"Birthing people"

[crispytowel]

I just saw on Instagram a post about "birthing people". A long post, from a respected professional, a perinatal psychologist. The post is about the new NICE Guidelines re induction but mentions the word "woman" only once. A couple of people commented negatively on it and I felt compelled to do so too as it really upset me to see that EVERYONE has decided that this is ok. I commented with a quote from an article from Susanna Rustin and immediately got called "transphobic". I subsequently deleted my comment cause I felt there was t really a safe space to put my opinion forward but also because I didn't feel like I was articulating my point properly. What do you think about the term? And is there any good article/book:resource I can look into? I don't know if I'm gender critical or not, I just hate the idea of abolishing the reality of women's body and what they represent.
Many thanks!

Yup, it’s definitely the way it’s going… I work in maternity services and I’m hearing ‘pregnant people’ and ‘birthing parent’ a lot more lately. I don’t mind ‘women and pregnant people’ and ‘mums and birthing parents’, but I do have an issue with the erasure of the words woman, women and mother from the discourse!

I feel as if it's something that is justified on the basis that it includes transmen but is actually more about not pissing off a particular brand of narcissistic transwoman who can't countenance there being an aspect of womanhood they can't try on.

What is a 'birthing person'? Someone who is currently giving birth? It seems like you wouldn't use it in many circumstances other than when talking about the specific events of giving birth?

E.g. I don't see it as a problem if it's a textbook saying 'the birthing person will need X at Y stage of birth'.
It's weird if it's used to describe anyone that isn't actively birthing though.

Bit like 'menstruators'. I think not great but fine in context of talking specifically about menstrual products or something happening during menstruation 'the menstruator might find X symptoms' or 'this product is designed for menstruators with a heavy flow'. But not 'we have created a special pink Biro for menstruators' etc.

I know most posters on here disagree with me though. Maybe I'll change my mind!

Bingo @Anycrispsleft

I feel as if it's something that is justified on the basis that it includes transmen but is actually more about not pissing off a particular brand of narcissistic transwoman who can't countenance there being an aspect of womanhood they can't try on.

Yep

I would understand birthing person to mean midwife (if I didn't know).

Loads of people won't understand what it means, surely?

It also evokes I suppose labour and vaginal delivery.

I know there are plenty of people who say a woman who has a CS 'hasn't given birth' and this language seems to feed into it?

What contexts? It would indicate surely the part where you're well. About to give birth. So not in Labour etc.

It also ties in with the language changes around surrogacy that dehumanise the woman having the baby.

I don't think that's a coincidence.

These people reject the premise that surrounding the bodily function of birthing is an entire human being.

No one ever wants to say 'females' instead of all this cervix haver/menstruator/lactater nonsense. You could have 'pregnant women and other pregnant females' but that's triggering, what with it drawing attention to an actual, and very uncomfortable, scientific fact.

I saw a petition online calling for better maternity care for women of colour but it forgot to use the word 'women' after the first sentence and it put me off signing it tbh. I'm looking for another one to sign now.

It's so insulting. And I agree, it's not about trans or non binary females who are having the babies and the smear tests and the periods, it's about the sort of transwoman who is throwing a strop about something involving women, in which she cannot be included.

It's got so ridiculous OP that I found myself cheering when a post from Maternal Mental Health Alliance popped up on my Twitter mentioning support for WOMEN and families.

Reducing women to their functions is disgusting and ignores the whole person and the phases of a woman's life. Birthing person? At what point is a woman a birthing person? I would say if she is being induced she isn't a birthing person until at least she has gone into established labour. So to use the phrase in the context of guidelines for induction seems inaccurate as well as inappropriate.

twitter.com/mmhalliance/status/1410138534279843842?s=21

And when they want to present an article about post partum psychosis are journals such as "Archives of Women's Mental Health" to be renamed? What name would encompass not just the "birthing" period but the post "birthing" period and other phases of a woman's life?

We no longer talk about the appendix in bed eight in the NHS and we shouldn't be talking about the birthing person in bed eight either. It must be resisted.

Also, thinking about it, using this terminology - imposing this terminology - undoubtedly suits a certain misogynistic paternalism that should have been consigned to the past.

Obstetrics has lots of quite precise terminology, much of which can be well understood without specific medical knowledge eg antenatal, post natal, perinatal, premature. To use birthing person is completely medically illiterate as it gives no clue as to the stage the woman is with regard to pregnancy and childbirth.

For instance on an antenatal Ward there could be a woman threatening premature labour at 26/40. The one thing that woman doesn't want is to be a birthing person. What term should be used for her?
Or a woman who is overdue, with prolonged rupture of membranes, admitted for observation and possibly induction. She demonstrably isn't yet a birthing person so how to refer to her?

It's insulting nonsense that needs to be challenged.

Do you have a link or a screen shot please @crispytowel

Our local maternity facilities are housed in a building with massive letters on top.... 'womens health centre' and I always wonder about this when I read the discussion. (The missing apostrophe distresses me but I let them off for being so brave in their use of women).

I'm pregnant. I haven't seen this language often, fortunately, but it crops up from time to time and I hate it. 'Birthing person' - makes me sound like I'm going to be brood mare. Even the odd hypnobirthing practitioner uses it, which does nothing for my blood pressure, tension levels or sense of relaxation (opposite to hypnobirthing practice).

