Scotish midwifery to ban The word “Mother”

I'm not taking offence in the slightest but some people may not realise just how offputting whole posts written in capitals can be.

One tends not to take in the content either so it is counter-productive.

With the advent of the Internet, typing messages in all caps commonly became closely identified with "shouting" or attention-seeking behavior, and may be considered rude. Its equivalence to shouting traces back to at least 1984 and before the Internet, back to printed typography usage of all capitals to mean shouting.

For this reason, etiquette generally discourages the use of all caps when posting messages online. While all caps can be used as an alternative to rich-text "bolding" for a single word or phrase, to express emphasis, repeated use of all caps can be considered "shouting" or irritating.

?

Elegran

It was aimed at me, SueDonim. I used four separate words in capital letters, scattered about my post at Thu 28-Oct-21 14:28:44, to emphasise them.

My reply to Alegrias was that occasional words in capitals are being emphasised, but a whole sentence in capitals is a shout. A whole post (or one mostly in capitals) is an even louder shout.

No Elegran it was not aimed at you. Subtlety is getting me nowhere so I'll be a bit more blunt.

Some posters are considered a bit angry, a bit in your face. Say, for instance , paddyann or even me so when those posters use capitals for selected words, like paddyann did today, the first reaction is that they're shouting.

Some posters are considered wise and sensible, like you Elegran. So when they do the exact same thing, using capitals for selected words, they are assumed to be emphasising things.

In the people who make these assumptions, we are witnessing some kind of subconscious reaction to what they think the posters mean. I'm sure psychologists could have a field day.

Not aimed at anybody, an observation. Although I am absolutely sure somebody will take offence at this post.

NanKate

Doodledog I agree with every sensible word you say.

I am awarding you this trophy for *Woman of the Year who talks straight, insults no one and is the voice of reason’ ?

That is very kind, NanKate, thank you ☺️

I agree Elegran
In fact, I have NEVER known you to shout. It is obvious that there is a difference between using capitals to emphasise one word and typing whole sentences or even whole posts in capital letters which are directed at other posters.

It just comes across as an angry rant, unfortunately, so any salient or interesting points might be missed.

It was aimed at me, SueDonim. I used four separate words in capital letters, scattered about my post at Thu 28-Oct-21 14:28:44, to emphasise them.

My reply to Alegrias was that occasional words in capitals are being emphasised, but a whole sentence in capitals is a shout. A whole post (or one mostly in capitals) is an even louder shout.

It really was just an observation SueDonim, not aimed at anybody. The observation was that when some posters use capitals they are accused of shouting, while others do exactly the same and nobody bats an eyelid.

Alegrias1

Ooh - just an observation, made with no prejudice.

When paddyann54 SHOUTS she gets told off

When Elegran SHOUTS, her posts get praised.

How strange.

Was that aimed at me? I hadn’t seen any other posts after my own, I’ve been travelling and then caring for my GC since this morning and not had time to look at GN.

It’s pretty well-understood, amongst other groups I’m on that, that using capital letters is bad manners and I almost never see it on there. Using bold or italics is the acceptable way to prove emphasis.

Doodledog I agree with every sensible word you say.

I am awarding you this trophy for *Woman of the Year who talks straight, insults no one and is the voice of reason’ ?

Since the 1960’s it’s been increasingly rare for women to choose to give up their children for adoption. The awful prejudice towards ‘unmarried mothers’ and their children changed that. In recent years it’s been increasingly common for some women to choose to have children alone. Marriage isn’t seen as essential before couples have children.
Adopted children and adults usually refer to their adoptive mother as mum, their birth mother as exactly that.
I’ve not met a birth mither who chose to relinquish their child for adoption who didn’t want to be known as mother. Letters to go with their baby are often signed using mummy/mum/tummy mummy/birth mother. This recognises the significance to the child and her birth mother of their relationship.
Focus on ensuring the rights of trans adults should detract from the emotional and psychological significance of that relationship

Just say No and carry on

If only it was that easy..... Kathleen Stock tried it.

