Milli Hill: I will not be silenced

[TheFleegleHasLanded]

I love Milli Hill’s work and know many other women on here do too. Check out her latest blog:

“But too many women have been silenced, and I don’t want to join them. There are conversations about women’s rights, women’s bodies, and the words we use to talk about women’s issues, which need to be had, but which have been made taboo in our current culture. And this is not healthy. Worse still, women like me have been used as an example to others of what happens to you if you raise questions. And others have seen these public draggings, and decided to keep quiet themselves. This kind of behaviour, in which dissidents are made a public example of in order to ensure compliance to dogma, does not have very good historical precedents. And yet it currently describes itself as ‘the right side of history’.”

www.millihill.co.uk/2021/07/10/i-will-not-be-silenced/

BIRTHRIGHTS SPECIFICALLY HELPS PEOPLE WHO ARE TRAUMATIZED. Why is it so hard to understand? Traumatised people are usually mentally fragile, yes.

You really don't have any idea what birthrights actually do, do you?

There was a time when use of euphemisms was frowned upon. I thought it was because we were a more enlightened society, promoting plain English, science and education and understanding around bodily functions. Alas it appears that time was just a passing fashion. Now speaking truth and using correct biological terminology is hate speak.

Even if a person doesn't identify as a woman they should still understand the biology of their body. To deny this is harmful. If they can't acknowledge they have breasts then how can they relate to breast cancer screening for example. Chest simply isn't good enough, waving vaguely to somewhere in the thorax. I refuse to facilitate this wilful ignorance.

It is also worth noting that professional bodies such as RCM, RCOG, NICE and the MBRRACE reports consistently refer to Women and Mothers.

www.spectator.com.au/2021/05/on-chestfeeding/

Not all mothers have become mothers through childbirth and not all mothers can breastfeed, but this does not affect the truth that mothers are made through birthing and all humans are birthed searching for a woman’s breast. Any feminist, culture or ideology that separates motherhood from these bodily processes have lost their way.
Men cannot now, nor can they ever be mothers. They cannot have female bodies, and they cannot have our mythology or matriarchal power. Any state power that compels me to say anything else is violating basic scientific knowledge, my right of belief and conscience. Any organisation that pushes another ideology to these truths, is engaging in harmful behaviour toward women.

can safely say you have zero empathy for females if they identify as trans or non binary. You've said as much.

No I haven't. I'm going to say it again: stop dishonestly putting words in my mouth, that I've "said as much".

Men cannot now, nor can they ever be mothers. They cannot have female bodies, and they cannot have our mythology or matriarchal power

Well then it's a jolly good thing that's not what Birthrights are saying then. But don't let that get in the way of you leaping on that bandwagon.

We are specifically talking about birthrights here.

And you are specifically missing the point of why Birthrights, a charity, is being criticised for the way they have behaved.

Thank you Milli. Biology isn't like religion.

Traumatised people are usually mentally fragile, yes.

You are angry at Milli because she called out Birthrights on the way they treated her. Stop deflecting. No one is going up to traumatised people and upsetting them to prove a point. We are defending women's rights.

No, we include female people including non binary people and transmen

Clearly not. Or not if it doesn't suit you, anyway

"Including" people doesn't mean subscribing to views you think are misguided, damaging and wrong.

You are angry at Milli because she called out Birthrights on the way they treated her. Stop deflecting. No one is going up to traumatised people and upsetting them to prove a point. We are defending women's rights.

I'm not angry at milli at all. God knows where you've got that from. "Don't put words in my mouth".

You're only "defending the rights" of women you agree with. When you take a step back, what it looks like to people outside your echo chamber is you attacking a charity because they say "women and birthing people" and you just want them to say women.

Thank you OP for flagging this.

I’ve bought Milli’s books today to support her, and have written to Birthrights to express my disappointment in their actions here.

I think we may just have to acknowledge the two different approaches Needapoodle.

Birthrights has chosen gender identity and queer theory.

They can offer their support to believers of that philosophy, great.

Hopefully an equivalent group will emerge to fight for the rights of women in childbirth. Perhaps Birthrights will do the decent thing and apologise to Milli for misrepresenting what she said.

What you don’t seem to understand is that this is bigger by far than Birthrights and has massive society wide implications and particularly negative ones for women and indeed babies who are rapidly being reduced to commodities along with women.

Milli Hill is one of a growing number of women who have been attacked for heresy or even being associated with a heretic Maya Forstater, Jo Rowling, Sally Grover, Gillian Philips, Jane Harris, Allison Bailey, Sasha White, Raquel Rosario Sanchez, Suzanne Moore, Tanis Gray, Ina May Gaskin, Keira Bell, Jo Phoenix, Ann Sinnott, the list goes on… heroines for some of us and evil T**Fs to others. The witch hunt continues.

It appears fruitless to discuss it further as we are coming from completely different perspectives with completely different understanding of the importance sex in protecting women’s rights during childbearing and elsewhere.

You're only "defending the rights" of women you agree with.

No I'm defending the sex based rights of all women and girls. Identity immaterial.

It appears fruitless to discuss it further as we are coming from completely different perspectives with completely different understanding of the importance sex in protecting women’s rights during childbearing and elsewhere.

