"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?

(Quoted wrong item above - apologies)

To me, "women and" implies people in addition to biological females can give birth.

I have long suspected that the main reason the word women is being removed, and replaced with other dehumanising anatomical phrases, is because men who insist they are women don’t ever want us to use that word when it doesn’t include them.

So any time that women is used to describe women (whether or not there’s an addendum to cover those women who don’t want to be seen as women) is a win over those men.

I realise it’s not a perfect result, but it’s a great deal better than reducing us all to “birthing people” which is where we could have easily been headed.

And it makes it very difficult for those men to argue their case as they can no longer accuse the speaker of not being “inclusive” without looking very obviously ridiculous.

Why the word 'mother' matters:

with-woman.org/2021/09/21/mothers-they-matter-however-they-identify-heres-why/

@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.

Also, good point @Piapiano

If they really believed what they were saying, that phrase would come easily and would quickly be normalised.

I honestly think that if we can keep it to “women and…” eventually, as the trans trend dies down, the “and…” will gradually fade away in almost all circumstances. There’s no doubt that there is currently a fad for all things PC and a lot of pressure to comply and be seen to “do the right thing”, but it sounds like this interviewee still didn’t find it routine and easy. I think that will be common, as it involves a degree of cognitive dissonance, that perhaps the anatomical dehumanising phrases don’t. Everyone knows there isn’t really an “and…”

I think the important thing is to maintain the word women and not sit back and allow the offensive trend to reduce us all to body parts to be normalised. Once normalised, even when the PC/woke pressure stopped, it quite possibly wouldn’t change back.

Additive language from the link above:

So-called ‘additive language’ – a suggested idea in the Open Letter – doesn’t help in any way. ‘Women and birthing people’ in a document sounds like there are two different sorts of people who give birth. It’s confusing, divisive and inaccurate….and still denies the impact of biological sex. We also know that in real life the result of additive language is that the words ‘woman’ and ‘mother’ disappear – often for practical reasons of space and time, and other times to deliberately omit the whole notion of ‘women’ as a biological sex.

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?

what is it about anything i've written here (and elsewhere on the site) makes you think i wouldn't want that if it is what they want? Of course, especially during labour and birth, the woman having the baby (or the person having the baby who doesn't identify as a woman) should be comfortable and, within reason (no sacrificing virgins or whatever), it should be allowed. I can't imagine why you would think i would be against that?

But anyone who has gone through a birth plan with a midwife (and you'll note that despite the origins of the word, i don't see any need to change that) knows that is the time to talk about honey, right?

So-called ‘additive language’ – a suggested idea in the Open Letter – doesn’t help in any way. ‘Women and birthing people’ in a document sounds like there are two different sorts of people who give birth. It’s confusing, divisive and inaccurate….and still denies the impact of biological sex. We also know that in real life the result of additive language is that the words ‘woman’ and ‘mother’ disappear – often for practical reasons of space and time, and other times to deliberately omit the whole notion of ‘women’ as a biological sex.

Exactly. No.

ok point taken about the "and" but what do you suggest? make suggestions of how to be inclusive, because this thing isn't going anywhere.

How i understand it right now is that there is a rock (using the word women) and a hard place (not using the word women) and people who take one or other position are absolutely not prepared to move one millimetre to accommodate the other.

And if the stories and things i read on the internet are true, each of these positions (i don't want to say "sides" but that's how it comes across) believes that the other is trying to erase them through use of language (ok, let's leave aside the fact that they will still exist).

So how do we move forward? There is a way to move forward that mostly accommodates just about everyone except extreme hardliners. (history tells us that accommodating extreme hardliners rarely ends well).

So is the answer separate and extremely specific sources of information? (like those tourist brochures that all look the same but when you get closer you realise they're in 36 different languages)?

Is it writing one of the expressions - say "woman" - and adding a footnote that "people who don't identify as women but are [affected by whatever the brochure is about] should feel included too"

Is it writing "women and..." (yes, i know, most people here don't seem to like that, some don't - so that's something that research would clear up")

Is it something else? what?

Yes I think a footnote type thing would work well. Eg a note somewhere saying that women is used as shorthand but includes those people who identify as other genders but are biologically able to give birth. Something like that.

