Thread derailment

[Temporaryusernamefortoday]

Wondering if I am the only one that’s noticed more and more thread derailments. I’m not talking about TRA taking a TWAW stance but an individual being deliberately obtuse or missing the point of an individuals posts to create an argument about a tangential element. It just seems rather insidious and designed to prevent proper conversation.

This is not a TAT but a thread about a phenomenon.

I have a lovely recipe for crackers with cheese!

Crackers. Add cheese. Microwave for 45 seconds or til cheese is melted (I like to aim for past-melted-going-chewy).

Sprinkle with salt (and pepper if you want, I'm not militant).

Voila!

You are welcome.

See, my winter warmer is soda bread pizza.

The soda farl is your base. Slice it sideways because it's thick. Slap on plently of tomato puree, then add chopped onion and grated cheese - sometimes I like to make it a bit swanky with some olives - bung it under the grill until it's nice and toasty.

I'm not sure the second part of the sentence is necessary:

feminism based on women as sex class that is oppressed by the male sex class.

Certainly you have to have women as a class. The core of the argument with male-trans inclusive feminists is that they think it is about a gender class, and there can be a few reasons they think that.

It's a really fundamental argument so no surprise it creates really very basic and in some ways bitter disagreements. But in general, both groups are trying to address issues of women as a class.

But do feminists have to see being oppressed by men as core to a feminist? I think most if not all would say that can happen and often has. But as a lens from which to interpret all the social and political issues that affect women, as if they are all about male oppression, I don't think that is necessary at all. Many contentious issues between men and women are about differences between the groups that materially affect their lives. The fact that women become pregnant an that affects them in many ways that do not apply to men, for example, is not at it's core about oppression. It would be the true even if all people had perfectly equal views about men and women.

Ooh! That is swanky! I like it!

Actually, there always used to be a few little sub forums, one of them being feminist chat, the other feminist activism I think, and there may have been another one. They were tumbleweed. I think originally someone suggested that these be got rid of and that discussion got merged with some other people complaining that there was too much focus on trans stuff when they wanted to discuss other women’s rights issues (and some of these people were broadly GC, or claimed to be, and others were TRA allies who wanted to discuss “inclusive” topics).

There was in fact consultation, I think several threads in site stuff, and it wasn’t a popular move, but ultimately MN’s solution was to streamline the board into the “sex and gender discussions” and the feminist chat topic.

You know, as a midwife, this is something ive bumped across a fair few times because the unit I am attached to has a fertility clinic and so we see a lot of same sex couples and a few surrogates. While I have never had anyone on my caseload that has said they are a TM, I have had cases where the woman who is pregnant isn't the parent who the same sex couple have planned to be the primary caregiver. However, they didnt account for the physical toll of carrying and birthing a baby and how that in part dictates why you need rest and recuperation as well as your biological urges to fulfil a specific parenting role.

What I mean by that is that the woman who is pregnant would think that she could just give birth and return to work as the core provider while her partner stays home and plays the role traditionally played by a lactating mother. It's actually just underestimating how pregnancy and birth truly affects you in just about every way.

Indeed.

This is something I don't quite understand. (I suppose my following question may be a thread derail but never mind! Let's get meta.)

You said someone gave a perfect answer as to why midwives like me may respect the gender identity of a pregnant person we care for.

Could you give an example of what you mean by a pregnant person who is not a pregant woman? What kind of person are you talking about? You can only be talking about female people because no male person has ever been pregnant.

I could understand midwives saying that they will respect the gender identity of a pregnant woman who they care for, even if the pregnant woman identifies as something else - as a transman, or a man, a non-binary, or whatever other identity label she has chosen for herself. And I can understand that this respect for a patient may extend to referring to her with neutral or male pronouns at least in her presence and perhaps also in some other contexts - though I can also see how easily wrong-sex pronouns could lead to confusion and medical errors.

What I don't understand is how an anonymous poster who is not speaking about an identifiable individual could feel the need to use the term "pregnant person" rather than "pregnant woman". Please could explain what you mean by "pregnant person" and how this is different from what you mean by "pregnant woman"?

