"Women and birthing people"

[ICouldHaveCheckedFirst]

I heard that phrase on R4 this morning, spoken by a consultant midwife.
She used the word "woman" or "women" several times, and only once used the above phrase.
Is this a way of keeping everybody happy?

@NecessaryScene

It's like "Christians and Catholics", or "British and Scottish", or "athletes and swimmers", or "dogs and Labradors".

I'm sure there are lots of Scottish people who don't like being called British, but we don't use such formulations like that to satisfy them.

We use the all-encompassing word that directly fits the concept we're looking for.

Every "birthing person" is a woman, and to suggest otherwise is kind of offensive.

Really good point.

We don't say 'British and Scottish people' to appease the feelings of Scottish nationalists who believe Scotland should be independent. Such wording would only be appropriate if Scotland factually became a separate political entity from the United Kingdom, as defined by objective criteria.

I used to think that the addition was tbe more inclusive thing.

However thinking about it I have changed my mind as I now view it as being complicit in an ideology thats causing women and girls harm. And healthcare is one of the top issues women face. Being treated as small men and drs not knowing the differences in symptoms women may exhibit. With women facing issues such as battery/assult and mishandled birth , alongside the higher maternal mortality rates faced by Black women , I feel the language should not be tampered with. Anything that hides what happens to women at these times by even hinting it happens to someone else other than women shouldn't be allowed. Problems.dont go away because you remove or mangle the words to describe them.

I also feel that medical staff should not be placed in the position of being unable to be as clear as they would like when having to deliver news that requires difficult choices in courses of action.

I.also wonder how the insurance policies would work if it turned out that the information wasn't as clear as it should be. Would they even be covered if it turned out they'd been misleading about the demographic facing the issues.

@NecessaryScene

It's like "Christians and Catholics", or "British and Scottish", or "athletes and swimmers", or "dogs and Labradors".

I'm sure there are lots of Scottish people who don't like being called British, but we don't use such formulations like that to satisfy them.

We use the all-encompassing word that directly fits the concept we're looking for.

Every "birthing person" is a woman, and to suggest otherwise is kind of offensive.

This. It is totally superfluous.

It could also be seen to be implying that women aren’t “people”?

There are unintended consequences when these things aren’t properly thought through.

I don’t agree with it for two reasons: firstly, it doesn’t make sense as explained by NecessaryScene and others above; secondly, and more importantly, it promotes an ideology - that ‘woman’ is a gender identity. It’s not.

Therefore, I’d prefer a footnote explaining the (correct) use of women on things like Maternity leaflets. Something along the lines of “Women is being used as a sex-based term to refer to all females”.

I don't get the problem with "women and birthing parents". Women aren't being ignored, and people who themselves don't identify as a woman, but are pregnant are covered and are (presumably) happy (if they're not - i don't know what to say to them)

The fact is that the vast vast majority of people who are having a baby are women so it makes no sense not to use the word. Also there are other issues around things like learning difficulties and language issues that means that language, where possible should be as plain and inclusive as it can.

If women don't like having the "birthing parents" being appended - why? why is that? Is it the utter belief that people can't adopt a different gender? is it to wind people up? what is it that annoys you so much about a little bit of inclusion that you can't just blank that out?

To be clear - i am not in favour of only "birthing people" or any other thing that clearly involves women ignoring the word "woman" but i don't get why it is so necessary not to include other people in this?

I don't get the problem with "women and birthing parents". Women aren't being ignored, and people who themselves don't identify as a woman, but are pregnant are covered and are (presumably) happy (if they're not - i don't know what to say to them)

You don't have babies with an identity though. You have them with your seed bodies.

What is the word for the class of people that have babies. The adult human females.

Is there a collective word fir that group ?

@GoWalkabout

I think it's fine, clear and inclusive.

Yes, it's fine by me.

It's a sign that organisations are now just as worried about the blowback they'll get if they eliminate the word "woman" as they are about the blowback from continuing to use it.

Whilst I can see why people find it annoying the danger of not accepting the compromise is that the organisation concerned thinks "oh well, if they're not happy anyway we might as well just go back to saying "birthing people" exclusively". Plus there is a benefit for GC people in showing themselves as the reasonable compromisers as opposed to TRA "nothing is good enough."

My point exactly @HPFA

"Birthing people" is a ridiculous phrase. Because if it's the giving birth that's important, why not "birthing women and men?" Or "birthing women, men and non-binary people?" - which is a hell of a mouthful, admittedly.

Or is it only the "people" who are giving birth, not the women?

If women don't like having the "birthing parents" being appended - why?

It's the "and". It's the implication that "women" is not an inclusive term. It suggests "women" means something other than adult human females. And it's not clear what. Certainly you're not intending to include "transwomen", right?

You're mixing two sorts of language in a single clause. You're not describing two different groups, but you're framing it as if they are. It makes no more sense than "women and frauen".

And how do you keep it up? If you had to include the "and birthing people" the first time next to the first "woman", you have to include it every time, unless you're changing the meaning of "woman" mid-document.

Some sort of footnote, or bracketed clause the first time you use "woman" to indicate that this includes all female humans, regardless of gender identity, then lets the rest of the document flow. Define terms well, once, and the rest of the document is clearer.

If someone wants a document in Genderese (or German), then that's a separate translation. Putting "and birthing people" or "and frauen" next to every "woman" in the English version is daft.