I agree.

you attacking a charity because they say "women and birthing people" and you just want them to say women.

As pointed out, that isn't what they are being criticised for. Please, again, stop dishonestly putting words in my mouth that aren't what I said.

I'm not angry at milli at all.

You sounded angry at her in your first post on the thread when you dismissively blamed her "hurt feelings" for them "having" choosing to shut down their social media which they haven't done.

But fair enough, if I misinterpreted your angry post as specifically directed at Milli, apologies.

That's right, because i think birthrights haven't done anything wrong using language and helping trans and non binary people, im a fully paid up member of the gender ideology. Good one.

That's right, because i think birthrights haven't done anything wrong using language and helping trans and non binary people,

Again, that is not the criticism.

I’m off to buy Milli’s books right now. I think it’s an excellent article but there were two parts for me that stuck out:

Like other forms of violence against women, obstetric violence happens to women because they are female. What I saw happening in this slide was a genuine mix up between the absolutely correct idea that the problem here is patriarchy, a system that oppresses and damages women on the basis of their sex, and obfuscating terminology that is unable to name the oppressed people.

This shouldn’t need saying. But it apparently does and she’s said it very well. Obstetric violence is a type of violence against women and girls. It occurs, as she says, because the victims are female.

I also hope that people take time to consider why those who are being dragged to the pyre are not just women, but in most cases, lifelong left-leaning, open minded, educated and tolerant women, often with a history of supporting minority groups or working in areas concerned with justice and fairness. Either there is something in the water that has caused these usually rational and inclusive women to turn into hateful bigots overnight, or they have a point that’s worth listening to.

I have thought this many times. Jo Rowling, for example, used to be a darling of the left. She’s a woman who’s donated a huge amount of her time and money to charity and frankly has always seemed to me to be a thoroughly principled person (although I’ve never met her of course). Julie Bindel is another one - a woman who’s fought tirelessly for LGBT rights and established ‘Justice for Women’ which aims to address legal injustices for abused women.

There are many more. But did these women, these previously tolerant, liberal-minded, intelligent women who’ve fought for the rights of minoritised communities for years, suddenly turn into bigoted monsters overnight? Or maybe, alternatively, do they perhaps have a point?

This is ridiculous. The idea that an ideology that is already damaging to women, should be further adhered on behalf of those same women, is just ludicrous.

Women who identify as non-binary or men, have already been affected by a damaging ideology. Wanting to opt out of female hood or motherhood.

Unless of course, one is subscribing to the fact that it's a lifestyle choice. In which case knock yourself out, but don't expect to change language wholesale on the back of it.

@StMarysKettle

This is really interesting. When accused of transphobia GC feminists are all... No, we include female people including non binary people and transmen

Clearly not. Or not if it doesn't suit you, anyway

But self described non binary people people who are physically able to give birth, and transmen ARE biological women, so of course they are included when talking about birthing. By GC feminists and most of the population. I dont get what you are saying here.

@Needapoodle

Women don't "identify as women". We are women. No "identifying" needed. We're tiptoeing around the ideology here, but males cannot give birth, and no one is neither male nor female. Only women can give birth. Woman is simply the term for an adult human female. Nothing more and nothing less.

I've seen and heard all these arguments before. I've been here a long time under various names. You feel that way, not everyone does. You've just adequately proven that you don't centre women who don't identify as such. Their feelings are less important than yours.

Woman is not an identity. I don't share your apparent belief in this religion/ideology.

Great post, @Datun.

There is resistance on this thread that including the words trans, NB or 'birthing people' is ideological. No, we're told, it's not ideological at all. It's just empathy. It's just politesse. Some women identify as non-women, and everyone else should make sure this is clearly sounded out, every time we're talking maternity experiences or rights, by sticking extra words onto 'women' every time we use the word.

Of course it's ideological....it mixes up the sexed meaning of 'women' (which certainly includes trans and NB) with the gendered meaning of 'birthing people'. That blurring of the distinction - no, the erasure of the distinction - between sex and gender prevents us, all of us, working to challenge sex-based violence, discrimination, unfairness, inequality, harms of all sorts, not just within the maternity services but everywhere.

Women who have been profoundly harmed by their birth experiences need sensitive, individualised , care. As do women who prefer to identify not as women - they have their reasons, and some of those reasons may have their origins in harm, too. No one should 'misgender' them during their care if it compounds this harm.

But please don't tell me it's not part of an ideology, and one that has wider significance than women's birth experiences.

This is why I will continue to defend the rights of women to keep the words woman / women and why I will not be told that nobody is taking those words away.

This is why I am not going to 'centre' others in my speech at the expense of women and girls.

Time was, I would have accepted Women's organisations compromising with "women and..." but this right here is why I now feel I can't.

Women are getting the blame for this crime. If a prison sentence is given, it will be served in a women's prison, alongside women who have been abused. The victims of this crime will be compelled to say a woman abused them.

I have been slowly backed into this corner, to take this stance, by people who do not care about women and girls. And now I'm saying no. For women. For girls. No.

Ah, another person being "silenced" all across the media! Seems to be a very lucrative little grift.