It's simple. My brain just flips to "okay you're not a woman but you are pregnant". When your language matters so much, you have to learn to change it so it becomes reflexive to use it. For instance, once a woman did a talk on Downs Syndrome and the language we use. She is a mum if a child with DS. She said a practical thing we can do is stop saying "risk of DS" and say "chance" instead. So I changed my language and now that's what I always say for the reasons she said it was important.

Not everyone would agree with her reasoning but I think it's a good thing to use to everyone.

"Pregnant person" isn't quite like that because it isnt language I'd use to everyone. In fact, I've never had to use to anyone indirect communication. I've written it a few times. My students often use that terminology, too. I don't know how much theyve discussed what language to use in university.

When your language matters so much, you have to learn to change it so it becomes reflexive to use it.

Ah yes, I know the feeling! You are afraid not to use "pregnant people" here for fear of mis-speaking elsewhere. But then again surely the mothers of FWR who feel devalued by terms like "pregnant people" deserve just as much consideration for our feelings?

That is one of the things I value about discussion on the MumsNet. Because it's written down and because it's not quite as immediate as face-to-face conversation there is time to stop and think about the language we use. And to discuss it too.

She said a practical thing we can do is stop saying "risk of DS" and say "chance" instead.

Not everyone would agree with her reasoning but I think it's a good thing to use to everyone.

Hm, I wonder how many parents of children with Downs Syndrome feel the same way as she does. Do they all agree? DS is not neutral.

One lesson I have learned from "trans" but to some extent also from recent disability activism is to be cautious about over-generalising from individuals' "lived experience" and also to be cautious about relying on the preferences of self-appointed representatives.

"Pregnant person" isn't quite like that because it isnt language I'd use to everyone. In fact, I've never had to use to anyone indirect communication. I've written it a few times. My students often use that terminology, too. I don't know how much theyve discussed what language to use in university.

As you note, language matters. Language changes the content of thought. It’s why Orwell so successfully made his point in 1984. Compel people to use different language and you change their thinking. Very powerful.

By using the term pregnant person, you (global, not individual) shift thinking of women giving birth to people giving birth. Despite the fact that it is always a woman giving birth. For now. It diminishes women (global use of the word) to remove them linguistically from the one act that forms the single biggest difference between men and women and is the biggest reason for the deeply entrenched patterns of patriarchal society. Now your students use that terminology as a matter of course and in a sleight of hand, woman is erased.

Pregnant person may start out as being ‘respectful to individuals’ but it ends up being immensely impactful for all women. Not in a good way.

Echoing every word here.

The more easily you find yourself able to "flip" to using language that you know describes a fake truth, the more scared you should be.

My students often use that terminology, too. I don't know how much theyve discussed what language to use in university.

I don't know if they've discussed it but it's a kind of drip-drip at university. For example the university where I work asks students about their preferred pronouns (I guess when they register) and although it's not compulsory most students do it and then it's propagated and there's other software that displays their pronouns more or less by default in contexts where you wouldn't necessarily need or expect it. So no-one discusses it but it's in the air.

No I'm not afraid to not use it. I can deliver better care by using it. There's been lots of language suggested to me that Ive rejected. For instance, routinely referring to contractions as surges.

https://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/its-time-for-doctors-to-change-their-language-my-child-is-not-a-risk/news-story/76b6b783118aaba9fe29e950a6b36470

You read what that mum has to say and whether you think it is likely a parent to a child with DS would fiercely object to her message.

I have read what that mum Sarah has to say about her views and about her friend, and while I would hope health professionals will respect the mother who asked for the word "chance" to be used instead of "risk" that is also not a neutral wording, not if it was to be applied by default to everyone.

The blog post was specifically about pregnancy screening, right? So I would want to balance what Sarah and her self-selected group of friends prefer against other women who might be a lot quieter than she is about their feelings and preferences, women who might keep especially quiet around a Sarah. Fiercely object? No. Quietly feel that bit worse about it all? You decide.

To be fair I am not even sure if there could be such a thing as a totally neutral wording that's right for everyone. Context is all.

The thing us, no-one posting here has any obligation to each other (aside from abiding to talk guidelines). Everyone gets out different things from the conversations. Some want a serious discussion about feminist theory where others find that intimidating. Some want to find a community of people to have both serious and more lighthearted chat and others find that frivolous and irritating. Being told that the threads must go a certain way or handwringng that the level of conversation has declined comes across as being scolded by a teacher or professor that the class isn't staying on track. None of us signed up for a class.

