Desperately sad and worrying, but suddenly the media is not in any doubt about who gives birth...PLEASE NOTE this thread relates to abandonment of a newborn baby and may touch on matters around birth trauma or unattended birth

[BadSkiingMum]

I watched some of the BBC coverage of the desperately sad story of a new-born baby girl found abandoned in a Newham park, who was thankfully found by a passer-by who kept her warm until the paramedics arrived.

It was notable that the BBC coverage, quite rightly, was asking for the mother to come forward and saying that 'she' was likely to be in urgent need of medical care. The terms 'mother' and 'daughter' were used throughout, no doubt to try to use the emotional pull of those words in order to persuade the girl or woman who had given birth to the baby to come forward. No mention whatsoever of any father or his responsibility for the baby, let alone any other 'non-birthing parent'.

I would rather not imagine the circumstances in which that girl or woman, now a mother, must have found herself. I can imagine them but they are very, very frightening and I really hope she comes forward to receive appropriate care and support. I also pray that the baby receives the love and care that she desperately needs and that she can be reunited with her mother.

Child abandonment is a crime, as is concealing a birth, although surely no one amongst us would want to prosecute the mother concerned. The law is the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Women have been hung for this crime in the past, I believe. Anyone who has read 'Adam Bede' will remember poor Hester Sorrel - about to be hung, but then transported to Australia instead - which was apparently based on a true story that George Elliot's aunt had heard while visiting a prison. I also recall a case in the last few years in which a woman was prosecuted for concealing a birth.

I am not quite sure how to formulate my thoughts around this, but how is it that women are not allowed to call themselves pregnant women or mothers when they choose to do so? Yet as soon as a woman or girl is in this terrible, horrific situation - also having potentially committed a crime - her female biology, role as a mother and absolute biological responsibility for that tiny, vulnerable baby is brought to the fore and talked-about without question? And the father or 'non birthing parent' is nowhere in the picture? It makes a mockery of attempts to police and neutralise language with terms like birthing parent or birthing people.
When a crisis occurs, it is of course the woman or girl who has given birth, the woman or girl who is the mother and the woman or girl who is responsible for the life of that tiny, vulnerable baby.

Why are you assuming the mother abandoned the baby? That's the biggest act of misogyny to come out of this whole tragic incident. The whole media seems to be assuming the mother abandoned the baby when we just don't know yet.

Some MNers on the other thread rightly called that out and most didn't assume. I think if we're discussing how this has been reported and the feminism or lack thereof, this is a key thing we need to talk about.

I agree with you OP it's telling - but actually I notice this all the time. When pushing a gender ideology narrative or a gushing puff piece about a trans person, the BBC, NHS, Guardian etc will get hung up on all the "assigned at birth"/"birthing person"/etc jargon or talk about men giving birth and whatnot. I think that's because those particular narratives come from particular journalists and departments that are immersed in genderism.

But when it's about something else - something real and pressing related to real everyday life - other journalists and sources will totally forget about that - even though they've probably been on a million diversity training courses - and talk about women's health, women being mothers of babies, women being persecuted in Afghanistan, and what have you. Even within the BBC. It's probably because when they're not focusing on appealing to the TQ+ lobby they know it would be weird and confusing to not use woman and man in the way most people understand them.

I don't see where in the OP there is an assumption it was the mother who abandoned the baby? In fact I thought they were quite careful not to do that.

What I would say about the mother, is that she is the only person who it is actually guaranteed knows that child was born.

She may have been by herself and post-natally, she should also be cared for.

I think using the case of an abandoned baby to make some point about terminology is disgusting.

To be fair there is nothing in the BBC piece, or in what the police have said (according to the report), to imply the mother abandoned the baby. But whoever did that, the mother will be aware of having given birth and no longer having her baby, and could perhaps be reunited with her baby if she has the right support. So I think it's reasonable to be asking her to come forward.

I think using the case of an abandoned baby to make some point about terminology is disgusting.

