Birthing People - inclusive or offensive?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Awful mangling of the English language. Ugh.

Ha! Brilliant!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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,?

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.

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

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

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