Is Mother now a Gender Neutral Term Following the Lords Announcement? Trans Peeps think so!

[MishyJDI]

Is Mother now a Gender Neutral Term Following the Lords Announcement? Trans Peeps think so! Came across this piece doing the rounds, with the main proposition being:

The final legislation is said to use “pregnant mothers” instead, this is perfectly in-line with the legal definition of “mothers”. This because an unintended side effect of making the legal definition of the word “mothers” include transgender men and non-binary people is that now, in a legal sense, “mothers” is a gender neutral term.

This issue was cemented when Freddy McConnell took the UK to the High Court and subsequently the Court of Appeals and did not manage to win the case. Freddy, who is a transgender man that gave birth, wanted to be registered as the father on the birth certificate rather than mother. He lost his case because the UK argued “mother” isn’t a gendered term and refers to any person who grows a child in their womb."

Well....not sure on the response to this to be honest. I guess if someone wants to identify as a mother, they are welcome to it, if they give birth, so not sure I see a problem. Still interesting how anything can be spun this way....

That's the main thrust. Be careful with the link below though, as not gender critical supportive in the main if you want to see the full article:

medium.com/@notCursedE/the-uk-rules-mothers-is-a-gender-neutral-term-c91d6e75b486

Sex is constant; sex is absolute; sex is an unchanged and unchangeable state. As recognised by Law and Legislation.

As known without doubt for generation upon generation upon generation of human development throughout centuries, millennia, and age upon age.

Mother is gender neutral because motherhood has nothing to do with how the pregnant/birthing female feels, dresses, acts or any other marker that isn't growing a baby. Not sure why they thought GC folks would object to this, sex is what matters and any definition that separates sex and gender is a step in the right direction.

Check the name of the author. Do some googling. Decide whether they publish their stuff in good faith.

@Ninkanink

Sex is constant; sex is absolute; sex is an unchanged and unchangeable state. As recognised by Law and Legislation.

As known without doubt for generation upon generation upon generation of human development throughout centuries, millennia, and age upon age.

Should really have made my point a little more clear by adding the following:

Gender, on the other hand, is entirely conceptual and has no basis in material reality.

It is entirely separate from biological fact, and has no bearing at all on the constant and unchanging facts that determine female-hood/womanhood/motherhood.

Sex, not gender.

It looks like the OP only wanted to plop down the link and disappear.

Yes...

Never mind. I don’t mind repeating things for those who might read.

The ‘peeps’ was a bit of a giveaway. Such juvenile language whilst addressing such an important issue.

It's all just evidence that the GRA is obsolete. The new 'thinking' on gender (pregnant men etc) is not compatible with reality or the GRA's rationale, such as it was.

Be careful with the link below though, as not gender critical supportive in the main

Be careful? If you think we might be harmed by reading opinions we don't agree with, then we're not who you think we are.

If the OP means "it's a lot of misogynistic nonsense" which is what I would expect judging by the oeuvre of the author in question, well I'm sure we're all used to that.

@unwashedanddazed

Be careful with the link below though, as not gender critical supportive in the main

Be careful? If you think we might be harmed by reading opinions we don't agree with, then we're not who you think we are.

Oh yes...I missed that bit...

Another giveaway I suppose. I mean honestly, it’s just an opinion piece.

People are allowed to hold opinions that I find silly/ignorant/uninformed/ridiculous/stupid/dangerous/harmful/whatever else.

I’m perfectly capable of examining & rejecting opinion that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and being absolutely fine afterwards - no need to ‘be careful’.

@Ninkanink

The ‘peeps’ was a bit of a giveaway. Such juvenile language whilst addressing such an important issue.

It's childish. There was one on the HoL's thread, basically ''ner ner, you've made mother a gender neutral word.''

Erm, it always has been. I'm glad that transmen are also covered under mother and maternity, and thank Freddy for getting it acknowledged in court. Mother is still very much a sex specific word. Just how we like it, just how it should be

I think it's because some people see this as a 'game' that they don't want women to win. So when they think we've 'won' they have to come up with daft ways to prove that actually girlz drool and we really 'lost'. Like saying 'mother' being on a maternity bill for heavily pregnant women about to take maternity leave will stop women in early pregnancy being able to have an abortion. Like when they said a judge applying Gillick to the kids at Tavistock had actually destroyed Gillick and would stop girls being able to access contraception and abortion.

