"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?

@Floisme

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.

I agree. And when I hear 'birthing people' I hear a number of things, none of which I can state here.

However I accept that there are people who sincerely hold these beliefs and have asked for their choice of wording to be used. I can tolerate that if my own choice of word is also there and equally included. Mutual tolerance is the way to go with this. We all have different beliefs, we all need different things, everyone's diversity is met and it's never a case of one wins and one loses.

Frankly at the moment, I feel that's important because if it is a case of winners and losers then inevitably the losers will be women, and that to me is a massive, massive problem. The push back is only in its earliest stages and we're trying to achieve it following years of carefully planned campaigning to separate the concept of women from biology regardless of the harms done to women in the process.

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?

A" woman " identity has no definition though. No one is able to explain what these identities actually are. How will anyone know of they have one or not if the terms aren't actually defined

If you cant define terms then they have no business being considered in making these suggestions/policies.

Woman just means adult human female. It denotes the sex/age class of the species we are talking about.

If you include people who don't identify as women/men then you need to include non circular definitions of the terms you are talking about or its just adding confusion at what could already he a difficult and vulnerable time

What does it mean to 'identify' as a woman?

I thought I was a woman on the basis that I was an adult human female (like transmen are).

However, if 'woman' does not mean that, how do I know I am a woman? Please can someone set out the criteria by which I can know for certain?

@Piapiano

Only women can give birth so it doesn't make me happy. I don't understand why a transman who was pregnant would be happy to be called a birthing (ie female) person but not a woman or mother. Men can't give birth.

It strikes me that if you are pregnant it's pretty strong evidence that you aren't actually living as a man.

Why are these same progressives really happy to refer to rapists and murderers as just men?

I can only speak for me. I am talking purely around this phrase, and others, that use "woman [and other people who have this thing but don't identify as women]". I am not talking about self ID or anything else.

Because not using the word woman, when talking about say, pregnancy, would be erasure and daft. But it is a small kindness to add "& other birthing people" for those that don't identify as women. (for me it's like gay-marriage takes nothing away from other kinds of marriage, it expands it to others)

I was fully benind the HoL action to get the word mother put in the maternity bill, it is utterly ridiculous to leave it out.

But it is a small kindness to add "& other birthing people" for those that don't identify as women. (for me it's like gay-marriage takes nothing away from other kinds of marriage, it expands it to others)

Then it needs defining surely?

A pregnant women asks the midwives " how do I know of I'm.a woman or something else what are the identity criteria"

What would that midwife say.

But it is a small kindness to add "& other birthing people" for those that don't identify as women. (for me it's like gay-marriage takes nothing away from other kinds of marriage, it expands it to others)

It takes away neutrality from the word 'woman'. Essentially, it imposes on women a bunch of implicit characteristics and stereotypes that have nothing to do with biological sex. If one 'identifies' as a woman now, it is no longer purely about biological reality.

Surrendering the word 'woman' and accepting it has a meaning other than adult human female isn't a consequence-free act of kindness.

Again agree. It's the difference in view.

If you believe that the term 'man' means a biological reality, then yes, to get pregnant is not compatible with living as a man.

If you believe (no comment upon this) that the term 'man' is divorced from all biological realities, anyone can have any body with any formation and reproductive potential and the word 'man' is about appearance and expression.... it's very confused because it is involving a whole lot of stereotypical thinking and in denial that the appearance is based on a belief in biological reality. But it means you can say that you can be a man who gets pregnant and some men get pregnant and that sex is a choice and anyone can be anything.

Many women hate this because we have spent our lives fighting restrictive, oppressive stereotypes to teach our children any female person can be, look, do, like anything they like - sex is just the body, you have no role or self expression limits.

This seeks to shove women back in their box again.

Yes, I have strong feelings about this. I agree that it has not helped to surrender the word 'women' at all, with hindsight we should have been a hell of a lot less patient and kind about nine years ago and refused from the start. But right now we're fighting to have the word 'women' for females used at all . Spot the sex based reality for women in there.

A pregnant women asks the midwives " how do I know of I'm.a woman or something else what are the identity criteria"

the point being if you are asking a midwife how you know you're a woman, the answer cannot be "because you're pregnant". I'm a woman but i can't get pregnant. So the definition of woman isn't "someone who can get pregnant". And so on.

And what these discussions often come down to is something that very few, if any, people can actually answer: what is it to be a woman?

I know that I'm a woman because - well, actually i have no idea. I feel like me, but not all women feel like me. When I'm standing on the terrace with a beer in my hand shouting at an opposing forward who has taken out our goalie and not been penalised i am exactly the same as the rest of the crowd around me. 80% of which look like men. Probably all of them identify as men. But why, when we are sharing that feeling in that moment, shouldn't they identify as women? Because at that moment they are feeling just like me. Except they aren't.

