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.

Why would adopter need to be separated out? Sounds a bit unfair not to get mother.

It does not cover adopters. And why exclude those who do not want to be called mothers? It seems nasty to make a point.

Mother does cover adopters, birthing parent does not.

Mother is an inclusive term.

This article is in the Daily Mail because it's the kind of bigoted, prejudiced article the Daily Mail specialises in.

Mother is not an inclusive term. Mother and birthing parent is.

Great article. We have the same problem in the US, but it seems a bit less pervasive here, particularly in regard to government agencies. It will probably get worse here as time goes on though.

@Erikrie

As do you, the most childish, unpleasant and downright nasty people are those who are throwing tantrums and want to remove the words women, mother and pregnant woman from discourse, policies and legislation because of their own insecurities.

Yes. But it's useful for the lurkers to see this behaviour. That's why there's so many people who have become GC after witnessing the abuse and attempts to silence women. So all good really. 🌞

De-lurking just to say that I think more people are likely to be put off by the anti-trans views they see on Mumsnet than they are to become GC.

I used to love this forum, but there's only one form of 'feminism' which is allowed here and it's not welcoming to those with other views.

[quote HandfulofDust]@purpleboy

You come across as incredibly childish and unpleasant. You knew full well what I meant to type. That's why the vast majority of people avoid the feminist section. It tends to be full of highly privilidged, not overly intelligent and often quite unpleasant women who want to live in an echo chamber in which they view themselves as victims. Never any nuanced discussion, never any evidence based opinion. It's tumblr feminism at it's most embarrassing.[/quote]
To be fair that's quite an attack you've launched on me, all because I pointed out the irony in your post. Must be hard getting triggered so easily, but as a pp has said it shows the lurkers exactly what you are like so... carry on

@astonafar

Mother is not an inclusive term. Mother and birthing parent is.

who is the word 'mother' not including? I am not being goady I genuinely cannot fathom this new vocabulary invented to make mothers and women feel like they are shite? I woudl like someone to explain in simple terms who is left out by the word 'mother'?

I am a mother and I'm proud of it. Should I not be?

One person saying ‘my neighbour is a midwife and was shot for saying mother’ is not anecdata but one person saying ‘it’s not happening in any real way’ is anecdata? Sure.

I didn't refer to any such 'my neighbour was shot' post, which I don't actually recall seeing anyway. It seems a bit disingenuous to argue against points one hasn't made.

Still, you asked for examples. I've provided some, as have other posters. I think they are sufficiently concerning and point to a creeping normalisation of removing the words 'woman' and 'mother' from official texts. Others disagree.

Some of us will push back against the changes. Others will shrug their shoulders and decide there is nothing to see here.

But at least it is being openly discussed and debated now, which is the important thing.

@astonafar

Mother is not an inclusive term. Mother and birthing parent is.

The addition of other language isn’t an issue for me in same way as erasure of mother really is

There are some words one can ask not to have applied to oneself and it's no big deal. Mother isn't one of them. It relates to the objective reality of being either the woman who gave birth to a child or the the woman who is bringing the child up and has parental responsibility (or both).

We should be asking why so many young women and girls are desperate to opt out of womanhood - far more than in any previous generation.

We should also be asking why men are so intolerant of other men who don't conform to gender stereotypes. Why is it all on women to take these refugees in and be kind to them, regardless of the inconvenience and danger to us?

If we had an answer to these questions, we could get away from the Humpty Dumpty world of insisting that words mean what we want them to mean, even though that makes it impossible to talk simply and clearly about important topics like health promotion.

De-lurking just to say that I think more people are likely to be put off by the anti-trans views they see on Mumsnet than they are to become GC.

And there's many more who have delurked to pop on to feminism and say the exact opposite. Go take a look. So clearly you don't speak for all delurkers. Welcome to Mumsnet though. 😉

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4182990-Courage-Calls-to-Courage-Everywhere

I dont see the issue with using language thar includes everyone, in documents that will reach a broad audience. The words 'mother', 'mum' and pregnant woman are also not 'banned'. Noone will object to you using them.

