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.

Show me another thread ive raised it on?

The one I started about Class and BeKind.

Next question?

@IwantToRetire

I appreciate the links you post. I think the reason they do not provoke much discussion is that on a Feminist board, many topics will have a broad consensus. We don't think men abusing or marginalising women is ok and that is kind of taken as read. It's only areas where the moral rights of women to not be abused and marginalised clash with other groups' expectations, or contexts where some think women ae being abused and marginalised and others do not see it that way, that there is enough differences of opinion for a discussion to start.

So while I may have a strong reaction to the news, unless the topic also raises questions or dissent I don't have much to say other than "that is great" or "that is awful". For the sort of information you highlight I would probably only post to learn more or to see if there is a way to help practically.

But not being discussion-provoking does not mean they are not being read and valued.

What might trigger more discussion of the type you want is if you draw some conclusions or pull out themes in your OP - did the news item catch your eye because it seems to indicate a wider trend, or suprised you in some way, or even just made the issues you already know about come into sharp relief. Giving other posters something to respond to might engender the type of variety you want to see more of?

On the other hand,

You - I'm a midwife who uses trans inclusive language in my work

You - those who are not midwives should 'stay within their remit' and not question the medical establishment (My note - eesh, really?)

You - 'not many of our service users speak English as a foreign Language or are SEND so confusing language to make it 'inclusive' isnt't really an issue' (My note - I'm guessing that the number of pregnant women in these categories vastly outnumbers the amount of pregnant women identifying as men)

You - I will completely derail this thread (about, ironically, derailers) to repeatedly make this one, very specific point while simultaneously complaining about other posters who focus one specific point.

But as I said on a pp, you do you. It's often very illustrative for the lurkers.

I also work in a context where I have to shift my language to connect effectively. In fact, I could not do my job without taking on the world view of the people I need to connect to. So I am in fact speaking from experience here.

And something else I know from experience, because in my job it is extremely important to be conscious of bias so I actively seek out learning about how the mind works and how it can be influenced, is how incredibly bad humans are at recognising what influences their "own" thoughts.

Nope. No talk of trans inclusive language in maternity services.

Yes reflection is key for that. Nothing about a HCP using trans inclusive language to trans service users is biased though. It is a way to ensure equal holistic care for all.

I am answering posts directed at me.

Yes I understand your position as you the individual midwife and I understand your reasoning. I’m pointing out that you as an individual scaled up is when language changes thinking. See the point about asking students their pronouns.

It started as good intentions (it almost always does) but quickly becomes something chilling and ominous when it’s scaled up and then those using reality based language become demonised and compelled to use fantasy words. I have seen this happen before my eyes. The virtuous transform into rigid authoritarians all in the name of ‘being respectful’ - to some, not to all.

But I know many women who think like you do. I disagree.

Okay but what are you scared that midwives might think?

So for me, the use of language I am talking about has changed my thinking (in part) because I now acknowledge that I could have a service user who doesn't identify as a woman. That's the only thing that has changed and it is based on fact. It doesn't change that the majority of maternity service users are women and identify as such.

I can't see what's chilling about any of this tbh.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by bias. I'm talking about objective thinking vs unconscious assumptions, and how the language we use and the habits we form change our thinking even if we did not intend them to.

Here's a question for you - when you use "trans inclusive language", if you reduce it to basics, is what you are doing lying to the trans service user because you know they cannot handle the truth?

And if it's not that, what is it, at the very basic level?

No it's using language that makes the service user feel safe and understood by you. That leads to better clinical care and overall, better outcomes. It's no different to how I might adapt my language and demeanour when interacting with a 16 year old to ensure they felt safe and understood. Or a disabled person. Or Quite Average Annie who has no additional needs and is just here to have a baby.

It's chilling because you, a HCP, are giving public credence to the false idea that there are two types of humans who can give birth, "women" and some other lot.

You would not, I assume, indulge a woman who believed her pregnancy would end when the stork brought her nice clean baby to her in a cloth bundle?

So you do have a line where reality matters.

I find it chilling that you are drawing it so far from reality in a way that hurts women's legal, cultural and social existence.

There are lots of types of humans who can give birth. Trans men are a group who can. That's why individualised care that meets their specific needs is of importance. TM are just as entitled to feeling safe and understood in pregnancy, birth and in the postnatal period as women are.

