"How inclusive language can help to reduce birth trauma"

[CrossPurposes]

https://theconversation.com/how-inclusive-language-can-help-to-reduce-birth-trauma-226197

Anyone convinced by the arguments made here?

Ironically, it was linked to underneath an article talking about the shift in usage of words that had once had a particular meaning:

https://theconversation.com/woke-and-gaslight-dont-mean-what-you-think-they-do-heres-why-thats-a-problem-230488

Many women, you know, the ones who are correctly sexed by medical practitioners, feel they are not treated with dignity or respect most of their lives, including pregnancy and birth.

The ‘arguments’ are weak, the logic even weaker. Only the female sex give birth, regardless of anyone’s worship at the ‘gender’ altar.

I agree that in certain situations using the 2nd person (ironically because when saying "if you are pregnant" the word pregnant stands in for "a pregnant woman" because we're not idiots) works well, and additive language can be an acceptable option.

However, how many women are we talking about here, and actually is is proportionate to erase sex based language when communicating widely?

Where is the evidence that this use of language in broad communication helps that 28% of female LGBTQ+ patients who don't see their families and identity reflected and respected in their individual treatment?

Because my gut feeling is that it doesn't help, and neither does using such a diverse grouping as LGBTQ+ and then just reporting on erasing sex based language which is only one if many possible elements of respectful and person centred care.

From the second article:
'When precise terms change their meaning, we lose a tool for understanding and communicating about an idea or experience because the words that previously helped us to do this are no longer suitable. In my research, I call this process “hermeneutical disarmament”.'
Great point. Next time someone changes the meaning of the precise term 'woman', I'll accuse them of hermeneutical disarmament

It’s funny when it comes to inclusive language it only goes one way. There seems to be little written about how to be inclusive of those with specifically male medical conditions.

I tried to read it but I just can't concentrate on this stuff.
My eyes were following the words but my mind was filled with the stories from the recent thread here about maternity care standards in the NHS.

I got to the fourth paragraph and gave up. In the context of what women told the Birth Trauma Inquiry, the focus in the article on being “misgendered” (only women can give birth, as the whole world knows) during the birth process is risible.

As for the point on “inclusive language” in the birth process, we women are sick to the back teeth of the word “woman” being erased from medical and healthcare literature and settings. Absolutely sick of it.

If you're traumatised by not having other people be sufficiently deferential to a term you've made up like non binary, it really doesn't bode well for your ability to parent.

I find it unconscionable in the context of the Birth Trauma report that detailed physical trauma to mothers that the word has been co-opted for this navel gazing twaddle

Let's compromise: If a hospital or practice has a year long streak of a zero mortality rate for women and children in childbirth, they can spend their time on money on this kind of stuff.
Till the mortality rate for childbirth is zero, I kind of think we should focus on that. The actual lives involved.

No, they can’t waste spend money on this bullshit. The NHS has a million other things to spend taxpayers’ money on.

It's not clear how this works. Women have been having traumatic births for many decades. Even now only a very small proportion of those who give birth, possibly less than 1%, identify as trans. So it's hard to see how inclusive language could have any impact beyond making it more difficult for women not fluent in English to understand official communication.

Anyone else recall Ciara Curran's heart wrenching testimony about the impact of NHS erasure of terms like mother?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5012863-the-reality-of-losing-sex-based-language?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13108207/Grieving-mother-gripping-teddy-memory-late-daughter-slams-dehumanising-NHS-erasure-terms-like-mother.html

Harumph. Person centred care is about the person being cared for. Not the person caring for them or telling Twitter how inclusive they are not.

Well, they would not. It is impossible to reduce infant and maternal mortality to zero.

I wouldn’t have minded what they’d called me if they’d managed to empty my catheter after chopping through my bladder during my c section.

It’s such bullshit. I’m on a breastfeeding group on fb that’s riddled with chest feeding and the blue haired brigade. I’ll never understand how you can be so detached from your sexed body you’ll be offended by biologically accurate language but you’ll do something so wedded to your sexed body like get pregnant or breastfeed. No one’s ever explained it and I doubt they ever will.

Jaysus the entitlement. What is it that makes people so desperate to identify into oppression?

DEI initiatives in childbirth should be trying to address the truly horrific race-based gulf in maternal mortality. The fact in 2023 maternal mortality for Black women was almost four times higher than for White women (in the UK) is scandalous. The figure is the same for the USA (in some States it’s 7 times higher); & in Australia Aboriginal and St Torres Islander women are more than 3 x more likely to die than white women.

Improving access to & quality of maternity services for disabled women would be nice too. Just as one of those crazy radical thoughts.
BMJ Open

Of course, this means actual work - including addressing racism that many people refuse to accept &/or acknowledge exists - not doing find + replace in a range of documents & being smug about how wonderfully inclusive & progressive you are.

I'm pretty sure it's because they want to become mothers, while at the same time they equate being treated as a fully human person with being treated as a man. Being (treated as / referred to as) a woman is shameful.
If I wasn't so sleep deprived I'd throw in a wonderful Mary Daly quote. Internalised mysogyny, that'll do.

I'd say inclusive language comes a long way below appropriate pain relief, paying attention to the signs that something is going wrong and intervening earlier, and enabling the labouring mum to feel like she's retaining a degree of control over what's happening, if you want to prevent both physical and emotional trauma.

Absolutely this 👏

Or to please the pedant above, perhaps substitute 'lowest in the world' for 'zero' as yes, technically that would be impossible 🙄

We tell our socially inept kids that liberal use of the word 'technically' will not make you any friends!

Stella O'Malley describes talking through the negative effects of taking male hormones with an autistic teenage girl who wanted to transition and her mother during therapy. The girl said very seriously "that would happen to you Stella because you're a woman not to me because I am a man". (My paraphrase)

We really do need to use sexed language to spot the people who are deeply and dangerously confused. It's not kind to pretend.

As I said on another thread, I'd love to know what percentage of women (not LGBTQ+etc women but all those of the female sex however they identify):

Identify as a man
AND get pregnant
AND mind being referred to as a woman themselves
AND think this should trump all other women's rights and that all references to women, mother etc should be removed from medical and health literature.

It will be down in the tiny fractions of a percent, given that less than 1% of women identify as trans anyway.

I really object to the statistical
weaselling in that article, trying to imply that 28% (ooh, big number) of LGBTQ etc women are having traumatic births because of.... misgendering?

It makes it sound at a glance like 28% of women. This is why we need to know exactly who we are taking about, and the numbers not just percentages involved.

And using 'LGBTQ+' in this context is useless - no one giving birth is 'G'. Most of the 'L' probably want to be called women because that's what they are. Its ridiculous forced teaming to prioritise the T+ over everyone else.

Edit for typo

I doubt most of them identify as men. But I bet there are a lot of "non-binary" women who resent being called "women".

Fair enough. I should have said 'who don't identify as women'

It's still going to be a drop in the ocean.

But a very loud drop in the ocean. Middle class, educated, demanding, influential. Especially compared to all those women who don't speak good English.