People may say that it isn't worth it for the sake of a tiny percentage of people, but we see that in our language all the time! It's why on the top of a school letter you might see 'dear parents/caregivers'. 95% of the time, you will be addressing parents, but using more inclusive language is respectful of those who are carers.

Can't imagine getting so frothy over some harmless inclusivity.

@Ijustreallywantacat

I dont see the issue with using language thar includes everyone, in documents that will reach a broad audience. The words 'mother', 'mum' and pregnant woman are also not 'banned'. Noone will object to you using them.

People may say that it isn't worth it for the sake of a tiny percentage of people, but we see that in our language all the time! It's why on the top of a school letter you might see 'dear parents/caregivers'. 95% of the time, you will be addressing parents, but using more inclusive language is respectful of those who are carers.

Can't imagine getting so frothy over some harmless inclusivity.

Both is ok (mother and another version) as long as mother isn’t omitted

@Pumperthepumper

That article also slags off four different women on different topics, has a dig at vegans for their children being short and says Osaka doesn’t have mental health issues but anxiety is just ‘life’.

That doesn’t strike me as someone who gives a shit about women so long as they get paid to be an arsehole.

Quite.

And let's not forget that she's married to Michael Gove, so presumably isn't opposed to the crippling cuts to public services and welfare benefits that affect women so much more than men.

When she starts sticking up for the services that women depend on, her opinions on the conflicts between trans rights and women's rights might have some validity.

Why are so many women desperate to deny this is taking place?

It's why on the top of a school letter you might see 'dear parents/caregivers'. 95% of the time, you will be addressing parents, but using more inclusive language is respectful of those who are carers.

So they are using both. Parents because they are potentially addressing mum and dad. And caregivers for those who are carers.

So by the same principle it should be mother plus (whatever other version).

@roarfeckingroarr

Why are so many women desperate to deny this is taking place?

You could just as easily ask ‘why are so many people pretending this is a huge, widespread issue?’

It seems there is a consensus that the word ‘mother’ is inclusive, and everyone is also happy to include ‘trans men’.

Most objections are a denial that the replacement of woman/mother with ‘birthing parent’ or ‘person with a cervix’ is happening. That’s fine, but please do go and check your work policies. I did today and was horrified to see that they were all changed last year to remove woman, mother and father.

In my work’s maternity policy, ‘mother’ and ‘woman’ are not mentioned. Very happy for them to use ‘women and trans men’ or ‘mothers and other birth parents’ but not dropping the words altogether.

I'm also surprised to see how many people are unable to review and critique the article on its own merits.

Goodness knows, I disagree with Sarah Vine on many things, but that doesn't mean I can't read a specific piece and consider whether she has a point.

I disagree with Richard Dawkins 90% of the time, but I agree with his views on some things, eg jury duty.

There are times when I have agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, even though I disagree with a lot of what he has said.

I don't think it is healthy to dismiss something out of hand purely because you disagree with the style of publication as a whole or you dislike the writer.

@Pumperthepumper because language matters. Because this insidious agenda is entrenched now within the NHS and public sector.

Why not explain whence your need to suppress concern about women's erasure stems?

[quote roarfeckingroarr]@Pumperthepumper because language matters. Because this insidious agenda is entrenched now within the NHS and public sector.

Why not explain whence your need to suppress concern about women's erasure stems?[/quote]
It’s easy - it’s because it’s not happening in any real way. Unless you can prove me wrong? We have policies that refer to ‘employees’ or ‘pregnant employees’ - I don’t see how that erases ‘mother’. I can’t see any evidence of midwives being struck off for daring to say ‘mother’. It’s a non-issue that Sarah Vine can make money out of by pretending it is.

This crap we are seeing about the changing of language is using trans as a trojan horse. This is chauvinism and misogyny being given a vehicle and too many people are

This doesn't benefit transsexuals in the slightest and I've long maintained that supporting the trans umbrella is transphobic not the reverse.