Boring and predictable.

@SquishySquirmy

It is "gender neutral" (in the sense that GC feminists understand gender) and always has been. Because motherhood has nothing to do with stereotypes, pink brains, or "feeling like a woman".

Every mother is biologically female. Sex is relevant, not gender.

They can spin it however they like doesn’t make any difference mothers are biologically female and thats the outcome we were after

Boring and predictable.

Yup.

the HoC has now made it possible for males to give birth!!

Hooray!

Moving on ...

That's the main thrust. Be careful with the link below though, as not gender critical supportive in the main if you want to see the full article:

What will happen if I'm not? Is it like running with scissors?

And obvs it's not going to be "gender critical supportive in the main". Look at the author name. It's like warning me that a Billy Graham video would have religious content.

Its always nice to find a point of general agreement in this debate. Maternity, (like many things in life) is gender neutral and sex specific. Glad "the Peeps" are happy too.

@SquishySquirmy

Its always nice to find a point of general agreement in this debate. Maternity, (like many things in life) is gender neutral and sex specific. Glad "the Peeps" are happy too.

Yay, let us lay down our baseball bats and swords! At least, if the Twitter lot would do so that would be really nice.

@SquishySquirmy

Its always nice to find a point of general agreement in this debate. Maternity, (like many things in life) is gender neutral and sex specific. Glad "the Peeps" are happy too.

The more I think about it the more positive it makes me feel.

Mimmy has also been promoting a ‘Let Toys be Toys’ business which takes out the strict ‘gendering’ of toys and makes them just toys for kids rather than boys toys or girls toys - brilliant! (Unless I’ve missed something huge here..). I support the sister page which is Let Clothes be Clothes.

I wonder if there is a mental ‘self righting’ effect (like the lifeboats), then when you attempt to sustain a huge level of cognitive dissonance long term, your subconscious brain takes over and drags you round into a logical position, almost without you realising.

We support the idea of moving away from gender stereotypes and that sex is THE significant factor - are some ‘peeps’ travelling in the same direction by accident??

Or do they think that sex = gender so strongly that getting rid of gender = getting rid of sex??

But then they know that sex does not = gender because that is their argument for gender identity being different to sex and therefore ‘trans’

Sorry for that team of consciousness there - just trying to make sense of it all and failing..

why do they think that gender neutral words and toys are good?

@SquishySquirmy

Its always nice to find a point of general agreement in this debate. Maternity, (like many things in life) is gender neutral and sex specific. Glad "the Peeps" are happy too.

Yes, indeed. I'm happy that everyone's happy, for once.

Hope you are too, OP! Or were you here in the hope that we wouldn't be?

I wonder why the writer is so exercised at the linking of 'mother' to biological reality?

Mimmy has also been promoting a ‘Let Toys be Toys’ business which takes out the strict ‘gendering’ of toys and makes them just toys for kids rather than boys toys or girls toys - brilliant!

Oh that's good. I wonder if she is aware of the origins of the campaign. Maya Forstater was a co-founder. Does that not give her pause for thought?

This because an unintended side effect of making the legal definition of the word “mothers” include transgender men and non-binary people is that now, in a legal sense, “mothers” is a gender neutral term.
I wonder what all of these people have in common. Ah yes, they all have a womb with which they bore their child(ren). So "mother" can only be used with reference to females. This changes nothing.

@RozWatching

Mimmy has also been promoting a ‘Let Toys be Toys’ business which takes out the strict ‘gendering’ of toys and makes them just toys for kids rather than boys toys or girls toys - brilliant!

Oh that's good. I wonder if she is aware of the origins of the campaign. Maya Forstater was a co-founder. Does that not give her pause for thought?

Haha, bet she loves knowing LTBT was dreamt up here on MN (possibly even in FWR?)

Haha, bet she loves knowing LTBT was dreamt up here on MN (possibly even in FWR?)

Yes, it came about from an MN FWR thread