I am happy with 'woman in labour' or 'labouring woman'. Pregnancy and childbirth are uniquely female experiences, and I'm tired of the pretence that it isn't. It feels like gaslighting. If transmen and non-binary ovary-havers do not wish to be perceived and treated as female, perhaps they should consider whether they wish to undergo this particular experience. And if they are prepared to come off testosterone and undergo pregnancy and childbirth, perhaps we can all agree their gender dysphoria is sufficiently under control to accept that they are biologically female, and there is no need to change our language.

The notion that men (ie male-bodied people) can give birth is a lie.

@FannyCann

Also, thinking about it, using this terminology - imposing this terminology - undoubtedly suits a certain misogynistic paternalism that should have been consigned to the past.

Obstetrics has lots of quite precise terminology, much of which can be well understood without specific medical knowledge eg antenatal, post natal, perinatal, premature. To use birthing person is completely medically illiterate as it gives no clue as to the stage the woman is with regard to pregnancy and childbirth.

For instance on an antenatal Ward there could be a woman threatening premature labour at 26/40. The one thing that woman doesn't want is to be a birthing person. What term should be used for her?
Or a woman who is overdue, with prolonged rupture of membranes, admitted for observation and possibly induction. She demonstrably isn't yet a birthing person so how to refer to her?

It's insulting nonsense that needs to be challenged.

Do you have a link or a screen shot please @crispytowel

Screenshots

Why did you delete your comment?

The whole you're transphobic thing is only used to shut people down. Tell them they're wasting their time because that crap doesn't work on you. Seems to shut them up mostly.

That screenshot text is awful. What does "who exactly" mean after the fertility treatment comment? The comments about being "below par or faulty" are actually fucking vile and show no understanding of why couples might undergo fertility treatment.

Why is trans status the only thing that might mean one's body is traumatised? Not a single thought for the disabled or those with chronic illnesses.

Yet more marginalisation.

Such dehumanising language.

I’m pregnant. And autistic.
If I encounter any of this ambiguous unintelligible language from services IRL, I’m going to request they use plain English as a Reasonable Adjustment. Because it’s categorically not ‘inclusive’ for those with language processing or learning difficulties.

It’s taken me until well into adulthood to feel like I’ve grasped the rules of language and social engagement to the extent of being able to function confidently out in the world and I’m damned if they’re going to pull the rug out from under me now.

Of course this language needs to be challenged from all angles but hopefully my personal experience with it might make somebody somewhere think.

This language is not inclusive of the vast majority of women giving birth in the UK.

It is language specific to a minority belief system and should not be being imposed on the majority, many of whom will experience it as alienating and confusing. Some of us experience the language of gender identity and queer theory as hostile and oppressive. There needs to be a serious rethink on this.

First of all we need some robust data on how many babies are born each year to those who have a preference for the language of gender identity and queer theory. Then we can decide if we want to create resources specifically tailored for their needs.

Of the roughly 650, 000 births each year in England and Wales how many are to those who do not consider themselves to be women or mothers?

We know that women centred language is a crucial part of women centred care. Both sides of this debate on language can agree that the language we use is important. The message we give when the language used in maternity services is focusing on anatomy, processes or people other than the woman is that the woman comes secondary. She does not and she should not.

Not parents, not families, not people, but the woman who is the centre of her own pregnancy, her own birth and her own mothering experience.

@FannyCann

Also, thinking about it, using this terminology - imposing this terminology - undoubtedly suits a certain misogynistic paternalism that should have been consigned to the past.

Obstetrics has lots of quite precise terminology, much of which can be well understood without specific medical knowledge eg antenatal, post natal, perinatal, premature. To use birthing person is completely medically illiterate as it gives no clue as to the stage the woman is with regard to pregnancy and childbirth.

For instance on an antenatal Ward there could be a woman threatening premature labour at 26/40. The one thing that woman doesn't want is to be a birthing person. What term should be used for her?
Or a woman who is overdue, with prolonged rupture of membranes, admitted for observation and possibly induction. She demonstrably isn't yet a birthing person so how to refer to her?

It's insulting nonsense that needs to be challenged.

Do you have a link or a screen shot please @crispytowel

Oh do stop with your scientific precision and practical accuracy. Some men are feeling hurt and left out, don't you know!

I am happy with 'woman in labour' or 'labouring woman'. Pregnancy and childbirth are uniquely female experiences, and I'm tired of the pretence that it isn't. It feels like gaslighting. If transmen and non-binary ovary-havers do not wish to be perceived and treated as female, perhaps they should consider whether they wish to undergo this particular experience. And if they are prepared to come off testosterone and undergo pregnancy and childbirth, perhaps we can all agree their gender dysphoria is sufficiently under control to accept that they are biologically female, and there is no need to change our language.

EdgeOfACoin this totally sums up my feelings. Hope you don't mind me stealing it for future use?

It’s very important. We need to keep fighting back and making it clear that it is not ok to erase the word “women” from the female biological experience.

“When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty”

EdgeOfACoin this totally sums up my feelings. Hope you don't mind me stealing it for future use?

Be my guest, Greencoatblue!

What are men called in this weird-speak? The birthing parent was supported by the ejaculatory parent?

I would be upset to be referred to as the "birthing parent" but not half as upset as my husband would be were his role to be reduced to the fact that he ejaculated nine months earlier.