This has really upset me

[Tittyfilarious81]

Sorry I don't normally post on this board so hope it's the right place, but this upsets me so much. I am a mother and proud to be called a mother / mum I feel like everything about being female is being stripped away piece by piece where the voice of the few is so loud now that the voice of the many is ignored
Scotland's civil service deleted 'MOTHER' from maternity policy mol.im/a/10103811 via dailym.ai/android

It’s such bullshit. Why is it super important to respect transmen’s identities, while respecting the identities of women and mothers doesn’t matter at all?

I mean the reason why is obvious, there’s a male supremacist agenda behind it. But I’d like to see the TRA justification for it within their own logic. Why are trans identities more important than everyone else’s identity?

The original article is about 'people having a baby'. This is language to include transgender males, that is, those who were born female but transitioned to male later on in life.

Only women can give birth. Thinking you're a woman just because you feel like one doesn't change that biological fact. If I felt like an antelope, a chesterfield sofa, a 6 year-old or a Japanese person, that doesn't mean the law or medical professionals should agree with me.

But you also talk about usability - the language you are using here only refers to biological parents and those giving birth. So that leaves out adoptive parents, which surely means that the language we use should be inclusive?

Mother is inclusive of biological and adoptive female parents.

But you also talk about usability - the language you are using here only refers to biological parents and those giving birth. So that leaves out adoptive parents, which surely means that the language we use should be inclusive?

Which language am I using that excudes adoptive parents? Adoptive parents and people who are using a surrogacy arrangement - I think the latter are usually called "intended parents" in UK law as pre-birth parental orders aren't legal - are covered under the Paternity provisions, as I noted in my previous post: Biodads, spouses, partners, and other parents-to-be can apply for Paternity benefits including some specific options for adoption and surrogacy.

The ScotGov page should make it clear who can access Maternity benefits vs Paternity benefits. It's the law that "excludes" adoptive parents from Maternity provisions, but it does so for good reason, amply discussed when the legislation passed through both Houses of Parliament, and provides accomodations for their different situation elsewhere. Your insistence that everything be "inclusive" is exactly the problem: different situations are legally given different accomodations, and language should be clear about that so as not to waste people's time.

Because the language we use changes over time.

We do not use derogatory words such as 'coloured' or 'retarded', despite there at the time being objection to changing the status quo.

In the same vein we no longer use 'disorder' and 'co-morbidity' but 'condition', and 'co-occurrence'. It wasn't that long ago that being gay was classed as a 'sexual perversion' in the DSM.

The truth is that some people will change their gender, and we all have to accommodate this. Just as we accommodated same sex marriage, abortion, civil rights and all the other rights that came before. It's sad to see so much resistance to this.

@freudien

Because the language we use changes over time.

We do not use derogatory words such as 'coloured' or 'retarded', despite there at the time being objection to changing the status quo.

In the same vein we no longer use 'disorder' and 'co-morbidity' but 'condition', and 'co-occurrence'. It wasn't that long ago that being gay was classed as a 'sexual perversion' in the DSM.

The truth is that some people will change their gender, and we all have to accommodate this. Just as we accommodated same sex marriage, abortion, civil rights and all the other rights that came before. It's sad to see so much resistance to this.

Yes those words thankfully aren't accepted now as they are derogatory. Are you saying mother is in the same league? And no, we shouldn't accommodate the eradication of women- trans people both male and female should be treated with respect, yes, but why does that just have to include making mother a bigoted word?

The truth is that some people will change their gender

It's meaningless as it's not possible to change sex, and yes there is going to be resistance to an obvious group of disadvantaged people being erased from language.

some people will change their gender, and we all have to accommodate this

What accommodations did you have in mind?

Just as we accommodated same sex marriage, abortion

No gay person has ever asked me to pretend I can’t tell what sex they are. What changes did I have to make to accommodate gay marriage?

Women in general and mothers in particular have always been, and still are, systematically and structurally discriminated against. I suppose these words have been used in derogatory ways for centuries, and still are.
But it's up to women and mothers to decide if they want to keep them. An analogy is 'gay', I suppose, and there are obvious racial examples.

If you think at this point in U.K. history woman or mother should be viewed in any way as a derogatory term on a par with 'retarded' ... well, I'd say that was a pretty odd and perhaps unintentionally misogynistic position.

Most women are ok with appropriate accommodations re trans men - by using additional terms. We are not ok with expunging the word 'mother'.
It's pretty much equivalent to saying that to accommodate gay marriage you have to ban heterosexual marriage.

@freudien

Because the language we use changes over time.

We do not use derogatory words such as 'coloured' or 'retarded', despite there at the time being objection to changing the status quo.

