Birthing People - inclusive or offensive?

Petunia a female friend of mine was in M&S and tried to use the men’s fitting rooms (pre-pandemic) because there was a big queue at the women’s. She wasn’t allowed to use them because men might object! Ironically, she’s 6ft tall and generously built so could possibly pass as a man. It’s one rule for some, it seems.

As to a name for a surrogate, how about gestational breeder? In fact, all women could be called that, and thus be reduced to the status of a bit of industrial plant.

And the surrogate may prefer to be called the Birthing person. In fact in the US there could be legal documents which prevent her from using the title mother. You may not like it but it's a possibility.

Ilovecheese

What we have to accept is that men's feelings are more important that women's. A woman who used to be a man is still more important that a woman who never was a man.
If a has been weight lifter doesn't want to accept that they are past their peak, all they have to do is push a woman out of the way to enter the womens event. Any woman who objects is called names.

Excellent post Ilovecheese

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.

Elegran do you really not understand???? How many more times must I say it. This is a health budget document. It is there to ensure that the health budget applies to every one who gives birth. It is not a recommendation for what the individual may choose to be called during their birth or pregnancy. It's about ensuring all people are covered, not about individual choice of title or address. People can be called whatever they wish. I really despair sometimes of the level of understanding on GN.

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.

Stonewall have pushed the idea that there should be acceptance without exception. With the number of different genders out there, this means that whereas once we had clear guidelines of who was male or female, the entire structure is now based on feelings. With Peasblossom, how was she to know whether the bearded man was male and had bad intentions or a transwoman at the start of the transition or someone having a laugh.

Just to step out of the toilet and to step into female sport for a bang up to date example, Laurel Hubbard. Laurel is the first transwoman to be allocated a place in the coming Olympics. There are potentially others waiting to be given places. I wonder if the sight of an athlete with all the advantages of being male, competing and winning medals next to a female athlete might focus the debate.

It all starts with language. Gender instead of sex. What a mess we are in.

And Trisher, if surrogate asks the midwife at booking to use particular language or use her name, it will be noted and the health professionals will comply. There is no need to change the language that everyone else is comfortable with.

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.

How about women acting as surrogates? Seems to cover it to me.

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.

OFFS are we really getting into the toilet debate again!!!
I'm sorry you felt threatened Peasblossom I wonder would you feel as threatened by my friend who is 6ft tall has short hair, quite broad shoulders and always wears trousers? Or would you require her to carry ID so she could use the women's toilet without harassment?
Most transpeople aren't a threat to women. They are more in danger of violence them selves.

I did go and tell someone. They said he had a right to be there?

At least you didn't complain to the management Peasblossom. You no doubt would have found yourself frogmarched out of M&S.

I went into the women’s toilet in M&S. There was a man in there. Probably. A person in a shirt and trousers, masculine build, and a beard. He was leaning on the basin with his phone.

I said , “I think this is the ladies” and he said “I identify as a woman”.

I didn’t feel safe. Maybe he was transing. Maybe he was getting his rocks off listening to women pee. Maybe he was waiting for someone a bit more desirable than me to be alone in a space with restricted escape.

It does make me wonder how they would react if a man objected to being measured by a transman. Would that result in security being called?

I don't think its a great male conspiracy Trisha. Many men are bemused by the mental gymnastics and implications of self ID involves. As are many women. This is a concerted effort by a number of pressure groups to change society little bit by little bit. Just changing the word sex and replacing it with gender was a master stroke.

When Marks and Spencer changed their policy on male and female changing rooms, I wrote to them about my concerns. This is their response

Dear Petunia

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.
As a business, we strive to be inclusive and therefore, we allow customers the choice of which fitting room they feel comfortable to use, in respect of how they identify themselves. This is an approach other retailers and leisure facilities have also adopted.
We understand your concerns and I want to make it clear that if any customer was to act inappropriately or cause intentional offence, the necessary action would be taken.
Thank you again for your email.
Kind regards
Kristine Kempster
ExecutiveReferral Team
Your M&S Customer Service

So that's me told! If I take my granddaughters to buy clothing or underwear and the assistant with the tape measure is a biological male, I cant complain. If I was to ask for a woman to measure I would be causing offence to a member of staff. No doubt they would be in their rights to call security and have me ejected.

