Birthing People - inclusive or offensive?

Come on then trisher. Are you really advocating that people ignore the needs of the disabled in order to accommodate the transgender agenda?

Do you speak for most younger people, trisher?

I think there are many on Mumsnet, for example, who are not relaxed about this and care very much.

Disabled parking spots are really handy too.

No you cannot use the disabled toilet. Disabled people need it!

Callistemon I thnk most younger people don't particularly care. You don't know anyway what is under someone's clothes. And who would use the unisex toilet? You can of course always use the disabled toilet which usually is an individual room.

I don't want to share public toilets with any man who decides that he will identify as a woman if he feels like it sometimes, even though he still has all the male accoutrements.

Shops, hospitality venues etc will have to provide men's, women's and unisex toilets if they want women and girls to continue to feel comfortable using them.
They will start to lose customers if they continue pandering to a very tiny minority and ignoring the feelings of the majority.

Nankate
?

I don’t want to share the public loos with men dressed as women. Which loos do the women changed to men frequent ?

It’s a sad old world we are living in now, where we have to be ultra careful in what we say in case The Woke Brigade is hovering waiting to pounce.

Apparently, the Welsh Government is a Stonewall Diversity
Champion, but Whitehall has left Stonewall.

Rosie51

We know you prefer the two word option, but why offend many others for the sake of another three words? If you really want just two words then pregnant females will accurately cover all options including surrogates, but I imagine some will find that not to their taste.

But not transmen Rosie51

Too silly to even comment on, they have too much time on their hands. As for all different genders, I can’t keep up.

I do remember in the maternity ward being addressed as Mum, actually before my first baby was born, and I rather liked it.

Continue to call people who give birth "mothers". Birthing person is so ambiguous - may be taken to mean birthing partners or duannas - for the sake of clarity in a general document,
using "mother" makes sense and who is going to take a health care document personally and be personally offended by it? Only someone looking to stir.

I’d be interested to know exactly who was creating this health care document. Did they carry out any consultation with women on what they wished to be known as? There’s a saying, Nothing about us without us. which seems to sum up this situation, where women are having their lives determined by others unknown.

So what this is all about is continuing to call people who give birth " mothers" unless they object , in which case the midwives or other staff should ask what term they would prefer and if that term was "birthing person", then OK"

I think this situation would only occur rarely and if it does the attendant medical staff would, I'm sure comply. So what's the problem,?

We know you prefer the two word option, but why offend many others for the sake of another three words? If you really want just two words then pregnant females will accurately cover all options including surrogates, but I imagine some will find that not to their taste.

You are quite entitled to think that Rosie51 and at least it removes the idea that this is some sort of male conspiracy or trans activism seeking to negate women. I still think using two words is preferable but then I've always liked language to be succinct.

trisher

Rosie51 and if a transman acts as a surrogate? I've posted earlier a list of the people who would need to be mentioned if this simple two word phrase wasn't used and I actually missed that one out. Which is why birthing people is important because it covers everyone. So the health budget is inclusive and no one is omitted.

trisher how many transmen do you expect to act as surrogates? I'd not think many would be interested in coming off testosterone to do that most female thing possible, gestate a child. So they can use pregnant women, transmen and surrogates which will cover all the females doing it regardless of how they identify. That covers everybody I think? And nobody needs to feel excluded or offended. Phew we finally got there. And absolutely no need for birthing people.

trisher

No one has yet commented on how surrogate births should be provided for if the woman giving birth does not want to be called mother. Is she a birth person or just someone who should be ignored because she doesn't fit in with the established stereotypes.

Too much fuss trisher as the advert says 'does what it says on the tin'
Surrogate!

Ha! Brilliant!

Awful mangling of the English language. Ugh.

Elegran

The surrogate has a personal name already, If they don't wish to referred to either by that or as "the mother" then they can choose another name. The staff could suggest "birthing person", for instance.

I think Trisher is in stubbornly reactionary mode.

Elegran when someone post that people have personal names when a health budget document is being discusses I can only assume they haven't understood the subject, if that isn't the case and they have understood the only alternative is that they are arguing for arguing's sake.
As for stubbonly reactionary I advise you to look up the meaning of reactionary It applies to quite a few of the posts on here but fortunately not mine.

I don’t suppose a trans woman would be much of a threat to me trisher but a man who had deliberately positioned himself in a place where women are vulnerable might well be.

As a woman I carry out, almost unconsciously, frequent checks upon my safety. Should I take this shortcut in an alley, does the underpass or the crossing the busy road carry the most risk, should I stay at the get-together till it’s dark, do I go for a walk along footpaths in fields.

I make choices based on the likelihood of male violence. So anything that gives men access to what have formerly been relatively safe places for women needs to be questioned.

In opening up these places without question or forbidding women the right to question, we have effectively given some men a carte blanche to use women as they will.

So in the case of women who have a child adopted or are having a child for someone else, their role is to be reduced to that of a mere vessel, an incubator. It’s truly Handmaid’s Tale territory.
Why is it "reducing their role" . Isn't it one of the most important things you could do for someone?
Blessed be the fruit.

Thank you, Trisher for that assessment of the level of my understanding. Perhaps you would like to read again my post of Sun 20-Jun-21 11:21:50, when I stated exactly the concept of having available a term which would cover those who don't wish to be referred to as mothers which you don't believe I have grasped.

Cheese us! You do like to be the only poster on GN who can understand or have any empathy, don't you?