I personally find it tedious when there are demands from other posters to 'ignore the derailers'. It becomes a far bigger part of the discussion than actually answering the points, mainly for the benefit of lurkers, but that's my opinion. It also generally highlights the inconsistencies in the 'oooh, it's such an echo chamber here but I can't actually articulate beyond be kind!' approach.

I personally found it deeply annoying on the long runing Sandie Peggie threads that some posters who clearly wanted pretty much a facsimilie of Tribunal Tweets, demanded that other posters not post about anything else, even in breaks or when we were waiting, rather than, you know, reading TT. But again, my opinion.

I personally find some of the conversations somewhat going over old ground but appreciate that there's an everchanging roster of people coming on and off the board who might not know previous conversations. (Although I probably wouldn't have waded in with criticisms about the board without actually knowing or finding out the details about the FWR split).

Most women don't consider what language they'd prefer to hear when hearing that kind of news. All we can listen to are the women who have heard this kind of news coupled with associated research. Something like 90% of pregnancies where the baby has DS are terminated.

Anyway my point is thay HCPs are constantly reflecting and adapting their language to provide better care for their service users.

No it doesn't work like that because it doesnt shift your thinking for everyone you care for, just those who identify that way. So while my language might shift when I am talking about someone who is pregnant but doesn't identify as a woman, it just as quickly shifts back when I am talking about the majority of our service users who are pregnant/postnatal women.

Flipping your language to suit your service user is a skill literally everyone in healthcare has to have.

No what I mean is that as part of their healthcare degree, students will discuss language and how to find the best ways to communicate with the range of service users you will encounter. What I don't know is how much they discuss trans inclusive language specifically.

And I just want to point out here that I am a senior midwife of many years at this point, yet I have people who have no idea how to do my job trying to tell me how I shoild communicate in the workplace and what a very basic skill that every HCP has to have "really means".

I think there needs to be some self reflection on how knowledgeable some of you think you are. Your GC views do not mean that you are now experts in communication in any profession, let alone mine. You just have an opinion about a social issue. That's it. It isnt a degree.

No what I mean is that as part of their healthcare degree, students will discuss language and how to find the best ways to communicate with the range of service users you will encounter. What I don't know is how much they discuss trans inclusive language specifically.

I think this is a really interesting area of discussion (in general) - I find 'how best to communicate something clearly' a tricky thing, and obviously to me relies on clear definitions, so the 'target audience' as it were has the least possible ambiguity or risk of misunderstanding. But trying to balance that factual healthcare comms with 'current' accepted language can't be easy and I'm sympathetic to it.

And sometimes you end up with a total mishmash, as per that diet website that gave target caloric intake for men and women - and for non-binary people as the midpoint between the two

No it doesn't work like that because it doesnt shift your thinking for everyone you care for, just those who identify that way. So while my language might shift when I am talking about someone who is pregnant but doesn't identify as a woman, it just as quickly shifts back when I am talking about the majority of our service users who are pregnant/postnatal women.

I think in reality most people would do this, although I think in some cases e.g. they/them it can be incredibly difficult (see the Haech tribunal - even the judge writing the judgment based entirely around the person accidentally being called 'she' instead of 'they' managed to do it!)

Just to note, to avoid crossed wires, please don't take lack of comment from me on any other point as any implicit indication that I do or don't agree with anything stated in any other post on this thread.

I think it’s you that needs to ‘self reflect’. There are a lot of very educated, very intelligent, very experienced individuals on this thread. Shock, some of them are going to be cleverer than you and yet you are the only one who is standing on their job as a pedestal to lecture people on.

The reason that no one else here is parroting ‘in my job’ is not because your job Squishedpassenger makes you uniquely qualified to discuss this issue but because it is apparent that your job and your role is the only lens through which you are willing to consider this through. The mutilation of language was the slippery slope that allowed men to identify as women to identify into female only spaces.

There is a reason we are taught to use the term ‘has died’ rather than ‘passed away’. Communication requires clarity and accuracy.

It isnt about who is cleverest, it is about who understanding your remit and sticking to it. Trying to instruct a midwife how she should communicate with service users because you're passionately GC is just deluded.