"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!

I think men are still called dad, father, partner, husband.

Gender identity theory is inherently misogynistic.

I have never yet seen the term inseminating parent, impregnating parent or any variation thereof used in any official literature. For some reason it isn’t seen as a way of being more inclusive to trans and non-binary identifying sperm producers, not sure why…

@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.

In a nutshell

The problem with saying 'women and pregnant people' is that it creates ambiguity.

First of all, woman is the sexed noun we have for an adult human female.

"People" is a sex neutral term for humans, (adults and children also sex-neutral) of any age.

So saying 'women and birthing people', are they saying that others besides the sexually mature females are giving birth? Common sense would say 'no' because males of any age and females who are not yet sexually mature or females beyond menopause do not give birth.

The other possibility is that 'women' and 'birthing people' are being used in the gendered (Queer theory) sense of the words. And reproduction is a sexed activity, not a gendered one.

But if you want to pretend that genders give birth then that raises another bunch of ambiguity.

Except QT adherents say that 'not only women give birth' meaning who? Does this then include trans women? Because, you know, TWAW. But we know that males who identify as trans do not have the capacity to give birth and trans men actually have the capacity to give birth yet, TWAM. But is trans men are 'men' and men don't give birth... I don't know, it is a muddle.

Then what is the purpose of saying 'birthing people' who are they? Toddlers, grandads? Great aunt Effie? Are they trans men? Then why not say women and trans men? Then why not say trans men then?

Finally, are they using 'women' in a sexed way and 'birthing people' in a gendered way? Documents in maternity care is once more dealing with a sexed activity and sex takes priority over gender for the vast majority of service users.

While trans identifying females need to have specialist attentions from care teams looking after them, the majority of their care falls under the same procedures of the rest of women and the care teams pick up the specialist issues they present on an individual basis.

Why are the specialist care they deserve not being dealt with on a case to case basis as needed instead of it rising to the status on par with the rest of the woman-centred care they deserve?

No general policy statements include care for 'women and women who were raped' care protocols or 'women and women who live with disability' or women and women who experience drug abuse, domestic violence, and so on repeated ad nauseum because 'women' serves them all. They have also deserve to have their specialist care plans but the vast part of their care is done within the services that all women deserve. Similarly trans men are another demographic of woman.

Feelings are not the centre of policy documents and press releases. Clarity and relevance are.

@BeastOfBODMAS

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.

Not inclusive for ND people Not inclusive for those with learning disabilities Not inclusive for those with limited literacy Not inclusive for people with English as a second language

See, I can make lists too. Funny how “inclusive” now only means “inclusive of gender identity”.

Thank you ixqik, you put that brilliantly.

birthing people? Sounds like you're talking about your children: " When I am birthing people I like to listen to Mozart. I have birthed six people this far".

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.

This is beautifully put and I’ll also be saving this for future argument @EdgeOfACoin!

Here is an old article that brought up this topic already and is still relevant.

"neutralising language is not a neutral act."

QUOTE: If one looks at how gender functions, not as a means of self-definition, but as a class system, the gender-neutral pregnancy starts to feel akin to John Major’s “classless society”. It’s a way of using language to create the illusion of dismantling a hierarchy when what you really end up doing is ignoring it. Pregnancy is a gendered experience, not because pregnant individuals necessarily feel like women, but because the pregnant body is externally managed within the context of its subordinate sex class status. Because if it had a different status, “abortion [and free birthing choices, epidurals and caesareans on demand, investment into more and better pregnancy care etc.] would be a sacrament.” We need a way of talking about this which is permitted to prioritise the sex-class reading of gender over the identity-based one, not as way of excluding people, but as a way of naming what happens to them and others in the context of class-based oppression. UNQUOTE

AAHHHH, they've moved into another level of dissociating women and reducing them to components. I give you: 'birthing bodies' and 'body feeding'.

There is a special place in hell for users of these.

Name changed for this.

My work (university) did this, it was what actually peaked me. Ours used expectant parents. I pointed out that that would also include my DH as he too was an expectant parent yet he had not been impacted nearly as much as me by the physical or psychological impact of four pregnancies.

I raised the issue at the time that we had a 23% sex pay gap that pregnancy and return to work policies no doubt contributed to. Without being able to name the problems affecting women’s career progression, how can they possible address them.

I also raised the fact that it was ambiguous terminology that is not consistent with the equality act 2010, the HSE guidance for pregnancy or RCOG guidelines, all of which use the word woman.

The policy is less bad a talks about pregnant individuals now rather than expectant parents.

As someone who has had several pregnancy losses I also raised that expectant parents was problematic for me as I wasn’t necessarily expecting to become a parent, the reason I needed a risk assessment was due to pregnancy and because I am a woman.

Oh and on a works request form it asks how many men a required to use equipment!

Ignore me, wrong thread

Thanks for the screen shots OP.

I've been having a look at the NICE guidelines referred to by the psychologist / Instagram account holder.

www.nice.org.uk/news/article/nice-recommends-inducing-women-in-labour-earlier-in-new-draft-guidance

NICE consistently refer to WOMEN, as well as to "women of black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds, women with a BMI over 30, and women aged over 35 years."

This psychologist then rages about the "singling out and othering of black and brown birthing bodies".

Even worse than "birthing people".

Honestly I despair. I really can't be bothered to engage but I think it's disgraceful and also ignorant.

Thee is plenty of statistical evidence that black women have worse birth outcomes (and much worse in the USA, but this is NICE in the U.K.). NICE are recommending more research, to tackle this health inequality.

"The NICE independent advisory guideline committee also recommended that more research should be done to establish at what gestational age induction of labour should be offered in the groups of women who may be more likely to experience adverse outcomes if their pregnancy continues. These groups include women of black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds, women with a BMI over 30, and women aged over 35 years."

I think it's probably best that psychologists stick to their psychology and leave the obstetrics to obstetricians who are concerned with the health and birth outcomes of women and their babies. I found the guidelines (which are in fact DRAFT guidelines, open for consultation) to be generally reassuring and the whole point of NICE is that they review the research to come up with appropriate guidelines that take into account current research.

Forgot the screen shots.

There have been scandals relating to poor care and disastrous outcomes at several hospitals and no doubt the NICE guidelines are part of an overall attempt to improve maternity care and reduce stillbirth rates nationwide.

"report’s recommendations including the potential benefits of a standard third-trimester scan, increased funding of £200m-350m a year for maternity services and a focus on the difference in outcomes for black, Asian and ethnic minority women."

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/06/a-cascade-of-catastrophic-failings-the-uks-baby-death-scandals

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.

Absolutely agree. Just a small group of males with their male entitlement with no concerns for women and girls are pushing these agendas often driven from anger and seems at times hatred

One of those screenshots...

'it does matter how birthing people birth'

🙄

And anyway

You don't 'birth'

You give birth.

Even if you're dead set on this dehumanising language then why not

People who are in Labour/ people who are pregnant/ people giving birth might want to...

Etc.

Birthing is not a word here is it. In general use. It sounds all wrong.

Identifying groups at statistically higher risk in order to look after them more carefully... Is othering?

So don't identify those who are at higher risk and keep a closer eye on them??!!

I was induced and it was a shit show.

I think induction guidelines, what the results are for both the baby and the mother, including ALL injuries both physical and psychological for the woman. Needs a really good look at.

And of course the higher risk women should have their data looked into especially carefully.

That's not othering FGS.

That's the shittest argument for looking into induction that I've ever heard.