Birthing People - inclusive or offensive?

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.

If people want to call themselves birthing person - fine - that’s their prerogative. Just don’t take me with you.

The word midwife comes from old English 'mid'=with
and
'wif'=woman. It refers to the person helping the woman giving birth.

Spot on SueDonim

Such nonsense , if a woman wants to be called a birth person ,
her choice, as Mother is my choice.

SueDonim

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.

If people want to call themselves birthing person - fine - that’s their prerogative. Just don’t take me with you.

Why is it "reducing their role" . Isn't it one of the most important things you could do for someone? And don't you therefore deserve to be included in any health provision or legislations, or are you suggesting that unless they agree to be called mothers they shouldn't be cared for?

Anniebach

Such nonsense , if a woman wants to be called a birth person ,
her choice, as Mother is my choice.

Of course it is but legal protection and health provision needs to cover everyone not just those who choose to be called mother

There is nothing to stop anyone calling themselves a birthing person right now, Trisher. However, they don’t get to inflict their demands onto everyone.

And yes, it’s dehumanising to reduce women to utensils for producing a child.

trisher

*Rosie51*so what would you call someone who was a surrogate birthing person? Who never intends to be a mother to the child, who has no genetic connection to the child as it was the result of an embryo from the father's sperm and the mother's egg, but who gives birth to the child? Or someone who gives birth to a child knowing it will immediately be adopted?
It's ridiculous to go on about changing the vocabulary or complicated words and phrases. A simple two word phrase covers a lot of eventualities which weren't even thought of until very recently.

trisher I see other posters have succinctly answered the questions you asked me so I'll not bother. However I note that you say a baby is conceived by its mother's egg and father's sperm. I don't think you'll get too many arguments about that, it's known biological science. I wonder why transman Freddy McConnell can't understand that and tried, unsuccessfully thank goodness, to be registered as the father of their child despite being the one that supplied the egg and gestated the child.
It is not ridiculous for women to object to any terms used to describe them without their consultation or consent. Whether authorities choose to acknowledge those objections is another matter.

No one is imposing any demands on anyone. It's a health budget document. It's just covering all legal eventualities. All those getting their knickers in a twist need to take a good look at this, and stop imagining that it will affect what anyone chooses to be called. You can be called what you like, but you can't inflict your ideas on others and the law needs to ensure it applies to everyone under all circumstances.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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.