It is no coincidence that M&S are Stonewall Champions

So a little thing such as a transwoman being employed by M&S is just a small thing. Most people aren't worried about that. Most people would admire M&S for their modern thinking. It causes no harm at all, until it does. And when it does cause an issue the person on the receiving end is generally a woman or girl.

This is nothing to do with men uness you believe transmen are men (which I think many of you don't). It's actually little to do with trans men really. Much more to do with surrogacy in my opinion which like it or not is becoming more and more common. So the birth person needs to be accounted for although in legal documents related to the surrogacy she will not be referred to as the mother. Now there may be a debate to be had about surrogacy but it's probably a bit too late really. The first surrogate children I knew of personally in the USA are in their teens now. I wouldn't imagine they are an exception.
Times change and language develops to include the changes. It's not some massive male conspiracy. It's not even a drastic change. It's just health provision catching up with real events.

If the new name for these non-mother mothers had been "people who are giving birth" it would have been just as inclusive, but wouldn't have sounded so alien. As it is, it sounds very bureaucratic. There has been a drive to say "people with XXXX" instead of "XXXXers" or "XXXX people" in other medical fields.

Thank you Fanny for your kind comment. I don't think there are any political parties that are firmly on the side of women's rights any more. And I'm not sure that the Conservatives are on solid ground, there are only a few MP's who will stand up and be counted. In my area, many of the councillors and various MP's have ignored any communication on this issue or quoted the mantra Transwomen are Women. I suppose I was lucky not to have been reported for transphobia for asking questions such as- is sex or gender recorded when an individual is arrested or do women have separate toilet/changing facilities in council buildings. Hateful stuff like that!

I think most political parties have swallowed the teachings of Stonewall whole. Many councils and political parties seem to be on the Stonewall Champions list.( a list that, once public, was removed from their website when this pile of excrement hit the fan).Teachings that have now been shown to be grossly misleading.

What we have to accept is that men's feelings are more important that women's. A woman who used to be a man is still more important that a woman who never was a man.
If a has been weight lifter doesn't want to accept that they are past their peak, all they have to do is push a woman out of the way to enter the womens event. Any woman who objects is called names.

Petunia another brilliant post, thank you
Is there actually any political party (other than the Tories) who are against Self ID?

You are so right Galaxy. This has crept up on us in plain sight. However, I think the serious trans issues are not on most peoples radar. For many people, gender critical women are either making a fuss over small things- the renaming of mothers, fussing over changing rooms, getting agitated by the occasional vulnerable transwoman in a women's prison, complaining that a fully adult male weight lifter can take hormones and compete against women or they think its all just a bit crazy.

Political parties have seen huge swathes of female supporters leave over their party's stance on trans. Employers pay vast sums to Stonewall to be seen as inclusive, even if it disadvantages women. Politicians tie themselves in knots to avoid stating a biological reality. And women, you know, over half the population, and children are the ones who bear the burden of this fabrication. Oh and those women bearing the brunt of this intrusion must accept it in good grace and be nice.

Excellent post Galaxy
You did well to summarise the issue so succinctly. I usually avoid threads on this issue as I find it so angering and so upsetting.

It was on the news today that for the first time a transwoman will be competing in the Olympics

We have pointed out again and again the losses women have faced because of this. The reason we are in this situation is we missed what was happening, we were told to be kind and our socialisation meant that's exactly what we did. We are now in a situation where women are being sacked for stating they believe in the reality of sex, we are now in a sitiation where 14 year old girls are having to go to court to ensure their legal rights arent thrown away, we are now in a sitiation where mens crimes are recorded as womens, the it's only a tiny thing that wont effect you just doesnt wash anymore.

trisher you are not stupid, you know that this is creep. Bit by bit words used to describe women are being replaced by meaningless phrases that dehumanise them. So the documents need to use all the conventional words for women and add in a few more to include those who dislike the usual terms. As far as I'm aware ink is cheaper than gold so it shouldn't be a problem.

But Trisher inflicting other people’s ideas onto women is that’s exactly what’s going on here by this proposal. The tyranny of one.