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.

I assure you OP the word "woman" is not in any danger of falling out of usage.

Shitty archaic laws from 1861 that should be struck from the books.

The birth mother may have very good reason for hiding. Abuse, trauma, etc.

I would love to get in a time machine and go back even ten years when that was 100% true!

Trans people existing 10 years ago just as they exist now.

The word woman also still exists.

You're being ridiculous.

Well, in 2013/2014 I was volunteering as a breastfeeding peer supporter for a national organisation (including taking qualifications in this role) and was heavily immersed in the postnatal space. I was reading articles, attending conferences and undertaking CPD training in this role. At that time it was completely normal and acceptable to talk about 'breastfeeding women', 'new mothers' and 'woman-centred care'. The terminology of 'birthing person', 'chest feeding' and 'birthing people' was nowhere on the horizon, let alone peer-supporters or anyone in the birth world being censured for not using such terminology.

So I would argue that some changes have occurred in the last ten years!

Seriously. Stop.

I cant believe that you're focusing on this, and using another woman's trauma to shoehorn your trans opinions into.

Seriously. If you're a feminist, why would you hijack this awful situation for your own means?

I feel a bit grubby having even posted on this thread.

I really hope that woman/girl is okay.

It is still absolutely acceptable to talk about all those things.

Some people advocate for using terms which are more inclusive when talking generally.

Absolutely no one is going around telling women and mothers they are not allowed to call themselves that, no one thinks that, no one argues that.

Once again, I acknowledge that this is a tragic situation and truly hope that the baby's mother comes forward.

I know that many people will not understand my rationale - if you haven't seen this change in the language around maternity and birth then it won't make much sense and this thread will just seem unnecessary - but those who do understand, have shown that they do, which is appreciated.

I am signing off now but really hope that the morning brings better news from Newham.

It demonstrates the hypocrisy of organisations like the BBC. They know they can’t put “birthing person” in an article like this, so their woke liberalism only extends so far. It’s almost as if they don’t really believe it.

But it’s interesting where they draw the line. They’ll freely refer to women in this article, but meanwhile they’re referring to a child sex predator as “she” and refusing to admit there’s an issue in answers back to complaints.

Absolutely no one is going around telling women and mothers they are not allowed to call themselves that, no one thinks that, no one argues that.

But they’re trying. It was trialled on a government form to officially register babies. It was only stopped because women like Sall Grover pushed back.

The term birthing parent was used in a trial at three hospitals on Services Australia digital forms for parents to register their child’s birth with Medicare.

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/21/bill-shorten-intervenes-to-remove-birthing-parent-from-medical-forms-amid-criticism-in-daily-telegraph

The alternative is what? A man forcibly took the baby from its mother and is forcing her to stay quiet? That's possible, of course, but generally we know that men who don't want babies don't do this. They simply bugger off themselves. We know this because it happens all the time.

Why would a man risk charges of kidnapping, abandonment, coercion when he could simply walk away from his child with (deplorably) no consequences whatsoever?

You've never heard of human trafficking, have you? Pimps don't tend to want babies about.

These abandoned baby situations do not arise because someone is only in a slightly awkward situation. It's either a matter of life or death or something extremely awful going on.

I don't understand this thread. There is a woman/ girl out there who has given birth and potentially not had any medical treatment and a baby thats been left in the cold for an hour. The main focus is getting the baby safe and focusing on a women that probably needs some form of medical help. Sometimes it might be more important to publish an article that might appeal to someone in that situation and that they can relate to, than try and fit in with what is currently considered politically correct. Regardless of what anyone thinks, if your too scared to phone social services to hand over care of your baby, an article that is asking the 'birthing person' probably isn't going to get you to contact them

Trialling terminology on a form isn't the same thing as trying to ban women from using the word 'mother'.

Women will always be able to call themselves what they want, as it should be.

If the form had been successful and Sall Grover hadn’t pushed back, no woman would have been able to call themselves their child’s mother on their child’s Medicare account.

You’re being disingenuous, as usual. In a woman’s home, in day to day life, of course there is no one walking next to her censuring her every time she uses the word “mother”. But a deliberate campaign from TRAs to remove the possibility for the word to be used legally.

It’s Newspeak in action.

I agree OP. They need to be consistent. E.g. when they find a body, or an old skeleton, they have no idea of the person's gender identity so if they're going to be coherent they should not report that it was a man or a woman. In this case, they should be looking for the birthing person. I mean, it's a ahit way to describe a scared mum but that way people can see the disrespect which this language represents.

Absolutely

I understand what you're saying OP.

I think most people who haven't been following this issue really closely will have no idea that in 2022 in England, a draft maternity bill was put forward for a reading in the House of Lords and they rejected it because it didn't have a single mention of the word 'mother'.