Why? It's an important point. Does the BBC actually have a policy of using genderist-approved language across the board, or doesn't it? If not – if it abandons that terminology when not specifically espousing gender ideology – that inconsistency seem odd, maybe even cynical.

I reported on the news item exactly as I heard it - the BBC were careful not to talk about blame but were very clear that the authorities wanted the mother to come forward and talked about her need for medical attention. They also openly talked about the risks to the baby’s life on a freezing winter’s day. They didn’t explicitly join the dots between the mother and the actions that had placed this baby’s life at risk, but the implication was there - mostly due to not mentioning any other person whatsoever (eg the father) who might have been involved.

I completely take on board that this is a sensitive subject and I tried to write the OP as carefully as I could, but that’s the whole point really - pregnancy and birth are hugely risky, sensitive and emotive times, whether it is a safe and successful outcome or a near-tragedy like this one, so why are women finding that their language is being policed around how they refer to themselves during this life-changing process? And why does the narrative shift (or the acceptable descriptors shift) as soon as a woman might have potentially committed the crime of child abandonment and placed a baby’s life at risk?

The comparisons with the language around surrogacy come to mind. In surrogacy the baby is highly prized by someone else so the mother’s role is to disappear, obliterate herself both literally and linguistically (‘surrogate’, ‘gestational carrier’) once the baby is handed over to the intended parents; yet in this horrific situation the opposite seems to be true and the mother is everything.

Totally agree!!!

They want to find the mother for obvious reasons. Because it's HER physical and mental health that matters, not the fathers. And the baby needs its mother.

It's not about blame, it's about whose needs are a priority. And it's hers and her baby's.

This OP is plain weird.

I reported on the news item exactly as I heard it - the BBC were careful not to talk about blame but were very clear that the authorities wanted the mother to come forward and talked about her need for medical attention. They also openly talked about the risks to the baby’s life on a freezing winter’s day. They didn’t explicitly join the dots between the mother and the actions that had placed this baby’s life at risk, but the implication was there

The implication was only in your head. It wasn't remotely in either of the reports I've seen.

The answer is far more simple. The mum needs help. The baby needs mum. The police response is about what matters right now. Any involvement of the father can wait.

Strange to be complaining or be disappointed about women being discriminated here because of the weak argument of the media only care that it's a woman because she's abandoned a baby and potentially committed a serious crime.... but all other times it's "birthing person"....it's not by the way.

Some choose to see or shoehorn their argument and agenda into the most tragic of stories. And for what? Who cares?

And don't get me wrong, I can't stand the nonsense titles that we are now being expected to use for mothers who give birth to a child. But I just don't think this truly tragic case really has anything to do with that nor is it relevant in the grand scheme of the horrific case.

I am referring to broadcast TV news reports rather than website articles, which tend to be more summarised.

Five years ago I would not have noted the language in this reporting (beyond of course being horrified by the event) but the extent of the linguistic changes in this area is such that I do take notice of the language used these days in any media on pregnancy, birth or women’s health. If you disbelieve me, do please take a look at Milli Hill’s substack ‘The Word is Woman’.

https://millihill.substack.com/p/the-word-is-woman-1

I also have personal experience of this issue in the workplace, which made me very afraid for my job for a period of time.

From the OP:
Child abandonment is a crime, as is concealing a birth, although surely no one amongst us would want to prosecute the mother concerned.
This strongly implies the mother was the one who abandoned the baby. 🤷‍♀️

It is very clear from my post that I was aiming my criticism towards the media and people's general commentary on the situation, not the OP, but I did read the quoted part of the OP as assuming the mother had abandoned the baby. It is very likely that she did, but not a given and I do think that's inherently sexist when it could have been a boyfriend or an exploiter of the woman who doesn't want the baby around, or anything.