@Temporaryusernamefortoday

You might be thinking of LoftyRobin who was another maternity HCP with similar views and posting style.

And there is it.

You either believe that "woman" (and girls) refers to the biological female half of humanity, in which case all your "types of humans" are subsets of that one group, or you believe that "woman" is some sort of personality expression entirely unrelated to biology and there's no reason whatsoever that a baby comes out of a "woman" rather than a "man".

Seems like despite all your protestations that "flipping" your language hasn't changed they way you think, when asked to get right down to basics, it has.

I'm finding it a bit obfuscatory to say 'there are lots of types of human who can give birth'. Each woman who gives birth is an individual and different from all other women in myriad ways, and obviously that woman should be treated as an individual. But what 'types of human' are there in terms of giving birth or not? Other than sex types? 'Women' are the only 'type of human' that gives birth.

No again youve misunderstood because your whole world is about this whole gender issue.

For many people, totally away from the whole trans argument, don't see their sex as their primary identifier. This is to do with personal identity. So, for some people, if you asked them who they are, just that simple question, they might say "a woman" but equally they might say "an African", or "a human", or they might say "a mere blip in the ripples of time". Not everyone who gives birth wants us to think of them primarily as a woman. It isn't that they disagree that they are a woman, but they see about as important as being a size 6 shoe. It isnt their most encompassing label.

A good HCP will find what is important to the individual and will use that as their foundation to build a trusting relationship.

And just to say, this is something I learned as a student way before we were even taught to consider that trans men might be pregnant as part of our degree. We did relatively little on same sex relationships, let alone trans identities.

That's profoundly ideological. I don't know whether I agree with it or not, but that is certainly not a neutral position. Was this discussed and explored and challenged, or was it just laid down by your teachers as an unquestionable principle that you all had to accept?

But it goes beyond that sphere of caring for an individual into a change in the general use of language and concepts. See your use of 'pregnant people' when not ministering to an individual but posting on a discussion forum. This appears to suggest your thinking of 'pregnant women' has been replaced by thinking 'pregnant people'. This is the specific example to hand and I am not saying this is just you or you are wrong for caring for individuals. It's that in that process of change of use in the public sphere, 'pregnant women' comes to be perceived as less acceptable or even downright wrong. Across society, this subverts reality, specifically women's reality and diminishes the position and status of women. I take your point, though, that you are not caring for or thinking of men who 'transition'.

What exactly are you talking about? Why would you refuse to accept that some people don't see their sex as a primary identifier if it clearly evidenced and you may have even had first hand experience of people who feel that way?

This is about how people feel about themselves. You cant argue with them about that and say that they should feel that sense of attachment to one aspect of their identity when they just do not.

Lots of academia isn't about right or wrong. It is about exploring difference.

No again youve misunderstood because your whole world is about this whole gender issue.

This is simply a wrong statement.

Nevertheless, as we are on that topic on this board, I note you slipped in the word "primarily".

You had to do that because your examples of people who do not want to be seen as "primarily" a woman are not at all the same as denying one is a woman at all.

The African woman might consider her identity as an African more important that her identity as woman, but presumably she does not think that being African means she is not a woman at all.

Very different.

No it doesnt suggest that at all. I sued pregnant person once in relation to someone who is pregnant and doesn't identify as a woman. Let's go back and quote:

"I saw this the other day when someone gave a perfect answer as to why midwives like me may respect the gender identity of a pregnant person we care for."

Clearly, by stating that this is a person with a gender identity and prefacing it by saying that the discussion was about someone who is pregnant and trans, it is clear that I am speaking about specific individuals who use maternity services. Those individuals do not identify as woman and so in accordance with how they view themselves, I automatically do not refer to them as women which is largely their preference.

We do have that person here who identifies as both a TM and a woman but that's the only time Ive ever heard of anyone doing that..

No one is saying people cannot feel however they feel about themselves.

We are saying when politicians, public services, employers, media outlets take up those self images as fact, or even just pretend to think they are facts to make individuals feel comfortable, it goes beyond just what makes an individual comfortable into something that impacts other people and that also needs to be considered.

That is why health care information that goes wider than one HCP talking to an individual service user, like literature that refers to "women and birthing people", cannot allows the needs and preferences of one group to redefine everyone else.

This is not about "right or wrong", it about what type of society we want to have - one based on understanding reality and finding our best places within that, or one based on pretence and the imposition of power.