"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?

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.

but they are at the extreme end and they are the ones (extremists) who are least likely to compromise, and i wonder if they would form a large enough minority that they simply must be acommodated? because compromise is about some people giving things up.

I don't think Stonewall is ever the answer these days because they have adopted an extreme position and a lot of people don't trust them.

In your Welsh example you aren't excluding anyone - so maybe there is an argument to have brochures with women and nothing else, and brochures without the word women anywhere. I'd like to see the labelling for that (maybe not). I think most women wouldn't have a problem with that. I wonder if people who don't identify as women would be? Personally, i wouldn't find that a bad compromise.

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)

But we need a definition for this.

When you re write guidnece or adopt policies you need to brief the staff yes?

So they need to know these things they need to know what we are talking about . You cant say women is both a sex and an identity because if you believe its an identity you can opt out of or opt in to then what are the defining features? What will the glossary in the back of the policy book say?

If you had a female human in a coma who was pregnant would you just withhold treatment and shove them in a cupboard somewhere and hope they woke up so you could treat them and place them on a ward accordingly?

What defining features would this adult human female in a coma have that would allow you to determine their identity ? Is identity even remotely relevant.

You cant write an " and". The second you do you make women some kind optional being. They cant be optional and real at the same time. If anyone can be any identity then that males men and women obsolete altogether surely?

If there's no definition that anyone can put together then how do people even know what anyones talking abiut

If there's no definition that anyone can put together then how do people even know what anyones talking about

This is where the Emperor gives away that he's got no clothes on.

You cannot identify as something without knowing exactly what it is. The identification is based on sex based thinking, however much is layered over the top of it.

You cannot identify as something without knowing exactly what it is.

I disagree. As is clearly evidenced by many people with trans identities, what they believe their identity is, is what they identify as.

So convoluted! I don't know how to write it clearly.

I disagree. As is clearly evidenced by many people with trans identities, what they believe their identity is, is what they identify as

We have never had any definitive list if criteria as to what constitutes these identities.

What is a man gender identity fir example. What are the features of a man identity. How do men know of they have one.

What IS a man identity if we're not talking at root about the concept of a biological male and all that is associated with one?

It's more important to be truthful.

If a TW genuinely believes that they are a woman, then they are what they believe a woman is. Reality is irrelevant. Clear definitions are irrelevant.

On the contrary. If you are going to lobby to change legislation and re write official documents based on these beliefs the least anyone can do is define what we are legislating. Or now does or differ from other people who claim to be reincarnated or the king or something

“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.”

Okay but do you think we should be saying inshallah, and other Muslim things and have honey on labour wards to accommodate Muslims? If not why not? Should we have crucifixes on hospital wards and have the Angelus bells so we can all stop to pray, or in fact the Muslim call to prayer? How will we demonstrate our shared beliefs in all beliefs so that everyone feels included?

How many women would be thrown into a mental health crisis by the use of woman centred language in women’s health? Where are the studies which show the demand for gender neutral language from the appropriate cohort? Why are we changing language across the board for those who believe in gender identity/queer theory and not for any other beliefs? Even though there are other beliefs with a great many more believers? Why don’t we make all hospital food vegan for example so as not to distress vegans? Why are we privileging the 1% of the population who believe in gender identity/queer theory over all other beliefs, philosophies and absence of belief?

And why would it be so bad to create separate resources for them? In my mind it can only be because there is a determined agenda that this new belief system be forced on all of us and embedded in our societal structures, whether we like it or not.

I’d say “women and transmen” would cover it- it acknowledges transmen won’t accept being called women but leaves the word for the majority.

As for non binary people, maybe just accept that whatever your gender is if you are pregnant it’s because your sex is a non binary woman.

The problem with ‘woman and birthing’ people is that it is an imposition of a sexist ideology.

‘Woman’ is already an inclusive word that can be used to refer to just to sex.

I appreciate that a tiny, tiny number of people who are born female insist that the word woman can only refer to a stereotype that they reject.

It should be possible to accommodate them as individuals without insisting that all other women affirm their beliefs.

@JellySaurus

If a TW genuinely believes that they are a woman, then they are what they believe a woman is. Reality is irrelevant. Clear definitions are irrelevant.