@AnyOldPrion

I have long suspected that the main reason the word women is being removed, and replaced with other dehumanising anatomical phrases, is because men who insist they are women don’t ever want us to use that word when it doesn’t include them.

So any time that women is used to describe women (whether or not there’s an addendum to cover those women who don’t want to be seen as women) is a win over those men.

I realise it’s not a perfect result, but it’s a great deal better than reducing us all to “birthing people” which is where we could have easily been headed.

And it makes it very difficult for those men to argue their case as they can no longer accuse the speaker of not being “inclusive” without looking very obviously ridiculous.

I'd say you're right on the money, after this appeal to President Biden earlier this year.

Hi President Biden! Thank you so much for doing this. I'm wondering if you could adjust your wording from "women's healthcare" to "healthcare for people who get pregnant and bleed". I am a (trans) woman, but don't need these services. Thank you for your work!

twitter.com/elianasrubin/status/1354955908770500619?t=WyN2Ht6PxzdJZPyQc8uyTQ&s=19

The context?

President of the United States twitter account: Today, I issued a Presidential Memorandum to protect and expand access to reproductive health care. I am fully committed to protecting women’s health here at home and around the world.
twitter.com/POTUS/status/1354953657796722693?t=8GuV5HLuAqiSaL4XyJZ06A&s=19

I think the point is more about the difference between accommodating individuals (good), and imposing their beliefs on others (not good).

"Women and birthing people" doesn't make sense. Either Woman refers to sex and therefore a woman is by definition somebody of the sex with the potential to give birth (See also Ewe, Doe), so there is no need for birthing people, or it refers to gender and is irrelevant.

The reason it is important to talk about women as a sex in a healthcare setting is that if you don't you are left in a situation where you have to pretend that periods, pregnancy, endometriosis etc. are distance phenomena that could happen to anyone.

Obviously HCPs should provide appropriate care to individuals, including using their preferred language. However, I think in this case generalising that language means a loss of language that is vital to protect women's health.

If large numbers of women can't bring themselves to talk about their sex, isn't that a healthcare problem in itself?

Is it writing one of the expressions - say "woman" - and adding a footnote that "people who don't identify as women but are [affected by whatever the brochure is about] should feel included too"

Just use 'woman' and make it clear that this refers to sex not gender.

Books have included similar footnotes explaining generalised uses of he/she/they for a long time.

Given the very specific healthcare needs of somebody who has transitioned, it should be possible to produce targeted literature, just as for anyone else with a specific healthcare need.

Is it something else? what?

What is it we are including exactly. Why bust a gut trying to include something that no one can explain/define/test for amd is apparently different for everyone.

Medicine should just stick to facts. And exclusion is often entirely necessary. Maternity care excludes men and anyone not pregnant. A gastro ward would exclude people suffering from a neuro issues etc

And if we base medical care on believe systems Why just gender. Why not past lives , those who think they can fly , those who think everyone's following them.

And if we base medical care on believe systems Why just gender. Why not past lives , those who think they can fly , those who think everyone's following them.

Ooh. My mother used to get a holistic magazine that did regular features on how your backache might be because you had once been a slave working all day carrying stone to build the pyramids.

And if we base medical care on believe systems

There are lots of people of a certain age (mostly women) who have hypothyroidism that they would argue is undertreated. A number of them medicate themselves using licensed drugs that they purchased abroad where those drugs are available OTC. Others want prescriptions of particular dosages to allow them to have thyroid hormone levels that are recommended by patient groups.

Some are told that if they continue to take these drugs they will be removed from a GP's list and unable to sign up on another. I'd say that very few have been able to persuade a GP/endocrinologist to medicate them to their preferred levels.

There are lots of people who want to be prescribed injectable B12 although they do not meet the clinical criteria for it. How many people would take steroids (for various meanings of the word 'safely') if they could coerce the health service into sourcing affordable 'clean' drugs and monitoring their bloodwork?

The NHS is resilient to meeting the healthcare preferences/demands of large groups of people. Yet, it does seem captured enough to take the preferred healthcare beliefs of some groups very seriously.