Had that bill passed, the word mother would have been completely erased in law in a piece of legislation related to maternity rights.

It was only thanks to a big effort from campaigners (and to the HoL for seeing sense) that the wording was rejected.

Last year, Self-ID Law was actually passed in Scotland that enshrined the idea that anyone who felt they were a woman was a woman. The potential impact on women's human rights by this legal redefining of woman as a 'concept' rather than a biological fact, was so threatening that the U.K. government had to step in and overturn it.

So those are two examples when we have been that close to losing the legal definitions (and therefore the rights that flow from them) of 'woman' and 'mother'. The implications are huge. Thank god we managed to row it back. But the point OP I think is making is that a story like this comes along and it's very clear that everyone knows and has always known and understands that only a 'woman' is a 'mother' who 'gives birth'. So it becomes even more apparent that these concepts were almost erased in law and women's rights severely impacted, for the sake of a fad centred around men's feelings.

It also highlights the point that any legislation designed to confer sex-based rights on women, were targeted to be re-worded to make room for men. But any legislation such as the Act already mentioned, which can prosecute for the uniquely female crime of concealing birth, then there is no ambiguity about what a woman is. Those two things are in conflict. It would have created a legal nonsense. But our government was prepared to do it for the sake of woke.

I find that really frightening. If it wasn't for posts like the OP's having to notice and point this stuff out all the time, then those laws could have passed without comment and you could have had a situation where men were able to claim maternity rights meant for women because the law says 'person' not 'mother'.

If you haven't been following closely, you wouldn't know. It might seem like someone shoehorning an agenda into a tragedy or picking over semantics. But It matters. It's important.

I hope that poor mother gets the help she needs and that the baby goes on to thrive.

OP, you make a perfectly reasonable point. Words such as "birthing parent" are being foisted on us - you can see them used throughout the NHS and in much of the maternity sector - but stories such as these prove that everyone, deep down, knows that the person who has given birth is a mother. The emotional pull of a story about a woman or girl who, in desperation, has abandoned a baby she has just given birth to can only be conveyed by the word "mother".

Ignore the people who are gaslighting you by pretending that the erasure of sex from the language isn't happening. These are people who will spend half their time insisting that anyone who refuses to use the terms birthing person, chestfeeder, people with cervixes and so on is a bigot, and the other half insisting that this isn't happening, and of course we are all free to use the terms mother and woman! Wherever did we get the silly idea that we're not allowed to use them?

These people are contemptible. Ignore them.

Ah but 'inclusivity'.🙄

I understand your point too OP and you are right. It’s similar to when journalists use the words “child” in reporting. Some times it’s suits when young age is to be promoted sometimes it’s “young person “ when young age is to be hidden.

Thanks to recent posters who have spelt this out. Absolutely - going by what the bbc have said in other articles, where they call say men can give birth - for example in the cases of Freddy McConnell and Thomas Beattie - they are being transphobic to assume the person who gave birth to the baby is a woman/mother. According to those gender-ideology-based articles, it could be a (female) “man”. So why aren’t they talking about the baby’s birthing parent or the parent who gave birth?

it’s important because if they’re going to push this narrative you would expect them to be consistent in their usages. If they’re not, that strongly suggests they are only doing it under pressure from TRAs, or have TRA staffers who they allow to say whatever they like, but actually revert to the meaning everyone understands when it matters.

People are being persecuted and losing their jobs and having to go to court for slipping up and saying the wrong thing, or refusing to toe the genderism line, in areas like this - maternity services, women’s services such as rape crisis. The BBC should be clear about what it means and why it chops and changes.

And all this “you can’t use a tragic case to make a point” business - is nonsense. The baby has survived and there may be a positive outcome. And whatever the story, people are free to discuss the political implications of language being used. Gaza is a case in point, children are dying tragically and the language being used - in that case over words like terrorism and genocide - is a topic of debate. Is that OK?

The point is that the BBC suddenly has all the gender bollocks nowhere to be seen once there’s a story about actual urgent material reality. They are showing that they understand it to be confusing garbage and not reality.

They are showing that they understand it to be confusing garbage and not reality.

But they’re willing to churn out confusing garbage and not reality when they’re talking about a male child sex offender. Imagine being the parents of that child having to see news organisations calling that man “she”. It’s not just hypocrisy from them, it’s evil.

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

This seems to be the crux of your post. And the answer of course is that they are.

Individual women are indeed called women or mothers. By almost all services that I am aware of and are, of course fully free to call themselves that.

I presume here you are referring to multiple services that use inclusive language to describe their service users generally, rather than individually, and so not exclude or misgender trans men who might also use their services. But of course no one is ‘not allowed to call themselves pregnant women’.