If you avoid the feminist section then at least read this article

[RedthroatedCaracara]

because all females need to be aware of this

And there's no need to have an attack of the vapours because it's a Daily Mail link. For all their multitude of shortcomings, the Mail at least have the guts to publish articles that stand up for women and girls.

It’s not happening in any meaningful way.

It most certainly is.

The word transsexual was first and it has for the most part completely lost its meaning.
Once transsexual was indistinguishable from transvestite the next target became the words woman and lesbian.

Wake up.

It’s not happening in any meaningful way.

Take a look at companies / organisations leaving Stonewall. Google that line to see more before you ask me to.

@BlueLipstickRocks

It’s not happening in any meaningful way.

It most certainly is.

The word transsexual was first and it has for the most part completely lost its meaning.
Once transsexual was indistinguishable from transvestite the next target became the words woman and lesbian.

Wake up.

When? Give me some evidence that we don’t say ‘woman’ or ‘lesbian’ any more.

*When? Give me some evidence that we don’t say ‘woman’ or ‘lesbian’ any more."

Oh we do, they just mean vert different things nowadays following the toxic agenda from Stobewall.

@Pumperthepumper what's being eradicated? Seriously?

A long list of examples has been shared with you already.

Women's sports, single sex spaces in settings where women are vulnerable (eg prisons, refugee, changing rooms, medical examinations) to name a few.

Lesbians are now accused of being transphobic if they don't want to sleep with a transwoman with a penis

@MarshaBradyo

It’s not happening in any meaningful way.

Take a look at companies / organisations leaving Stonewall. Google that line to see more before you ask me to.

Right - Googled ‘companies leaving stonewall’, and it seems to suggest there’s a belief that Stonewall have taken trans inclusion too far and they’re not standing for it any more. Which to me seems the opposite of what you’re suggesting.

I haven’t seen anything about how its having a huge impact though.

@BlueLipstickRocks

*When? Give me some evidence that we don’t say ‘woman’ or ‘lesbian’ any more."

Oh we do, they just mean vert different things nowadays following the toxic agenda from Stobewall.

Evidence?

When? Give me some evidence that we don’t say ‘woman’ or ‘lesbian’ any more.

Do you agree that it is good to push back against the changing language when we do see it? For instance, in work maternity policies?

Do you believe that the HoL was right to amend the language of the Act?

Why is it the opposite to what I’m suggesting?

[quote bentleydrummle]@Pumperthepumper what's being eradicated? Seriously?

A long list of examples has been shared with you already.

Women's sports, single sex spaces in settings where women are vulnerable (eg prisons, refugee, changing rooms, medical examinations) to name a few.

[/quote]
I absolutely agree there’s a conversation to be had. I absolutely don’t think ‘mothers’ being replaced by ‘pregnant employees’ on the odd policy document is in any way the eradication of women. I also don’t agree that Sarah Vine is a champion of women’s rights.

When? Give me some evidence that we don’t say ‘woman’ or ‘lesbian’ any more.

If a transwoman is a woman then what is a woman?

If a lesbian can have a penis then what is a lesbian?

Stonewall is attempting to change the meaning of words to the detriment of women and lesbians.

And Blue is right that a transexual is not the same as a transgender person. If you look up the Stonewall definition of 'trans' it includes cross dressers how does that help those with dysphoria? Answer it doesn't, it actively harms them.

@EdgeOfACoin

When? Give me some evidence that we don’t say ‘woman’ or ‘lesbian’ any more.

Do you agree that it is good to push back against the changing language when we do see it? For instance, in work maternity policies?

Do you believe that the HoL was right to amend the language of the Act?

I absolutely agree they were right to change the language of the act. I don’t think it’s a massive scandal that it needed to be changed, that’s how law works.

I don’t think maternity policies using ‘pregnant employees’ in place of mother is a big deal. I don’t think if you went along to your maternity appointment the midwife would refuse to call you a mother. I don’t think it translates in any real way.

Do you agree that it is good to push back against the changing language when we do see it? For instance, in work maternity policies?

Workplace policies should be as inclusive as possible. Whether you agree or not, there will be transmen who become pregnant, will need to use the policy, and do not call themselves mother. It doesn't take away your right to call yourself mother, or to insist that anyone else calls you that.

I absolutely don’t think ‘mothers’ being replaced by ‘pregnant employees’ on the odd policy document is in any way the eradication of women.

Language matters. You either grasp that or not, I doubt anyone will convince you. Fortunately enough women are bringing about change so it doesn’t matter.

Urgh can we not keep this transphobic crap to the FWR boards please.

@itsmschanandlerbong

Urgh can we not keep this transphobic crap to the FWR boards please.

It’s not transphobic. But also you don’t have to read it.

Urgh can we not keep this transphobic crap to the FWR boards please.

What's transphobic?

Language matters. You either grasp that or not, I doubt anyone will convince you. Fortunately enough women are bringing about change so it doesn’t matter.

You're so right. It is so important. I'm so glad that the language we're talking about here on policy documents is inclusive of those who would not call themselves mother, as well as those who would.

I absolutely agree there’s a conversation to be had. I absolutely don’t think ‘mothers’ being replaced by ‘pregnant employees’ on the odd policy document is in any way the eradication of women. I also don’t agree that Sarah Vine is a champion of women’s rights.

I'm not a fan of Sarah Vine either but I do agree with her on this particular issue. The DM is an unpleasant publication but it is also I believe the most popular newspaper in the country and if raises awareness of the "conversation" which you admit is necessary where other publications have failed (mentioning no names 🙄) then so be it.

@Ijustreallywantacat it's not very inclusive language for women with poor literary, EAL, learning difficulties etc who require transparent and clear terms like woman and mother.

@MarshaBradyo

I absolutely don’t think ‘mothers’ being replaced by ‘pregnant employees’ on the odd policy document is in any way the eradication of women.

Language matters. You either grasp that or not, I doubt anyone will convince you. Fortunately enough women are bringing about change so it doesn’t matter.

I honestly don’t know what ‘language matters’ means in this context. Saying ‘pregnant employees’ is still language.

@Ijustreallywantacat

Language matters. You either grasp that or not, I doubt anyone will convince you. Fortunately enough women are bringing about change so it doesn’t matter.

You're so right. It is so important. I'm so glad that the language we're talking about here on policy documents is inclusive of those who would not call themselves mother, as well as those who would.

As long as you have both as you said before.

Is that what you want?

I absolutely agree they were right to change the language of the act. I don’t think it’s a massive scandal that it needed to be changed, that’s how law works.

But without people saying 'hey, this isn’t right', the gender-neutral language would have been retained and the word 'mother' would have been erased from that particular bit of legislation.

Without people saying 'hang on, Stonewall is misrepresenting the law' or 'Stonewall's going a bit far here', organisations would have been slowly, quietly, one-by-one implementing changes that gradually get rid of the words 'women' and 'mother', almost without anyone noticing.

Yes, maybe these things do seem like minor issues when viewed in isolation. I just take the view that that the more we think 'oh it's just this once' or 'it's not a big deal really', the more normalised the whole thing becomes.

And if in 10 years time, the words 'woman' and 'mother' have ceased to have any meaningful definition, I consider that to be detrimental to women. How can women's rights be protected if we cannot define ourselves?

So yes, I appreciate sometimes it looks as though we're overreacting or 'pearl clutching' or whatever, but I do perceive any instance of changing language, no matter how small, to be worth talking about and standing firm against.

Pumper ok I’ll leave you to it. Too hard to engage, not sure if you’re doing it on purpose to derail but I’ll leave you to the other posters.