The NHS is resilient to meeting the healthcare preferences/demands of large groups of people. Yet, it does seem captured enough to take the preferred healthcare beliefs of some groups very seriously

I think one of the things I hate most about it all is that whilst all these organisations pat themselves on the back fir being woke/inclusive/worthy of a much higher spot on stonewall's league table, the ONLY reason they can do any of this is because someone somewhere has actually told theor sister mother or daughter or whatever the biological facts needed in order to even exist as a base line to define yourself against.

The NHS is resilient to meeting the healthcare preferences/demands of large groups of people.

that is sadly very true

ok point taken about the "and" but what do you suggest? make suggestions of how to be inclusive, because this thing isn't going anywhere.
I've already made a couple:
Women (including those who don't identify as female).
Or - based on one of your posts:
Women (including anyone who doesn't agree they're a woman)

Another could be: women (irrespective of whether or not they have a gender identity).

Not every time you use the word in the text but maybe the first time, and then, as you suggest, as a footnote.

I'm sure a professional copywriter could come up with a more elegant way of phrasing it without using 'and'.

ok point taken about the "and" but what do you suggest? make suggestions of how to be inclusive, because this thing isn't going anywhere.

Maybe if someone doesn't want to be referred to as a pregnant or birthing woman, they should not undergo pregnancy and childbirth. They can be treated as a man or as a non-binary person by choosing not to go through an act that only an adult human female can do.

Just a thought.

@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…?

When you add "and birthing people", you imply that to qualify for the term "woman", you must identify with the sex stereotypes that word now refers to (since females who do not identify with those sex stereotypes are covered by "birthing people"). We've sleepwalked into a world where, in order to refer to ourselves, access facilities and services, and go about our daily business in the way we've been used to, women are expected to submit to the sexist beliefs we've spent decades trying to escape.

@Brefugee

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?

what is it about anything i've written here (and elsewhere on the site) makes you think i wouldn't want that if it is what they want? Of course, especially during labour and birth, the woman having the baby (or the person having the baby who doesn't identify as a woman) should be comfortable and, within reason (no sacrificing virgins or whatever), it should be allowed. I can't imagine why you would think i would be against that?

But anyone who has gone through a birth plan with a midwife (and you'll note that despite the origins of the word, i don't see any need to change that) knows that is the time to talk about honey, right?

Individualised care is great, but we don’t usually apply the specific requirements of individuals or minority groups across the board to everyone and I wonder why you think we should be doing that for those who believe in gender identity?

Not that long ago, all pregnant women were referred to as Mrs Surname. The assumption was that they were married. If a woman was not married she could inform the midwife that she wished to be referred to as Miss Surname, and that would have been noted in her records. Generally her request would be accommodated, though some HCPs would still slip up. Should she not want to out herself as unmarried, she would just have gone along with the Mrs.

Pretty much a parallel situation.

@EdgeOfACoin

ok point taken about the "and" but what do you suggest? make suggestions of how to be inclusive, because this thing isn't going anywhere.

Maybe if someone doesn't want to be referred to as a pregnant or birthing woman, they should not undergo pregnancy and childbirth. They can be treated as a man or as a non-binary person by choosing not to go through an act that only an adult human female can do.

Just a thought.

Japan mandates irreversible sterilisation in such circumstances. It's a draconian policy and doesn't allow for someone changing their mind: it's currently contested on other grounds.

www.hrw.org/news/2021/10/12/trans-man-fights-japans-sterilization-requirement

Japan mandates irreversible sterilisation in such circumstances. It's a draconian policy and doesn't allow for someone changing their mind: it's currently contested on other grounds.

A policy I disagree with.

I just don't think transmen can have it both ways. Deny that you are a woman all you want. 'Live as a man', whatever that means, to your heart's content. But if you then decide to bear and birth a child, something that no man has ever done or could do, please don't expect the rest of the world to alter its language to accommodate you.

I actually have a scintilla more sympathy for ftm transitioners who want to amend the language around periods and smear tests etc. since it is not an active choice to have a period or require a smear. (Although these things do prove that one cannot identify out of biology.)

However, my suspicion is that changing the language around childbirth is less to do with including ftm transitioners and more to do with making sure mtf transitioners do not feel excluded from the female experience.