It is a never ending and very interesting discussion. As an undergrad (PPE) i once had to write an essay on "what is it like to be a bat" and frankly, that is as unanswerable to anyone as it is to answer the question what is it that makes me a woman.

So yes, i want the word woman to be used (not least because people with learning difficulties and language difficulties can'T always relate to the "people with a cervix should get an annual smear test") but i have no issues around other people being included in that.

Nobody on these boards has ever said the definition of a woman is 'someone who can get pregnant'. Ever.

However, only women (and girls who have been through puberty) can get pregnant.

only people who were born women can get pregnant. But if they don't identify as a woman they are still pregnant but aren't a woman.

Look, I'm not trans and frankly i really don't know why anyone would want to exchange male privilege to be a woman, but obviously some people do. And for those people i think we need to be inclusive.

Frothing TRAs? not so much.

but you're being a bit disingenuous. Because the question was what is the answer to a woman who asks a midwife how they know they're a woman or something else. And I specifically said that in that instance the answer isn't that they are pregnant.

I think I wouldn’t mind so much if there was some honesty about the philosophical belief aspect of the phrase and if we who work or volunteer in maternity and breastfeeding support, and those accessing those services could choose to use the language which reflects our beliefs.

For me “and birthing people”, “and birthing families”, etc are superfluous, unnecessary for communicating and so like a superstition or religious belief. It is like tacking “touch wood” or “God willing” on to the end of every sentence.

Fine, if you believe in using that language use it. However those of us who don’t should not be accused of being unkind or bigoted or shamed or pressured, we should not be harassed into compelled speech.

As other said to add “and birthing people” implies a belief in gender ideology or acceptance that it is the orthodox view. It changes the meaning of the word woman into a lifestyle choice rather than an inescapable fact.

I prefer the BPAS approach of using the word woman in general communication but creating specific resources for those who prefer gender neutral language. More organisations should take this truly inclusive approach instead of excluding all of us who believe that sex is real, matters and cannot be changed.

There is enough room in this world for a variety of beliefs and a variety of organisations to serve different communities. We should not all have to homogenise into one big glitter party of gender identity/queerness where no other groups can have specific needs recognised or met.

For me “and birthing people”, “and birthing families”, etc are superfluous, unnecessary for communicating and so like a superstition or religious belief. It is like tacking “touch wood” or “God willing” on to the end of every sentence.

Exactly! And why is gender ideology the religion that gets mentioned in a healthcare setting?

I'd have thought being strict practicing Jehova's Witness or Muslim would have greater implications for care requirements. Why no special phrases for people with these beliefs?

How would it be if gender was never ever specified?

There's an interesting novel - Woman On The Edge Of Time - that sort of touches on this. But not being used to the non-gendered language makes it seem a bit clunky.

@Brefugee I just wanted to applaud your clear and balanced posts. I’m definitely much more to the TRA side than you (eg I don’t think the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act needed to use the terms mother or woman), but I feel that we could have a constructive and civil discussion. Interesting to see you also studied PPE

But if they don't identify as a woman they are still pregnant but aren't a woman.

That's utterly nonsensical.

A Welsh person who doesn't identify as British is still British.

Special phrases that we all have to say, every time. And which implicitly assigns non believers with a status within that religion? In the case of gender ideology, when women and birthing people is used, it assigns women the gender ID of "woman" which many of us don't have. If we object, we are assigned "TERF". What another religion might call heretic or infidel.

However I accept that there are people who sincerely hold these beliefs and have asked for their choice of wording to be used. I can tolerate that if my own choice of word is also there and equally included. Mutual tolerance is the way to go with this.
But what if the meaning of your own chosen word is now different because of your compromise? That's what I think happens once you agree to 'women and....' As far as I'm concerned, the 'and' changes the whole meaning of the word. That's not a path I will agree to.
My compromise would be on a form of wording such as 'women (including those who don't identify as female)'. Clunky but there you go.

I would be more prepared to consider it if there was some kind of quantitative reasoning behind it ie

-some clear starts on the number of women identifying as men who actually give birth each year
-an impact equality assessment looking at the results of changing language in female-specific healthcare situations, with specific reference to the many women in the UK who have learning disabilities, or for whom English is not their first language.

