Scotish midwifery to ban The word “Mother”

I have NO time for the "woke" movement who seem to want to ban the truth, and are offended by ANYTHING or ONE whose view differs from theirs.
Some of these folk have never had to sit on an upturned flower pot, in an air raid shelter lit by a candle, wondering how far their life would stretch in front of them! As a child I did, hence my lack of tolerance of weak minded snowflakes.

By all means have concerns about the world about us, but not to take it to ridiculous lengths.
A little tolerance and common sense would benefit all of us.
But, as a departed friend once said,
Common Sense isn't that common anymore.

Actually it's not so much ambiguity as deliberate obliquity.

If both women were pregnant they would both get maternity leave.

Yes. This is what I was thinking so I was puzzled why there was any kind of question. Then the ambiguity dawned on me.

If both women were pregnant they would both get maternity leave. One wouldn't get twice as much because the other got none, unless they both worked for the same employer and arranged this themselves.

I'm still unclear about how a change of wording would help in this situation, though.

Baggs

^My very good friends are pregnant ,they are both women ^

I find this ambiguous. Is each of them pregnant or are 'they' pregnant as a couple?

Baggs I did wonder but assumed just one woman is pregnant.
I remember next door neighbour telling me, excitedly, that "We are pregnant" and I thought, no, your wife is pregnant Mike!

Elegran ?

Germanshepherdsmum

Baggs it seems to echo that awful phrase ‘we are pregnant’. Perhaps uttering said phrase could be made an offence, preferably carrying a heavy sentence.

I don't think it should be made an offence, gsm; I just think people should try to be unambiguous. Fat chance of that in today's linguistic contortions, I know, but one can wish upon a cloud.

Some thoughts:
When it is said that ‘they’ are pregnant of a couple, several interpretations are possible without further information. If the couple consists of a man and a woman, it means they are expecting (that is, awaiting) the birth of a baby. Only one of them is pregnant. If the couple is two women it begins to get more complicated. ‘They’ are pregnant could have the same meaning as the above example, especially if one of the women is a transwoman, but it could also mean that two biological women are pregnant/expecting: awaiting the birth of two babies. If the couple is a man and a transman, I think it means the transman is pregnant though, as usual, the couple is awaiting the birth of a baby. If the couple is two transmen the same interpretations as for the two women are possible.

I think.

But why use language ambiguously when there are perfectly clear ways of expressing the meaning? I think it’s control freakery.

Alegrias1

So, attacking based on what one thinks a poster has to say rather than what they actually say.

Aye, thought so.

No, just applying what knowledge of a poster we already have to the meagre information that may be in any specific post. We do that all the time in real-life encounters and in how much credence we give to some journalists etc.

Baggs it seems to echo that awful phrase ‘we are pregnant’. Perhaps uttering said phrase could be made an offence, preferably carrying a heavy sentence.

tickingbird

Elegran

Alegrias When we see a name on a post, we already have in memory the previous posts we have seen from that poster. If they usually post something in an angry or sarcastic tone, we are prepared for something in the same vein. It is impossible to erase past experience from the mind, though we can try not to let it bias us against a poster.

If they pride themselves on their own intellect and cutting edge, and post acerbicly whenever they read anything that doesn't come up to their own debating standards, then we assume attack very quickly. QED

Yeh let's not have any clever stuff on GN! Especially clever stuff in capitals!

from paddyanne's post some of the SHOUTING is done to wind them up....lol so quite deliberate goading then. Any observation on this Alegrias1 ?

My very good friends are pregnant ,they are both women

I find this ambiguous. Is each of them pregnant or are 'they' pregnant as a couple?

^So long, and thanks for all the fish*

CODSwallop!

QED, indeed.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Way to go, Elegran

Well said Elegran.

Perfectly illustrated.

So, attacking based on what one thinks a poster has to say rather than what they actually say.

Aye, thought so.

Alegrias When we see a name on a post, we already have in memory the previous posts we have seen from that poster. If they usually post something in an angry or sarcastic tone, we are prepared for something in the same vein. It is impossible to erase past experience from the mind, though we can try not to let it bias us against a poster.

If they pride themselves on their own intellect and cutting edge, and post acerbicly whenever they read anything that doesn't come up to their own debating standards, then we assume attack very quickly. QED

I hope your friends get this sorted out, Paddyann This is the kind of story that would get sympathy for parents in minority groups who want equality, but we don't hear about them.

How will these changes help your friends, paddyanne54?

Unless I've misunderstood, if 'mother' changes to 'birth giver', it will still apply to the one who wants to go back to work, so won't the situation stay the same for the one who is doing the primary care?

I had friends in a similar situation (although the birth mother took the maternity leave), and the other mum adopted their babies legally, so they were both legal parents, and after the maternity leave period both were eligible for parental leave etc.

This was a while ago now, and in England, so things may have moved on, but AFAIK there are no barriers to shared childcare on the grounds of sex, gender or sexual orientation - the rules have to be exactly the same for all.

I hope the pregnant woman is well enough to go back to work after a fortnight, though. Mine were born by c-section, and that would have been impossible.

Galaxy

I am not uptodate about the situation in Scotland so I havent particularly commented on it, but the attack on language relating to women in England is very clear. Cervix havers and other dehumanising language have been used. When women raise these issues they receive endless threats of violence usually around the subject of sexual violence. I am afraid I am not doing much lol at the moment.

The case of the pregnant couple is not really to do with erosion of rights, at least I don't think so.
Separate issue.

I agree, it is all very disturbing Galaxy.

I did read and am trying to digest, there are a lot of points, paddyann but it's late and I am tired.

I will have a think, it seems to be unfair as I think an adoptive mother can claim maternity pay. Can she go down that route?

maternityaction.org.uk/advice/shared-parental-leave-and-pay/

I am not uptodate about the situation in Scotland so I havent particularly commented on it, but the attack on language relating to women in England is very clear. Cervix havers and other dehumanising language have been used. When women raise these issues they receive endless threats of violence usually around the subject of sexual violence. I am afraid I am not doing much lol at the moment.

Going back to the reason for the thread.My very good friends are pregnant ,they are both women who have been in a long term relationship for years.Some on here may recall me telling about them working for the C of Scotland for years but they couldn't marry in that church even though it was happy to accept their unpaid work . The agreement between them is that the one who is pregnant will return to work after 2 weeks and the other will assume the stay at home parent role.Sadly she'll have to jump through hoops to show that she is entitled to maternity pay but as the lower earner it makes financial sense .THATS ( sorry if my capitals offend) the people the bill is designed to take the pressure off She will be the primary carer so should be able to claim the benefit .In my and their opinions.I'm sure there are many others in similar circumstances .I'm sure an awful lot wont agree that the benefit should be transferable .
"Alegrias" I've never been flavour of the month with a fair few posters.My opinions are the polar opposite of theirs in most instances.I am quite capable of standing up to them...some of the SHOUTING is done to wind them up....lol