Birth, breastfeeding, and gender ideology tackled in a nutrition journal

[ixqik]

3 letters to the Editor of the World Nutrition Journal looking at how mother and woman centred language is being removed from discourse including from the Journal of Human Lactation. As an aside, All4 Maternity and the Practicing Midwife, both published in the UK are currently under fire for centring gender ideology.

It took courage to write those letters - I hope they attract thoughtful responses and engagement.

Some of the Twitter criticism of The Practising Midwife is off-base. It's a painfully woke and "inclusive" journal, but it always refers to "women and birthing people" in the text, in fact I'd say it's very careful not to erase the language of women and motherhood. It uses an additive approach with language instead. Sheena Byrom who is the co-owner of the journal feels really strongly about maintaining women-centred language- she has told me this herself. My concern is that if people online go in too hard with criticism when they really don't have all the facts, it will make those who are being attacked double down and possibly push them in the other direction. (FTR I think birthing people is ridiculous)

in fact I'd say it's very careful not to erase the language of women and motherhood.

Interesting cover choice:

twitter.com/natachakennedy/status/1410215525641330691?s=20

Link to carousel of vibrant covers: twitter.com/TPM_Journal/status/1405989775430107137

I am so glad to the this is finally be examined in the academic press.

It absolutely is the case that using “mothers and parents” is linguistic nonsense. If we meant mothers and fathers we would usually say that or just “parents”. I am also against breastfeeding support and maternity care being aimed at “families”, because it is the mother who carries and births the baby and has the choice to breastfeed or not. The role of the rest of the “family” is to support her in her choices but the mother must be centred, it is her body and her prerogative.

The use of such supposedly inclusive language puts breastfeeding counsellors, peer supporters, and those working in maternity services in the position of “educating” the general public about gender identity theory and queer theory. By extension it is likely to be the perception of the general public that these theories are being promoted by those who should in fact be neutral and apolitical in order to serve the widest possible audience. As yet we don’t know how many mothers will be alienated and put off seeking support. We may risk offending, upsetting and disempowering far, far more women than the trans identifying people who are expected to benefit from the changes.

The most sensible approach is to use sex based language as default but tailor language to suit individuals where necessary. If it is deemed a reasonable use of resources then information and publications should be duplicated in the language of gender identity and queer theory to be offered to those who require it. The language of gender identity and queer theory should not be imposed on the majority.

I understand why people are willing to accept 'women and birthing people' as a compromise.

However, to my mind, this just gives credence to the idea that it is possible to birth a child and not be a woman. So therefore a 'woman' is something else - which is what, exactly? What is a woman, and what am I saying about myself if I accept the 'identity' of 'woman' rather than 'birthing person'? I know this question has been done to death, but as someone who is currently pregnant, I am wary about this use of language (there is an interesting discussion on the pregnancy board atm about the impact this language may be having on 'woman-centred' birth care).

OTOH, I hate the term 'birthing person' - it makes me feel like a brood mare.

Perhaps ironically, I find it all quite alienating.

As yet we don’t know how many mothers will be alienated and put off seeking support

We cross posted, Daisies. Interesting how we both used the word 'alienated'.

@DaisiesandButtercups

I am so glad to the this is finally be examined in the academic press.

It absolutely is the case that using “mothers and parents” is linguistic nonsense. If we meant mothers and fathers we would usually say that or just “parents”. I am also against breastfeeding support and maternity care being aimed at “families”, because it is the mother who carries and births the baby and has the choice to breastfeed or not. The role of the rest of the “family” is to support her in her choices but the mother must be centred, it is her body and her prerogative.

The use of such supposedly inclusive language puts breastfeeding counsellors, peer supporters, and those working in maternity services in the position of “educating” the general public about gender identity theory and queer theory. By extension it is likely to be the perception of the general public that these theories are being promoted by those who should in fact be neutral and apolitical in order to serve the widest possible audience. As yet we don’t know how many mothers will be alienated and put off seeking support. We may risk offending, upsetting and disempowering far, far more women than the trans identifying people who are expected to benefit from the changes.

The most sensible approach is to use sex based language as default but tailor language to suit individuals where necessary. If it is deemed a reasonable use of resources then information and publications should be duplicated in the language of gender identity and queer theory to be offered to those who require it. The language of gender identity and queer theory should not be imposed on the majority.

Excellent post. Brilliantly explained.

EdgeOfACoin

Yes it is interesting that we both picked that word.

Alienation - not feeling that you belong, not feeling part of the group, feeling like an outsider. This is the opposite of how women should be feeling in relation to maternity care and breastfeeding support.

I think the link appears to be broken?