If it's just because some shouty people on Twitter said you must be kind and inclusive, then that's not good enough.

thanks @Helen8220 - i do tend to write and post without reading back so sometimes my thoughts come out garbled. (PPE has been... useful)

My worry about not using inclusive language in healthcare is that if someone refuses care because they don't understand "people with a cervix" means them, becuase they have learning difficulties, or English as a 2nd/3rd language, then we are failing them. So the word "woman" is vital. And i think that is an important point that gets missed.

However, the other side of that coin is that someone who sincerely believes (and we can argue about how misguided or wrong we think they are until the cows come home - the different opinions here will never agree, i think) that they are not a woman and therefore can ignore "women, don't forget to book your smear test" because of it, we are failing them if we don't use languages that also brings them in.

And all the other weird combinations of this. Regardless of where i stand on the TWAW and TMAM argument - and my own personal belief is not yet fixed in my mind, tbh - i would far rather everyone gets the healthcare they need than argue that one or other of the expressions "women" or "people with a cervix" should not be used. (what i never ever want to see highlighted ever again is "bodies with cervixes".)

Perhaps advocates for trans or non-binary people feel that poking the wasp's nest of inclusive language (particularly in healthcare) is worth it so that we aren't leaving people behind?

With Jehova's witnesses and Muslims i feel that their particular religious requirements could be acommodated, but i wonder if they really feel they need to be explicitly announced? Maybe they do. But in the end, they are still "women and other birthing parents" too - their religion doesn't change that.

TERF - it's like so many other words, isn't it? It is used as a slur, an insult, as an attempt to shut down conversation. But i also see people embracing it and saying "yeah, so what?" and the conversation goes on. So i wonder if it will soon become meaningless. Or "reclaimed"?

The term “woman” refers to the scientific, biological reality of sex. It has no truck with gender ideology.
If you want a term for labouring women that pays lip service to genderist beliefs, you would have to say “women, including those women who believe they are really men despite being pregnant”.
How many other “beliefs” should we include on the labour ward?
“Women, plus women who believe they are cats/horses/Napoleon/the reincarnation of Buddha?” Where does it end?
And given that only one transman has given birth in the UK ever, the above beliefs are no less likely.

Brefugee
That’s one of my all time favourite novels. Im currently rereading it. It’s just as important as The Handmaid’s Tale for me. It invents the gender neutral pronoun ‘per’ - Marge Piercy was ahead of her time.

Floisme: "women (including those who don't identify as female)"

I like this.
At some point, are there going to be distinctions in treatment for "women" and "birthing people"? Because if so, what are the definitions of each? And "woman" is wider than someone being able to be pregnant/giving birth (a pregnant woman is a subset of 'woman').

I re-read it recently, and it is such a fantastic novel - where despite what might be written elsewhere isn't actually about the gender issue at all - on so many levels, it should be more widely read.

But i still stumbled over "per" even though i knew about it. Maybe in a year if i read it again it won't be so odd.

If you want a term for labouring women that pays lip service to genderist beliefs, you would have to say “women, including those women who believe they are really men despite being pregnant”.
How many other “beliefs” should we include on the labour ward?

I really need to get to work (sighs of relief all round) but I would like to address this.

If woman is "adult human female" we're fine talking about women. But if we believe that some people don't refer to themselves as women - why can't we include them? it isn't about any other belief than the fact that you are a woman. So either you are a woman "woman" or you believe you're not a woman but you're still in need of maternity services "and other birthing parents". There is no need to include other beliefs. Why would you? Religion? doesn't play a role, too much, in giving birth (my knowledge of religion and beliefs, not to mention giving birth, is limited though).

If we write "women and other birthing parents" where does that take away anything from women? It isn't a zero sum game. It is the opposite since it now includes anyone who doesn't agree that they are a woman (for whatever reason).

However, the other side of that coin is that someone who sincerely believes (and we can argue about how misguided or wrong we think they are until the cows come home - the different opinions here will never agree, i think) that they are not a woman and therefore can ignore "women, don't forget to book your smear test" because of it, we are failing them if we don't use languages that also brings them in.

Well, my Welsh example works for that as well. If someone really wants their advice in Welsh (and not mentioning Britain), we can produce separate totally-not-English-or-British material for them. Not have one document with "British and Cymreig" throughout.

There are, apparently, women who really, really don't want to have anything "womany" associated with them, and they would be best served by a separate document that isn't doing "women and birthing people" throughout. Do you think they want that formulation any more than most women do? Same sort of objection, but from the other end.

It would make sense to work with Stonewall, or some other group claiming to represent the target market, to produce something specifically targetted at them with all the "birthing people", "chestfeeding", "front holes" and whatever else they want. And it can be totally "female"- and "woman"- and "mother"-free if that's what they think they need. (Stonewall could help fund this stuff!)