And every time a child abandonment case comes up, the police and SS are all nicey nicey "we need to give her medical care" like butter wouldn't melt then the minute the mother appears, she is charged with something. Like that shocking case of the poor teenager who was groomed and whose baby died and she put it in a hedge. It puts them off coming forward and isn't productive for anyone to prosecute in a case like this any more than the late abortion case was worth prosecuting.

These are the misogynistic issues in this case to my mind, not anything to do with language or terminology used.

As per my original post, the most important thing is that the mother gets the help that she needs - but other issues may arise alongside and secondary to that overriding priority.

You have picked the entirely wrong news story to go off on one about language.

My post WAS about TV news reports. And I heard nothing other than concern for the immediate needs of both mother and baby. Not a hint of blame, with the only subtext being about how desperate someone must have been.

At this point in the story, the father is of no immediate interest. Even if, exceptionally unusuallyl, he was the one who dumped the baby, nothing will change in the next few days or weeks. He'll still be found. But every hour is important for the mother and the baby, and THAT is everyone's priority.

But that’s precisely what I mean - a charge of child abandonment would be one of the possible options on the table.

I am not saying that she is guilty of that. It would be for the police and CPS to decide. No one yet knows.

how is it that women are not allowed to call themselves pregnant women or mothers when they choose to do so?

You're making this up. Women can call themselves pregnant women and mothers. The vast majority of literature and reporting will use this language, as will medical professionals, and people in every day conversation.

Saying that 'mother' or 'pregnant women' are banned words is a complete lie.

Most news articles do use the correct language. In fact not most, but the overwhelming majority.

OP you will no doubt be delighted and rest easy to hear your fears are unfounded and pregnant women and mothers absolutely are allowed to call themselves such, nor is anyone trying to stop them.

I wish I was making this up Flickersy!

No of course it is not all the time or in every single word used everyday by everyone, but it is an insistent tide of change:

People who are pregnant
Pregnant person
Pregnant folk
birthing people
birthing person
People with vaginas
People who have a cervix
Chest feeding

Or the simple absence of the words 'woman', 'women' and 'mother', when it would seem most obvious, natural and necessary to use them.

https://millihill.substack.com/p/the-word-is-woman-1

Frontiers | Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language (frontiersin.org)

Women working in the birth world have had their livelihoods destroyed because they have refused to go along with this change:

I will not be silenced. - Milli Hill

For someone who claims to have an interest in language, you seem to struggle with the difference between 'what pregnant women are allowed to call themselves' and the wording that some institutions are using to describe them.

Women can call themselves whatever they like and no-one can or will stop them.
If you have a problem with what other people call them... well that's an entirely different issue.

Some campaigners have suggested it's preferable to use gender neutral language when producing materials for a collective audience, such as policies and pamphlets.

Absolutely nobody anywhere is going around telling people who WANT to call themselves women and mothers that they can't.

To suggest otherwise is ridiculous hyperbole torn from Daily Mail headlines.

It is absolutely unremarkable for a news report to refer to women and mothers in this context.

This story has -presumably- nothing to do with trans people and the fact that that's where your mind flocked straight to instead of the more obvious and pertinent issues says more about you and your prejudices than it does anything else.

But it’s ok for the terminology to be warped by organisations for diseases that kill women, like cervical cancer?

Fine, perhaps I wrote that sentence too rapidly in my OP - I needed to get something in the oven! Women can call themselves what they like, of course they can - but language is a changeable social phenomenon. If you find that the wording you prefer to use to describe yourself is no longer being used by others, then gradually, over time, it begins to fall out of usage and you are likely to find yourself less likely to use it. Even more so if individuals are being socially censured for not using the approved version of language - please see my links above.

If a woman attends a service as a pregnant woman and find that phrases, signs, language or leaflets have been changed to 'pregnant person' or 'person who is pregnant' or 'birthing person' she may be absolutely fine with that. Or, she may feel that something about the reality of being a pregnant woman, or being a woman who is giving birth (in all its risky, miraculous, emotional process) is not being fully acknowledged or reflected in this bland, sex-neutral language. Because this language change is largely happening without consultation or consent.