long (decades) established refuges have lost their funding. Because they weren't set up for men. And in one case, to help perpetrators.. (?!?!)

So you see.

It's not based on sex (female) but on gender (invisible and what you say it is). That done. Just a short step to moving away as they were catering to a mixed sex but on an exclusionary basis. What of the other men?

Of course women, women with children, trans women, trans men, gay men, lesbians, men. Need different things. The risks are different and the needs are different.

Language the argument is that 'inclusive' language eg women and trans men etc is fine- up till 5 mins mins ago I agreed with that.

But I just realised, it's all one way. I mean I knew it was. But just suddenly.

When it comes to prisons, sports, refuges, communal changing etc the inclusion is about trans women being included in women's stuff. And that's extended to self ID (looks like a man, behaves like a man, dresses like a man, if a trans identity is declared it must be respected. Acceptance without exception).

When it comes to bio stuff. Reproduction etc. The idea is that women STFU because mentioning it is exclusionary to trans women. If we really really must speak about the unspeakable (how very Victorian) then we need to separate it from women/female/girls). Uterus owners, menstruators, etc. And the lack of knowledge of female biology is a big giveaway as to the 50% who are driving this. A penis and a clitoris are the same just different in size. ???. You don't piss out of a clitoris. And what about the massive internal structure, eh? And the 'front hole' stuff. The front hole on a woman is urethra. If you ignore that and see the front hole as the vagina, you're only counting holes that will fit a penis in. Hmmm...

And meanwhile men are men. No changes. Charities for men's health do not mince their words. And not should they. People with a prostate, testicle owners? Nope.

Sorry for the essay that I started 3 hours ago then got distracted

The point. Back to that.

Stonewall etc have lots of money and support. Why not open EXTRA services for trans people. Who will have experiences that are different from those who are not trans.

That's the bit I don't get. The money is there, the goodwill is there. Extra specific services would be really valuable, as they are for all marginalised groups. It's really not one size fits all.

So why the hell have they not done that? It would have meant employment for trans people (who are discriminated against in employment stonewall etc have stats) and helped a lot.

Why the need to open up women's stuff when their experiences, risks and situations will be very different.

I don't get it.

Which makes me realise. None of this is in good faith. I mean from the orgs and activists etc. Not ordinary people.

This absolute push to take women's language and get into all the things we have carved out. Why? Why not agitate for extra stuff.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Some men are able to produce liquid from their nipples, mind. It would be unkind to suggest it's not possible.

How nourishing it is for a baby I have no idea.

Scientific reference please

My son, aged 35, can do this. I've seen it. It's a white liquid; he can press a few drops out. He thinks it's funny! He is extremely anti-woke and would never dream of calling it "breast milk".

I don't mean to go on about it, but the Guardian still doesn't seem to have covered it at all. What's that about then?

Yes, why hasn't TheGuardian covered this?
Another thing I have learnt from this is news agencies are VERY selective.
The Times has been pretty good on this issue.

It was covered in the Times, yesterday I noticed

The guardian's business model is a social media type model. There is no paywall and they don't sell many physical copies now. Like social media, If you don't pay them for content, you are the product,. Your attention. To sell to advertisers. They target to appeal to a specific demographic. One that will rage retweet articles based on sensational and poorly backed up headlines that reinforce a specific world view.

I caught up on Thursday's session yesterday and I have spent the morning sending emails of thanks to various members of the HoL. Time consuming but hopefully worth it.

It is incredible the sense of relief and gratitude I've felt at hearing people stand up in defence of such basic women's rights as the right to use the words women and mother for a maternity bill. How have we come so far that this is now remarkable rather than standard?

I hoping the BBC is going to redeem itself with covering this in The Week in Westminster coming on next.

So, on the back of Thursday I have now opened a conversation with all of my friends. I have some close friends, who I would be allied with on pretty much everything, to believe that an inclusive feminism is one that accepts transwomen as no different to natal women, and that anything less is simply transphobia. Til now I have not explored the issue too much, as I came up against this thinking more that I expected.

It has been fascinating. So many of my thoughtful female friends have simply not engaged, as it has been so hard to peer through all this. By simply asking the question openly, there are now at least 8 more women talking to their friends and family about this, and asking questions, feeling braver.

I am also involved in an EDI project in work, and have been back through every document and every resource and unashamedly placed sex alongside gender as a key factor to be considered. Having the HoL onside means I now feel brave enough to have the fight in my place of work, which is becoming more woke by the day. (the women's network has now been rebranded the gender inequality network).

So, if you haven't already, start having these conversations. Talk to your friends and family. Get involved in the EDI agenda in your workplace. Protect our sex based rights.

@nauticant

I hoping the BBC is going to redeem itself with covering this in The Week in Westminster coming on next.

Don’t get your hopes too high on that one...

@Belleende

So, on the back of Thursday I have now opened a conversation with all of my friends. I have some close friends, who I would be allied with on pretty much everything, to believe that an inclusive feminism is one that accepts transwomen as no different to natal women, and that anything less is simply transphobia. Til now I have not explored the issue too much, as I came up against this thinking more that I expected.

It has been fascinating. So many of my thoughtful female friends have simply not engaged, as it has been so hard to peer through all this. By simply asking the question openly, there are now at least 8 more women talking to their friends and family about this, and asking questions, feeling braver.

I am also involved in an EDI project in work, and have been back through every document and every resource and unashamedly placed sex alongside gender as a key factor to be considered. Having the HoL onside means I now feel brave enough to have the fight in my place of work, which is becoming more woke by the day. (the women's network has now been rebranded the gender inequality network).

So, if you haven't already, start having these conversations. Talk to your friends and family. Get involved in the EDI agenda in your workplace. Protect our sex based rights.

Fantastic!

I'm getting involved in EDI at work. At some point I'll go through the diversity training (endorsed by stonewall) with a fine tooth comb.

I have form for detailed feedback on training - the last time I challenged sexist slides.

I know, it's only 30 minutes and politics is rather torrid at the moment, I'm just amusing myself imaging the BBC doing a "Don't mention the war!" over this Ninkanink.

I work in a science led organisation. I have backed away from all the the fantastic EDI activity, as I could not trust myself to stay on the right right of the gender arguments and was genuinely afraid of the potential consequences.

I am so so looking forward to confidently advocating for sex based rights. I will not hesitate to say that it is not possible for humans to change sex, that only human females have babies and breast feed, that every human person to have ever lived has been birthed by a human mother. I am going to bookmark the clip of Lord Winston. I might even invite him to give a talk. I will involve our scientists if needs be.

Fantastic post @NiceGerbil . Who is funding Stonewall and the US equivalents.

@Wrongsideofhistorymyarse

I'm getting involved in EDI at work. At some point I'll go through the diversity training (endorsed by stonewall) with a fine tooth comb.

I have form for detailed feedback on training - the last time I challenged sexist slides.

I’ve argued my heart out about this at work & finally decided I need to stay away from all the EDI stuff for my own mental health. While a lot of it is great, just the word gender makes my teeth itch.