I had no problems with the links in the OP.

Regarding their choice of an image of a fully bearded mother giving birth - this mother would have had testosterone - a hormone NOT linked to health pregnancy and baby. To celebrate mother’s giving birth when they have taken hormones, with unknowns or harms to the reproductive organs and baby is insane.

Women are advised not to drink alcohol when trying for a baby - but testosterone is A OK.

This is NOT OK

I would not believe anything I read in a journal — Practising Midwifery — that celebrates taking male hormones during pregnancy.

It is disappointing about TPM, I imagine they were targeted early and fell to pressure without debate. It will be hard for them to return to a sex based approach now but not impossible. As the discussion around the vital importance of woman centred and mother centred language progresses the tide may turn even in those who fell to gender identity and queer theory so early on.

The serious problem as I see it with TPM is that they are promoting this gender identity and queer theory as the one true way to midwives who either embrace that and make it part of their practice or reject it and perhaps also reject the publication which may hinder their ongoing professional development. It should be possible to be a practising midwife and a gender heretic. The gender heretics are more likely to be pro woman.

As I recall the language of gender identity and queer theory must occur a certain number of times in every article the TPM publish. This is apparently regardless of the beliefs of the author. I would rather let each author decide on the language she uses and let it reflect her own beliefs.

@Oldtiredfedup

I think the link appears to be broken?

The DOI address may not work for a few days until CrossRef activates it.

Click on the PDF on the right hand side to open the document.

In the Twitter thread to the carousel of covers, they explicitly state that they will not respond to criticism of anything that they deem fails to be inclusive.

We are committed to representation at all levels and also to ensuring that our publications provide a safe space for all birthing people and maternity care workers to learn, care and share with one another. We do not welcome or invite any commentary that compromises these values.

It's a bit of a problem if there's no transparency about who is making that assessment and on what grounds.

Has there been any research into the effects of continuing to take testosterone during pregnancy?

I recall a friend during her first pregnancy telling me "I've never been so aware of everything that goes in my mouth". Just instinctively doing a double take on food, drink and medication.

As we know from the Eastern bloc athletes and detransitioners there are long term consequences of taking testosterone even if it is stopped. This may be true in pregnancy and birth even in cases where it is stopped prior to conception.

However rather than transmen this so called inclusive language may be aimed at those identifying as non binary which for me highlights how damaging the non binary movement is for women. I think that young women are being pushed towards non binary to their own detriment as well as that of all women and girls.

I too am pleased this is being addressed in academic journals. Those let era took incredible courage to write. What brave women. I hope they find their way to us here.

TPM is not an academic journal. It's academic lite at best. It's cute but it's not terribly robust.

I too have gone directly to Sheen Byrom & she assures me that she is committed to keeping the word woman. We shall see. I also loathe birthing person. Shudder.

A couple of years ago I dared to question the term 'pregnant people' on Twitter. I was hounded as a transphobe, natch.

My biggest issue with TPM is that it seems to be quite heavily marketed towards the student midwife population, while seeming to be professional - so students are reading it and thinking this is how all midwives are thinking. But I’m reality most midwives I’ve met don’t have time for gender nonsense, and don’t really have time to read TPM either, when it’s proper academic journals they need to keep abreast of for CPD. But we now have a situation where even sensible young women are being captured by trans ideology because they think that’s how you need to think to be a midwife.

I would not believe anything I read in a journal Practising Midwifery that celebrates taking male hormones during pregnancy.

Transmen don't continue to take testosterone during pregnancy. I think we have to get these facts right or our arguments are diminished.

Toes you're right that TPM is heavily marketed at students- and their student publication is even more rage-inducing. I worry a great deal about today's student midwives; each cohort seems more beholden to this ideology than the last. Unfortunately an ever-greater number of practising midwives are also getting onboard with it.

Transmen don't continue to take testosterone during pregnancy. I think we have to get these facts right or our arguments are diminished.

It's not unknown for transmen to experience contraceptive failure, to conceive and then to opt to continue a pregnancy or seek an abortion. If it takes some time to recognise an unplanned pregnancy (understandable with T and a history of absent or irregular menses) and depending upon the degree of transition, then it's feasible that testosterone continues.

More accurately but not sufficiently comprehensive: "Once a pregnancy is confirmed then testosterone is discontinued (there may be exceptions)"?

Family planning and contraception use in transgender men pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29944875/

Preconception, Pregnancy, Birthing, and Lactation Needs of Transgender Men pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33651985/

Also, if they've been taking testosterone, does it cease to be in the body if they stop? Considering the changes it brings about that are irreversible, is it safe for the foetus?