In the same vein we no longer use 'disorder' and 'co-morbidity' but 'condition', and 'co-occurrence'. It wasn't that long ago that being gay was classed as a 'sexual perversion' in the DSM.

The truth is that some people will change their gender, and we all have to accommodate this. Just as we accommodated same sex marriage, abortion, civil rights and all the other rights that came before. It's sad to see so much resistance to this.

You speak for yourself only. WOMEN DON’T HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE ANYONE IN OUR SPACES. I’m sad to see women betray other women, and I’m bloody raging angry to see the hard won rights of women and children being sold off to Stonewall. This cannot happen on our watch and it won’t because Women Won’t Wheest

@ErrolTheDragon

Most women are ok with appropriate accommodations re trans men - by using additional terms. We are not ok with expunging the word 'mother'. It's pretty much equivalent to saying that to accommodate gay marriage you have to ban heterosexual marriage.

The problem is that no-one is 'expunging the word mother' - this is a conflation that has come from the daily mail article, which was sensationalised in the first place.

No one is telling you to not call yourself a mother. The argument is around trans women who want to call themselves mother. And trans men who want to call themselves father. And that that whole group of parents should be called 'parents'.

Reading through this thread however, it is sad to see the sentiment - trans women are not women. Trans men are not men. That is the human rights issue here - because we should be accommodating this, in the same way that we accommodate other LGB minorities.

The way we use language does mater - anyone here with an SEN child for example, or someone from any minority will tell you - the way we talk about things matters.

What human rights don’t trans people have?
Being able to access spaces exclusively meant for women and girls is not a “human right”

Reading through this thread however, it is sad to see the sentiment - trans women are not women. Trans men are not men.

It's even more sad to see damaging pseudoscience and misguided virtue signalling take the place of the biological reality of billions of people disadvantaged on the grounds of their female sex, when making policy.

@freudien

But gender cannot be fluid and fixed at the same point. How can you say
"some people will change their gender" when gender can fluctuate within the same day based on feelings?

What are they changing from and to what?

We need female and male spaces, and a third space for anyone with 'additional feelings'.

Chalking disgusting comments outside a woman’s conference isn’t a human right.

Yes those words thankfully aren't accepted now as they are derogatory. Are you saying mother is in the same league?

No obviously not. Point is that the way we talk about things and the way we use language changes over time. No one is stopping anyone from using the word mother to describe themselves.

because we should be accommodating this, in the same way that we accommodate other LGB minorities.

"Other LGB minorities" don't tell me what I am allowed to think about my own biological reality, and how I should label myself and what words I can and can't use about my sex.

Not everything this over-indulged group of people want is a "human right", but how very convenient that they've persuaded people that it is.

The saying “ give an inch and people take a mile” has never been more pertinent than it is now.

I have seen many reports from the LGB who want to keep their sex based rights and to express same-sex attraction too.

Lesbians, for example, are sexually attracted to women with vaginas, and not to penises. It doesn't matter if the penis-owner says it's a woman's penis, it isn't. It's like me entering my gerbil into a dog show, even with a collar saying Boxer it's still a gerbil.

Because the language we use changes over time. We do not use derogatory words such as 'coloured' or 'retarded', despite there at the time being objection to changing the status quo.

That is not the same thing. Demanding that biologically male people be called women, and that women who have given birth should not be referred to as mothers is not discouraging derogatory language, it's enabling one group of people to appropriate, change and police the language which defines and describes another group of peoole whom they have historically oppressed (and continue to oppress in some cases). A better comparison would be if white people were allowed to identify as black and then started trying to remove words which people from black communities use to describe themselves or things about their cultures.

Yet not one person here read or commented on the article in the Lancet which explains it all from a medical perspective.

We all just run and jump on the Daily Mail to inform us of our opinions.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32764-3/fulltext

Yet not one person here read or commented on the article in the Lancet which explains it all from a medical perspective.

We all just run and jump on the Daily Mail to inform us of our opinions.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32764-3/fulltext

It isn't a sentiment though?

It's fact. Biological fact.

Trans women are not women.

Trans mens are not men.

That biological fact may be upsetting or distressing. These people can present as they wish and use whatever name they choose, but they can't insist on everyone agreeing with something that is factually untrue.

I am very distressed at the fact that I am ageing. My knees are clicky and my hair is grey, I have a saggy tummy covered in stretch marks. It genuinely upsets me that I have pelvic floor and joint issues.

If I insisted I was only 20 would it change how old I am? If I had plastic surgery and a tummy tuck and Botox and fillers and dyed my hair....would I be any less of an older woman? Insisting I should have a Student Railcard and don't need a smear test yet?

Insisting on something doesn't change the biological facts.