Birthing People - inclusive or offensive?

Totally agree

Ilovecheese

If they said "and" it would make such a difference.
Women "and" birthing people.
Who could object to that?

Agree Trisher which is why I posted the above as a compromise.

Today 09:26 trisher

So if a woman wishes to be called a man you would all force her to remain a woman?

I haven’t seen anyone that has said that. As I said earlier, call yourself what you will, love as a man, woman or whatever. The point being made is that only someone born a woman can carry and give birth to a child.

Political correctness gone mad

And if that person chose not to be called either a woman or a mother ,refused to respond to either of those names what then? What do you call them? Do you ignore their request?

How about the case of surrogates?

I like the change, it is more inclusive and reflects the current social situation

If it was inclusive it would be mothers and birthing people.

trisher

And if that person chose not to be called either a woman or a mother ,refused to respond to either of those names what then? What do you call them? Do you ignore their request?

No, I’ll call them whatever they choose, man, woman etc, reserving my right to be called woman, mother, grandmother etc. rather than any of the latest gamut of terms being invented.
I wouldn’t even raise the subject of biological sex unless they did, but I can’t lie and say that someone who wasn’t born female can get pregnant and give birth, even if they are happy to lie.
In the future, it’s quite possible that men will demand a womb transplant on the NHS and birth by Caesarian section.
I can’t see them asking for ovaries, periods and the menopause.
The NHS is short of money, but it would be men demanding this surgery so . . .

And the group that are always utterly ignored in these situations, women with learning disabilities who need clear language to access medical support.

What if men had the capability of giving birth?
That would be great!
They would realize how hard it is (pregnancy, birth, recovery, raising a child), how it impacts your job prospects and career, etc.

Some women may even welcome it as having kids wouldnt be just their responsibility

What would be so bad about that?

Laws would change to be more pro birthing person (in the job market, in the health sector, etc)

I also bet men wouldnt put up with how a pregnancy and birth is happening now (obstetrician cohertion and lack of choice by the patient)

Galaxy

If it was inclusive it would be mothers and birthing people.

quite

Words are everything in this argument. While we tie ourselves in knots trying not to cause offence, our language has been hijacked and untold damage is done, mainly to women.

Labour MPTonia Antoniazzi, MP for Gower recently made a speech that exposed how seriously this hijacking has affected our lives. Here are two sections from that speech

“The BBC asked 45 regional police forces in the UK for data on reported cases of female perpetrators’ child sex abuse from 2015 to 2019. The data received indicated that there was an increase of 84 per cent.“

“‘Women make up 3 per cent of the arrests for all sexual offences. The number of women convicted for these crimes is so low that the mis-recording of the sex of the perpetrator skews the data very quickly. Where offence categories are very rarely committed by women, the addition of just one or two people can have a significant impact on data. For example, a biological man convicted of attempted murder and other offences at Birmingham Crown court in 2017 was recorded as female, thus falsely elevating the number of females convicted of attempted murder that year in England and Wales by around 20 per cent.”

Just by changing the word gender instead of sex, the courts are seeing “female” child abusers and “female” rapists.
Most of the time it doesnt matter what people call themselves, which is fine. Live and let live.But sometimes it just does.

Transmen need appropriate support and language when giving birth, as do women with learning disabilities, women with English as a second language, etc etc.

JenniferEccles

I’m disappointed Biden has fallen for all this nonsense.

Did he give way to pressure I wonder?

Unfortunately erasing women's rights is part of his agenda. One of the very first Executive Orders he signed on his first day in office effectively started that ball rolling.

We can hardly hold our heads up in England since, if a woman is raped by a man, who then decides to self-ID as a woman when he is arrested, the victim must refer to her attacker in court as “she” and so on. Shameful.

JaneJudge

Galaxy

If it was inclusive it would be mothers and birthing people.

quite

But the use of mother is unnecessary as far as that statement is concerned- they are people who give birth and so birthing people. It's much the same as saying -road users and cyclists, cyclists are road users, so it is covered.

The word mother is as necessary to women as the word birthing person is to transmen.

Hithere There is an old comment that if women gave birth to the first child and men gave birth to the second, no-one would ever have a third.

Either you think it's important for people to be treated with respect or you dont.

trisher

JaneJudge

Galaxy

If it was inclusive it would be mothers and birthing people.

quite

But the use of mother is unnecessary as far as that statement is concerned- they are people who give birth and so birthing people. It's much the same as saying -road users and cyclists, cyclists are road users, so it is covered.

Not really trisher.

That excludes those who have children by a surrogate and those who adopt.

And for women with learning disabilities it is much clearer language to support them in the process.

All this is P.C gone crazy and taken to far. A Transman is what it says transitioning to a man. To me they want to leave the female body behind as it is the wrong body for them, only when it suits them they want to use their female parts/womb to carry a child and then what are they called mummy or daddy?
If transitioning then that is alright but to transition to a man then they should have to give up their rights to any life as a woman. They want their cake and eat it.

I found myself watching the documentary a few nights ago
called Boy or Girl and tried hard to be non judge-mental .
The mother of one non-binary child was doing everything
to put her child first and was organized, calm understanding.
The child got to the point where it would be reaching puberty but it did not identify as any sex so was going to be put on blockers so the puberty would be delayed. The child with the sweetest voice you can imagine was talking to its mother and saying how the blockers could be used until they reached about 16 years. (even though the doctors did not recommend it) Their was a short break in filming and then the mother came back alone and she was upset distressed and crying and saying how she found it hard to cope with "Her" meaning her non binary child and she wanted her child to identify with something as she is a girl. There is certainly a lot of mental health issues that the parent of one of these children has to take on board I found it quite sad. The child did look a bit boyish but had a lot of feminine characteristics and a girls voice.

And if that person chose not to be called either a woman or a mother ,refused to respond to either of those names what then? What do you call them? Do you ignore their request?

People may call themselves what they like, but so may I.
There is a local councillor who refuses to identify as male or female but uses initials only; therefore I choose to ignore that person, (perfectly obvious which sex ) and all it has to say.

But no one is stopping you being called mother this isn't really about what you are called in the delivery room or mternity ward. It's about ensuring everyone who gives birth regardless of their gender is covered by legislation. I would think it is especially vital in the US when any loophole in the law would be used to restrict medical provision.

It's much the same as saying -road users and cyclists, cyclists are road users, so it is covered.

It's nothing like the same because it has never been the case that 'cyclists' was the term for everyone using the road.

It's more like having one group of people who want 'road users' to be replaced by 'wheel people' because it's more acceptable to them, for some reason.