MOMA Bill back in the Commons today, Monday 1st March 5.15pm

[ConservativesForWomen]

New thread as previous one almost full.

List of speakers here, expected start time 5.15pm:

commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/document/45568/html

I wonder if someone will table a half way house ammendment - allowing the term mother in general through the bill, but inserting something to state that you are covered by this law whether or not you describe yourself as a mother, and also if you are legally male.

I wouldn't object to "women and trans men". (Although I think it makes a mockery of getting a GRC.) Would that have solved matters, or would there have been a fuss about "none binary" not being included?

Bookmarking, nervously.

I prefer "mother" by a mile, just "woman / women" would be better, and I know it's decided now so just speculating really. To my mind adding in those unhappy with being excluded seems better than fudging it for the main group automatically included.

No problem whatsoever with them adding as many ands after women as they want. Include away. Just don't erase the massive majority who wish to be named women, mothers, female, acknowledge biology etc and we'll be absolutely fine.

@MichelleofzeResistance

No problem whatsoever with them adding as many ands after women as they want. Include away. Just don't erase the massive majority who wish to be named women, mothers, female, acknowledge biology etc and we'll be absolutely fine.

Yes, agree.

I wonder if just adding "and trans men" was ever considered? I'm guessing not if the focus was misguidely on being gender neutral.

If sex isn't binary as we are constantly told how the hell can you be Non-Binary, by saying you are non-binary you are admitting there is a binary.

I actually would rather they didn't add any 'extras', just stick to the cold hard facts, females, women, mothers.

@Scout2016

I wonder if just adding "and trans men" was ever considered? I'm guessing not if the focus was misguidely on being gender neutral.

Well, that would exclude males, which I'm sure some people wouldn't be happy about.

I wonder if someone will table a half way house ammendment - allowing the term mother in general through the bill, but inserting something to state that you are covered by this law whether or not you describe yourself as a mother, and also if you are legally male.

It wouldn't strictly be needed due to section 12 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This is why the amendment says "mother" rather than "woman".

Parenthood

The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act does not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child.

I’m a constituent of Crispin Blunt, and have been writing to him a lot about trans issues over the years. He’s always brushed me off. I will be following what he says with a lot of interest.

@Scout2016

I wouldn't object to "women and trans men". (Although I think it makes a mockery of getting a GRC.) Would that have solved matters, or would there have been a fuss about "none binary" not being included?

Is there a consistent definition of transman ? What are the measurable criteria?

Certainly isn't for "trans man" as that is generally understood to mean trans identified male (don't delete me MN I'm not being offensive am talking about needing precise definitions in law)

They want non-binary added too , a lot of non-binary people are male.

We need this bill to be clear. It's already been jiggered up enough by not using 'pregnant woman' before birth but 'expectant mother' FTS

I'm ok with a statement like Manderley suggests but I'm not ok with any 'ands' after the words 'mothers' or 'women'. An explanatory statement might be unnecessary but it doesn't change what the words mean. Call me a pedant but I think 'and' does alter the meaning as it implies there are people in addition to women can become mothers. And that, I believe, is asking for trouble.

He went and said OUT LOUD that a woman who ..hic..gives birth isn't a mother. No mummies...

It is indeed tempting!

The Instagram share makes me rage but the comments cheer me up.

@Aha85 thank you for the clarification and I am OK with the bill saying just mother throughout, assuming this is what is finally in the bill.

Whilst I welcome the change (assuming it is passed), I wonder if at any Covid press conferences in future, any mothers other than Priti Patel will be allowed by Mr Johnson to host them?

So I read that there were two GRC holders in the U.K. who have given birth (it was on a thing about the BSUH guidance), neither of which are ministers who require maternity leave.

Freddy M would be one, I assume the other didn't want the media attention. Neither of which are recognised as the legal father as Aha reminds us.

So who is this for exactly? Is it for women who are ministers who have the 3 protected characteristics of sex, pregnancy and maternity?

@Aha85

I wonder if someone will table a half way house ammendment - allowing the term mother in general through the bill, but inserting something to state that you are covered by this law whether or not you describe yourself as a mother, and also if you are legally male.

It wouldn't strictly be needed due to section 12 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This is why the amendment says "mother" rather than "woman".

Parenthood

The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act does not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child.

Thanks, so it wouldn't be legally necessary. But if there was a clause, or something in the explanatory notes, it would make the intentions clear, that the rights that the bill conveys are not altered by however anyone sees themself. I know we don't think this should need saying, but in the current world maybe it does. There's so much fear mongering and misleading going on, with ppl claiming that this excludes trans men from those rights.

It might set a good precedent that laws on women's rights issues are written as such, but with an added statement that female ppl who don't self describe as women are covered. Maternity leave is a women's rights issue. I want these types of things legislated using appropriate language that doesn't de-centre women. But the Gra exists & some female ppl don't recognise themself in the language if women's rights.

The weird thing is that the government never really tried to defend the language on the grounds of trans inclusion. They only tried to defend it using the gender neutral drafting policy. They sounded a bit jobsworth 'my hands are tied'.

I actually would rather they didn't add any 'extras', just stick to the cold hard facts, females, women, mothers.

Agree, particularly in legislation.

We need words that refer to sex, not identity.

If anything needs to be added it's just an explanatory sentence confirming that no reference is being made to identity.

But the Gra exists & some female ppl don't recognise themself in the language if women's rights.

The GRA has plenty of exceptions. It's a confusing bill, but the reason it was written was to protect privacy. At the point where somebody is pregnant, their sex is pretty clear.

Call me a pedant but I think 'and' does alter the meaning as it implies there are people in addition to women can become mothers. And that, I believe, is asking for trouble.

Agree. It also weighs down the word 'mother' with all sorts of stereotypes that should be irrelevant to legislation.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Does anyone know if it will be streamed live on YouTube? I don't have access to live tv today.

Ereshkigalangcleg

Live here when it starts:

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/02ab0dd5-baf3-4a5b-ad99-cf0e76c707d0

So who is this for exactly? Is it for women who are ministers who have the 3 protected characteristics of sex, pregnancy and maternity?

This point was made during the HoL debate, I think it may have been Baroness Nicholson? That it would have to be a minister, who was a woman, who identified with a different chosen word to woman, who was pregnant, who needed maternity protections, who did not want the words woman or mother to be used.... the speaker pointed out that this was a great many qualifiers, when the massive majority of those needing this legislation will never need them. And it would be no real barrier to that multi qualified rare person anyway.

Exactly Michelle

I get so frustrated when this is weaponised as

a) the chances of it affecting a trans man minister are slim to none (not being ageist but how many ministers are late 20s or early 30s and having children despite being on synthetic testosterone)

b) it wouldn't affect them anyway as they would still get maternity leave

The aggression from those who have a problem with the word mother is because they don't want anyone to use it, not that they just don't want it applied to them.

As PPs say, if the government rule against it and use 'pregnant person' in the Bill this says a lot about what they think matters, or rather, who matters.

Is the other not Jake Graf ?
Certainly not someone I would consider private or did Jake and Hannah W use a surrogate?