To the ones saying the world’s gone mad etc. It only goes mad because we allow it, stop pandering and bowing to this nonsense. Everyone is so scared of offending someone. Being offended doesn’t mean they’re right. Just say No and carry on.

Doodledog ????

trisher

Smileless2012

No not always. A mother doesn't have to be a person who gives birth trisher.

We went throught his discussion before so here's a brief summary. The person who gives birth may or may not want to be called mother. Besides transmen who are having babies some women do so as surrogates for another woman, some women intend to give the child up for adoption .These women do not wantto be called 'mother' believing that title belngs to the person who will raise the baby. The term "person giving birth" covers every eventuality. Anyone who wants to be called mother can be.

So actually it's not tautology because if the women giving birth do not think of themselves as the mother, then adding in 'other birthing person' is quite different. Or are you agreeing that the female body that births a child is in fact the mother?

An alternative reality:

We went through this discussion travesty before so here's a brief summary different way of looking at things. The person who gives birth may or may not want to be called mother. Besides transmen who are having babies some women do so as surrogates for another woman other people, including gay men, homo and heterosexual couples and single men, some women intend to give the child up for adoption .These An unspecified number of these women do may not want to be called 'mother' believing that for reasons of their own, which may include a belief that the title belongs to the person who will raise the baby. The term "person giving birth" covers every eventuality removes the word 'mother', and with it the idea that only women are female, and as such, members of the only sex capable of giving birth. This suits the TRA agenda, which is to erase women as a sex, and replace us with a 'gender' that includes anyone who identifies as female, whether that may be on a permanent or temporary basis. Anyone who wants to be called mother can be, but sooner or later it will be seen as reactionary and anyone wanting to use it will be insulted and shouted down as 'transphobic'. Another brick in the wall.

Yes we've already had this discussion so here's a brief summary. Regardless of whether or not a woman who gives birth wishes to be a mother to her child, wishes to give that child up for adoption or as a surrogate, has had that the child for someone else, at the time she gives birth she is that child's mother.

And your definition, as wordy and patronising as it is trisher was, is, and forever will be, wrong. Please explain why you know so much more about genetics, human biology and procreation than Professor Robert Winston. I'd be fascinated to learn of your recognised qualifications in the field.

Smileless2012

No not always. A mother doesn't have to be a person who gives birth trisher.

We went throught his discussion before so here's a brief summary. The person who gives birth may or may not want to be called mother. Besides transmen who are having babies some women do so as surrogates for another woman, some women intend to give the child up for adoption .These women do not wantto be called 'mother' believing that title belngs to the person who will raise the baby. The term "person giving birth" covers every eventuality. Anyone who wants to be called mother can be.

trisher

I don't like adding in because it is tautology.

Too clever for me trisher

Pammie1

@Alegrias constitutionforscotland.scot/constitution.

Dedicated to conducting and administering a public consultation on the content and subsequent promotion into legislation of a Constitution endorsed by credible numbers of Scottish citizens.

We don't have a constitution.

Wish we did.

@Alegrias constitutionforscotland.scot/constitution.

AGAA4

Pammie1
My post was ironic as I just find it ridiculous to change wording.
We could change fathers into 'sperm donors' just as bad.

Yep, I agree. But I don’t think you’d get away with that - not on the agenda.

paddyann54

NO ONE has BANNED the word mother,its on a document that HASN;T BEEN THROUGH HOLYROOD and affects only maternity leave. Its not about trans women either ,there are many others it concerns who wouldn't get maternity leave or would have to jump thrugh hoops to get it ,,even though they are the primary carer . I do wish people would take in facts before having a meltdown.Nobody will ever stop the public from calling their mum MOTHER or whatever else they call her .

But they have. The Scottish Civil Service has agreed to delete the word ‘mother’ from all future maternity policy - so it doesn’t just affect maternity leave.

But science says she does have to be a female.

No not always. A mother doesn't have to be a person who gives birth trisher.