Birthing People - inclusive or offensive?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

Spot on SueDonim

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

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.

M0nica

It is up to them to decde between themseves what they want to be called. It is not for those outside the relationship to force any particcular vocabulary on them.

No one is forcing any names on anyone. In legal documents and papers comprehensive terms that cover all sorts of eventualities are often used. What you choose to be called personally is just that your personal choice.

M0nica

A midwife is called a midwife even when they are male.

Well all that proves is that your accusations that men are taking over the language and destroying women is wrong.

It is up to them to decde between themseves what they want to be called. It is not for those outside the relationship to force any particcular vocabulary on them.

M0nica

Trisher stop forcing such narrow definitions of the word 'mother' on us. A surrogate mother is a surrogate mother. The child in her womb may not be hers biologically, but grows from embryo to baby in her body, her hormones, her nourishment, her care for it are what makes the baby what it is when it is born. During the pregnancy she has provided everything the biological mother, would have provided had it been possible for her to carry the baby.

And if she prefers not to be called mother? Because she wants the person she is carrying the baby for to have that title. What is she? Nothing?

A midwife is called a midwife even when they are male.

This says it all for me. www.nct.org.uk/pregnancy/who-will-care-for-you-during-pregnancy/what-midwife

Yes the discussion about surrogate mothers always diminishes their role, it's part of what makes it easy in some countries for children to be bought and sold.

Trisher stop forcing such narrow definitions of the word 'mother' on us. A surrogate mother is a surrogate mother. The child in her womb may not be hers biologically, but grows from embryo to baby in her body, her hormones, her nourishment, her care for it are what makes the baby what it is when it is born. During the pregnancy she has provided everything the biological mother, would have provided had it been possible for her to carry the baby.

Anniebach

Why should a mother be called - a birth person,

Because the adoptive mother may want to use that name and the woman who gives birth may not want to use it if she has decided to give the baby up. Because in a surrogate pregnancy the baby may genetically belong to the woman who will raise it and have no real connection to the woman who gives birth. Because a transman may not want to be called 'mother'

I feel that once again women are being dictated to by men or men who are trans women, women who are trans men, or someone identifying as a man.

Why should a mother be called - a birth person,

Working in Reception we tend to hear the words Mum and Dad quite often when referencing the children. So and so's Mum asked this etc etc. What are we supposed to do about that?

SueDonim it's not just about transmen (although if you believe they are still women as some do I would have thought their views should count) It's about women who give birth but intend to have the child adopted and women who act as surrogates. They are birthing persons, the mother is the adoptive woman or the woman who instigated the surrogacy who may be more genetically linked to the baby than the woman who gives birth. Why should they have to call the birth person the mother?

Birthing people bollocks! and who ever came up with the idea might have them.

Because it’s erasing women and if you erase women, how can their hard-fought-for rights be protected? Why should billions of people who are proud to call themselves mothers have their identity razed in order to mollify a few people who are deluded enough to think men can give birth. If they want to call themselves birthing persons, go right ahead. Just leave me out of it.

Regardless of the implications, I think the phrase 'birthing persons' almost reduces women to the level of brood mares, its too cold and sounds like something out of The Handmaid's Tale.