When it comes to law, reality and clear definitions cannot be irrelevant.

That's why this ideology must not be embedded in law.

If we write "women and other birthing parents" where does that take away anything from women?
The way I see it is that those three letters: 'and' take away the very meaning of the word 'woman'. Once we give that away, what's left? How can we talk about ourselves or frame legislation about us if the word doesn't have meaning any more?

Exactly Floisme. The only way to accommodate both groups is to have specific separate resources for believers in gender identity and keep the “traditional” terminology for the majority.

I would actually agree to the end of Brefugee's post as forming part of a compromise:
'Women, which includes anyone who doesn't agree that they are a woman (for whatever reason).
That works for me because, unlike 'women and....', it's not changing the meaning of the word woman.
It's a mouthful but I'm sure there are wordsmiths around who could pare it down.

@Floisme

If we write "women and other birthing parents" where does that take away anything from women? The way I see it is that those three letters: 'and' take away the very meaning of the word 'woman'. Once we give that away, what's left? How can we talk about ourselves or frame legislation about us if the word doesn't have meaning any more?

Exactly.

I was trying to listen to a podcast earlier - 'the ultimate guide to being a birth partner'.

I used to really enjoy it. Unfortunately, the woman who runs it has adopted the language of 'pregnant people' etc more and more, to the point that she now audibly hesitates before using the words 'woman' and 'mother' (which she hardly ever does these days, although many of her guests still do). It is just so depressing.

Stripping language of the words 'woman' and 'mother', or rendering them devoid of meaning, which is what happens when we use expressions like 'women and transmen' are not feminist acts.

@Brefugee

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.

This is illogical. You are saying:

1. Only women can get pregnant.

1. Someone who is pregnant and doesn't identify as a woman is not a woman.

Those two statements cannot co-exist.

If only women can get pregnant, you cannot be pregnant and not be a woman.

This is nothing to do with inclusive maternity services but to do with the idea that the words woman/girl/ and increasingly female must not be used ever when it's about our reproductive biology.

Women and is ok. I mean in the end not necessary imo but you know ok.

However.

To me the phrase birthing people. If I didn't know context and background. I would definitely take to mean those at the birth with the woman.

So I mean. That's silly.

The new language for women there is hardly any that is anywhere near as widely understood, and lots of it is very wooly and/ circular.

Eg people with a cervix.
If never had smear or baby. Plenty women don't know if they have a cervix personally. They ASSUME they do IF they know cervix = woman. Because they know they are a woman and so can expect to have one.

No one thinks person with a cervix full stop and no further steps to parse it.

It goes person with a cervix = girl woman female. Therefore it means girl/ woman / female.

An extra step of translation which not all will know, and in the end the answer is still because woman female girl.

It's a euphemism as so many things about our reproductive organs and processes have always had. Because unmentionable.

Now the organs and processes must be front and centre because woman/ girl/ female are unmentionable in relation to them.

The link is not altered at all. It's just not to be drawn attention to if you're a decent person.

It's all shit.

Women and is ok. I mean in the end not necessary imo but you know ok.
I strongly disagree. I regard 'women including....' as clunky and not necessary, but ok insofar as it doesn't change the meaning of 'women'. But 'Women and....' switches the definition from biology to identity. Not ok.

I agree. And the fact I'm willing to say ok whatever. Shows both female socialisation. Be nice etc. In action.

It's so difficult not to

And. Well at least woman is there. That's ceding ground. FFS.

I just don't know what to do in the end.

I sort of think. Ok whatever to that. Just let us have our own words and single sex spaces....

Fucks sake.

@StillWeRise

arghh I heard this and pointed it out to DP who was only half listening and he had assumed that 'birthing people' meant birth attendants, maybe unqualified

What are these mythical “birthing people”? Women who identify as men? Then how do they handle the cognitive dissonance of being pregnant, going through labour and breast feeding an infant?

Other matters aside, I should think the group encompasses non-binary people.

Freddy McConnell seems to have attempted to cope with the dissonance through a legal action to be named as father on the birth certificate.

inews.co.uk/news/freddy-mcconnell-ruling-trans-man-child-gave-birth-father-birth-certificate-342962