Bristol Council insists women be called ‘people with ovaries’

[IwantToRetire]

The comments were made in a 39-page response to a consultation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on updates to its guidance, following the ruling that sex in equality laws refers to biological sex.

It wrote that “not all pregnant individuals would use the pronouns ‘she/her’” so it could lead to “emotional and psychological distress” for “trans men, non-binary, gender diverse or intersex individuals”.

“We strongly advise the use of more inclusive language such as using ‘they/them’ to refer to all individuals, or include other identities to reflect the diversity of individuals who access maternity or paternity services,” officials said.

“This could include ‘people with ovaries’ or the term ‘people who use paternity services’. We also recognise that individuals may not identify with the word maternity and prefer paternity as it is gender neutral.

“Additionally, it is unclear what support will be available to trans people who chest-feed to ensure they are protected from discrimination.”
Protections based on biological sex are “too vague”, the response added, as: “It is unclear whether it refers to anyone capable of pregnancy, or only those who were assigned female at birth.”

Council officials complained that the new guidance implies that “trans women are not ‘really’ women” and risked “creating a hostile environment in public services”.

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/council-says-women-called-people-with-ovaries/

And at https://archive.is/TOgKA

No, I'm just understanding how conjunctions work.

If you refer to 'women and trans men', 'women' can only refer to gender, because if if referred to sex the 'and' would be superfluous because if 'women' refers to sex it includes trans men.

We have very limited evidence that anyone wants to gender neutralise "everything" in maternity care. Firstly because youd have to agree that adding pregnant people to woman gender neutralises "woman". I don't agree that it does from any perspective. And that's from someone who personally doesnt believe you can change gender or sex.

But trans men don't see themselves as women. You see them as women. The law might even see them as women. But their own perception of themselves doesn't include womanhood. That's why we couldn't omit these additional terms and still provide holistic maternity care to these individuals.

This sort of summarises why the NHS is so shit. People spending time worrying about creating more and more woke nonsense rather than accepting biological facts and treating people accordingly. If a women thinks they are really a man and then has a baby they should quickly realise that they were in fact a women afterall. The fact that someone with medical training would consider the statement that men don't give birth an opinion is absolutely ridiculous.

You have to remember that midwives will always push against laws they feel obstruct them from providing holistic, safe care.

Its neither here nor there when someone is pushing out a baby.

Actually If we are using 'gender' to refer to ' societal expectations of how men and women should behave,' I would like to gender neutralise everything.

I just need to retain words and services that are sex specific.

Midspouses please...

Why would you choose to get pregnant if you believe you are a man?

And I bet they want the 9 months maturity leave that women get, not the 2 weeks that the men they want to be get.

So it’s all about their inclination is it?

i see.

While I understand that you need to tailor care to individuals, I very much hope as a health care provider you also see them as women (female sex), otherwise I don't know how you can provide any kind of safe care.

I also assume that they do actually understand that they are women (female sex) otherwise I would fear for their ability to care for themselves, and you really are describing a psychological problem.

I have no clue what 'womanhood' is by the way.

Yes. And that ended up with a whole bunch of dead babies didn't it?

There was evidence for that.

In fact there's been a few inquiries that have come to that same conclusion.

So perhaps the midwives should fuck off with that gem as the basis of why we should have gender bollocks in maternity care.

Not all women push a baby out.

There you go again with your ideological bias showing.

Logically, if 'woman' refers to sex and 'trans men' refers to gender, 'women including trans men' or 'women of any gender identity or none' is inclusive.

Although I think the potential to push a baby out is the fundamental reason why we categorise sex.

Yes, I just don't get that. Of course, there maybe be a small number of unplanned pregnancies, but aside from rape, these will be from consensual penetrative intercourse in the woman's vagina - something you wouldn't do if you think you are a man. Surely.

Historically every time ideology mixes with medicine, patients get harmed.

There are no exceptions to this rule.

I would wait until I see what the MP actually wrote

This is the local council not MPs.

And presumably leaked because of the already many public statements made by some Councillors.

And assuming it was leaked because so far any one who dares to try and say that sex is biological is silenced.

Personally I dont think they will care. In fact they will probably think its a badge of honour to have a negative article in the Telegraph.

I hadn't realised when I saw how many posts had been added to this thread that in fact it wasn't about a wide ranging discussion but just another thread that has run into the cul de sac of a ground hog day.

Or an example of dont feed the trolls.

That's not very inclusive of all the people who have no idea what the fuck cisgender means because it's a fucking nonsense word.

You're suggesting that we write a fucking essay to explain all the different types of people who might at some point be capable of getting pregnant.

Wouldn't it be useful to just have one word that means "female people"? Like, I don't know, "women", for example?

Now if a trans man has had a contraception failure or has been raped and needs to access abortion or maternity related services, obviously I'm not going to shout "YOU ARE A WOMAN!" at a very troubled, unwell individual who is going through a different time.

But someone like Freddy McConnell? Make your mind up, love. Are you a woman or a man? Or just an attention seeking nitwit?

No I'm not someone who "just [doesn't] want the former to feel embraced by maternity services". That's you projecting motives on to me to avoid thinking too much about what you are really saying.

I am someone who thinks the language that public bodies use to speak to and about the public matters.

If it public bodies use language that accepts a person can be female but not a girl or a women, then public bodies are accepting that woman and girl are types of personalities not types of bodies, and implicitly then every person that body interacts with as a woman or girl is being labelled as a type of personality whether they like it or not.

So when you say it says nothing about the pregnant people who do identify as women at all you are wrong.

What ypu are really saying is "women who don't identify as trans, suck it up.You know what I mean so who cares that we have to be a bit sexist to keep the women who have a trans identity happy"

It's not treating everyone with respect, it's prioritising the trans man's sensitivities over everyone else. It's belittling to the women who are being boxed into a gender stereotype because the trans man has some sexist ideas about what type of personality goes with being a woman and being told they should just shut up and be nice about it, and frankly it's infantilising trans men to assume that they are less likely than other women to be able to cope with gender offensive terminology.

Genderist language is a trap.

Once you start down the route of trying to address a general population who share a common feature while trying to respect all the different ways those people see themselves when some of those ways are mutually exclusive and some of which deny that common feature exists, you will never get it right because there is no right.

It's like trying to address the population of Britain by calling us "The British and the Millwall Fans and the Labour Voters and the Knitters and..."

Much much better to just stop trying to use the words Man and Woman to label personalities rather than bodies.

"It's like trying to address the population of Britain by calling us "The British and the Millwall Fans and the Labour Voters and the Knitters and...""

Or the British and the Scottish.

Despite the fact that some people would rather it wasn't the case, the term 'British' refers to people with a specific nationality that entitles them to live in the UK and includes people who are Scottish.

If 'British' is used in a way that doesn't include 'Scottish', it can't be referring to a neutral and objective description of nationality, so the meaning is changed.

ETA: And probably changed to something that doesn't include me.

This.

plus someone else’s inclination does not over ride my no.

It all sounds so pretentious and unnautral. What a shame!

What is dehumanising about becoming a mother? The sorts of 'modest' women you refer to, I imagine, value their roles as mothers and are not caught up in all of this preciousness.