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

Nursing mother used to be the usual way to refer to a mother who was breastfeeding her child. It was common enough when I was a new mother in the 1980s - I believe it dates back many centuries. It’s a rather strange term to object to, as it has historical significance referring to the loving care and nurture a mother gives her child.
Chestfeeding, on the other hand, is both inaccurate and a neologism invented to affirm the delusion of a woman who believes that she has gestated and given birth to her child as a man, which is why I object to it.

I certainly won't. Nor will I refer to women as people with ovaries.

We are all covered by “woman”. That’s the bloody point. We don’t have to make it clear that we’re a certain type of woman, suggesting there are types other than adult human female.
Because there aren’t.
Wr shouldn’t have to share the billing with men or those to claim to be men in a bloody maternity ward.

Of course it makes sense.

When you say "women and trans men", you are accepting that someone can be female, but not a "woman". You are accepting that presentation or her personality can make a female person not a woman.

Why on earth do we need words to label different types of female people based on how closely they align to traditional gender roles? Can you not see how sexist that is?

You think you are being nice to trans men but it doesn't just affect trans men because when you apply that genderist split between woman and trans man to her, you apply that split to us as well.

"Mind your own business"? Nice. As a woman, I think official bodies using language that turns women into reductive stereotypes is my business.

Yes but to encompass all possible matnerity service users, even the less than 1%, women AND pregnant people would be the best term say when youre talking about what antenatal classes are on offer in a leaflet about maternity services.

I also object to 'nursing' mothers because it is euphemistic and unclear.

It reminds me of being asking 'are you feeding your child yourself' when I had a new baby, as though somebody else would be feeding the baby.

I would let it pass if anyone used it, but would certainly do an internal eye roll.

So you do want maternity services to not use inclusive language for trans and non binary identifying service users?

You think that we should basically refuse to use those terms at all when speaking generally about what is on offer to whom?

Agree and love this comment! 👆

Only women can get pregnant so there is no need to include your extra wording any more than saying a service is for women and blonde women.

We had a lecturer who was very very anti formula unless the baby was literally dying and only on prescription from a paediatrician. She suggested we ask if mum is feeding the baby "naturally or artifically". She would routinely call formula "artifical milk".

There is a need because some maternity service users dont identify as women and we need to encompass them into our care.

But I have just explained that it doesn't encompass anyone who doesn't subscribe to belief in gender identity and finds the concept sexist, offensive and alienating.

What is the rational behind not using clear, gender neutral language like 'woman'.

You might as well make maternity services faith based.

Do they not know their sex?

Is the concern that they would be more offended than a woman who does not believe in gender ideology, or less able to cope?

No it applies to people who don't identify as women but are pregnant. It says nothing about the pregnant people who do identify as women at all. You just don't want the former to feel embraced by maternity services which is weird, frankly.

The concern is that arguing with someone about their identity when they are pregnant will not allow them to have the kind of support they are entitled to as a maternity service user in the UK. We know that women who feel unsupported have worst outcomes than those who do, regardless of risk status.

We do use terms like women, we just also use the terms preferred by other maternity service users in addition to "woman" or "women".

If they don't they don't think they women, they won't be carrying babies which is one of the key components of what separates men from women. There is an obvious contradiction in thinking you are a men then deciding to become pregnant.

I'd suggest you do not.

Why?

The only people using maternity services ARE women.

Stop mangling language. It's offensive to women.

"It says nothing about the pregnant people who do identify as women at all."

Aha! This is where you are misunderstanding - I think most of the women on this board no more 'identify as women' than they identify as being human or having lungs. It's a reality that isn't changed by identity, and that is the core reason that women need rights.

Maybe I’ll start calling men testicle owners or even better, foreskin bearers

What about the term "prostrate havers" for men.

Kier "prostrate haver" Starmer. Does Lammy thinks women can grow prostrates?

But if you are pregnant you have to be a women. There are no other scenarios.

It was that way because talking about how a woman makes milk and feeds it to her baby was seen as disgusting. And actually its exactly why this community don't speak of "breasts". It's seen as immodest and vulgar. They would NEVER breastfeed in front of their husbands. He would likely act like she just took a shit on the kitchen table.

It isnt about comfort or love that we call(ed) it nursing. It's misogyny.

It's batshit in Bristol. FGS.

And you are clearly using 'woman' to mean 'person who identifies as feminine, regardless of sex.

This is the feminist board so we object to this sexist definition.