Conversely, if the document is intended to be Genderese, then it wouldn't make sense to put "birthing people and women" everywhere either. Just "birthing people" is fine.

I am a midwife, the day a man comes I and gives birth I will change my language, for him and him only.
Until then it’s women WOMEN Women.

I've no issue with this. I don't care how people view their own gender, I care about how that view impacts women.

Women give birth. People who do not view themselves as women also give birth sometimes. Saying both, for me, does not diminish the role of women here.

In general, I would be happier with a third space available in any matter that is (or should be...) sex segregated. This feels like a sort of linguistic third space, though I would prefer 'women and OTHER birthing people' to 'women and birthing people'.

what is it that annoys you so much about a little bit of inclusion that you can't just blank that out?

Who exactly is being excluded by using the word "women" in the context of maternity healthcare?

Every single person who is pregnant right now is a woman. Every single human on this planet, and all those who have ever lived, came out of a woman.

Vets don't have to waste time with double think in order to describe cases as "mares and other foaling equines".

In all this new terminology where is the logic?

You cannot possibly identify as a male and still want to do the most female thing of carrying, giving birth to and then breastfeed a baby/babies. A bloke can't do those things. They just can't?!

Erasing the word woman/mother/female etc erodes our voice in- and removes us as women from- the only thing that throughout history has ever really been ours.

Does anyone in this new-era even know the first thing about female oppression and the male mindset that has been the dominant culture for the last few thousand years? (There were some ancient civilisations that were matriarchal)

I left midwifery about 7 years ago when all this never even existed, I've always missed practice, but now I'm just relieved to be out of this ridiculous nonsense.

People are people, yes, we all have human rights, of course yes, but where are the rights of women in this silly, pandering rhetoric?

The only 'birthing people' are women. As far as I'm concerned, slipping in 'women and.,.' because it feels kind and inclusive, is how we got into this mess in the first place.

@Piapiano

In fact, that begs the question. Why don't they use the term "birthing man" instead of "birthing person"?

Oh I know. Because it highlights the cognitive dissonance.

Or because non-binary people exist.

Tbh I don’t mind “Women AND birthing people.” It’s a compromise I’d be happy to make if it enabled the word women not to disappear.

@LatteLatteLatte I thought the same about blokes and giving birth, then discovered a journalist who claims to be a trans man who had a baby (and wants a second) no idea at all how that works!

Can someone on this thread define what they actually mean by ‘erasing’. Like, the word ‘woman’ is right there, it’s being used, it’s a regular and accepted and common term. How is this erasure? What does erasure mean in this context?

I know anti-TRAs love that phrase ‘words have meanings’, and yet it seems to me the word ‘erased’ has come to mean ‘used in conjunction with additional terms which allow the discussion to be more inclusive’. So, do ‘words have meanings’ unless it’s you redefining them to make your point…?

There are no birthing people other than women. When you agree to language that implies otherwise, you agree to change the meaning of the word.

@JapanJetplane

Can someone on this thread define what they actually mean by ‘erasing’. Like, the word ‘woman’ is right there, it’s being used, it’s a regular and accepted and common term. How is this erasure? What does erasure mean in this context?

I know anti-TRAs love that phrase ‘words have meanings’, and yet it seems to me the word ‘erased’ has come to mean ‘used in conjunction with additional terms which allow the discussion to be more inclusive’. So, do ‘words have meanings’ unless it’s you redefining them to make your point…?

The House of Lords had to intervene recently to insist that the word "mother" be used in maternity leave legislation.

That is what is meant by "erasing".

Thanks to those that answered my question,

I am still confused by all the objections. If the phrase "woman and birthing parents" with a footnote that from now the word woman will be a stand-in for the full expression (pretty much how in German, a gendered language, the word men "is understood to include everyone but for ease of language only men is used" kind of thing) I'm ok with that but i can understand how people who don't identify as women wouldn't like that (as i don't like the German way of doing that)

But the argument that the word woman is being erased, when that phrase is used, isn't happening, is it? What that phrase does (and it could be seen as provocative in certain circles) is make the TRA argument to not use the word women at all because it excludes, invalid. Because people who are pregnant who do not identify as women ARE being included. It does, in fact, make further protestation by TRAs easier to rebut. Or not?

But, i think i may be understanding the trans-issue (if that isn't insulting as an expression) differently. Because i divide it into gender - and gender is a stupid social construct that I'd happily consign to the bin of history and everyone is a person. So maybe I should bow out and let others discuss?

I am not happy for anyone to feel they are being erased or disregarded or ignored.

Why are so called progressives so intent on making sure the word woman is never left alone, always has to either be qualified to include transmen or obliterated altogether to refer to bodily functions. Cervix haver, birthing body etc.

Why are these same progressives really happy to refer to rapists and murderers as just men? Shouldn't that word also be qualified to include transwomen or obliterated to refer to just a body part or function? Prostate bearer, dick forcer etc.

If the tiny percentage of transmen who bafflingly decide to give birth can trouble the whole concept of pregnant woman, why can't the small percentage of transwomen who rape or murder trouble the concept of violent men?

Or because non-binary people exist.

Sam Smith is non-binary.

Is it at all possible that Sam Smith could get pregnant and birth a child?

If not, why not?