Nurses Callie and Hannah work tirelessly each day to keep mothers & birthing people safe from COVID-19. With the recent surge in cases and hospitalizations, the message is clear — thank health care heroes by getting the vaccine.
Are there any “birthing people” who are not mothers? Covid is being managed pretty well after 2 years, maybe they should concentrate on the illiteracy epidemic for a while. :P
There are no “birthing people” who are not mothers, but there are “birthing people” who wish not to be called mothers, including some who want to be called fathers. There was a trans-identified female who lost a court case to be listed as “father” on her child’s birth certificate maybe a year ago.
I don’t find that particularly problematic, and as an analogy it is probably the kind of compromise that has to happen if we are going to get to the other side of the conflict. By all means, if one insists on not being called a mother/woman, that can be accommodated, but not on the basis of a demand that all mothers/women must be erased.
Naif, the problem with accepting that as a compromise is that it is the sort of compromise that truly compromises our position. It tacitly accepts that some people who give birth are not women, and it is a rather insulting term, especially when there is no comparable demand for all mention of men to be erased or euphemised. Plus, it is the camel’s nose under the tent, and that’s a problem, because this camel is enormous,. We let him even peek in and he’ll take over what it means to be a woman.
Because this really is about the definition of woman, this is one compromise we can’t afford.
But it’s not an analogy, it’s redundant and therefore falsely descriptive. Those of us who don’t know what ‘mother’ means need more schooling, actually more pre-schooling, it’s a pretty easy word to define. Why should we compromise perfectly adequate words?
Sack @3, this is what I mean by illiteracy, I mean not knowing what ‘father’ means insults most people’s intelligence, and forcing the rest of us to comply with the trans cult definitions is absurd. ‘Father’ is also a perfectly serviceable and unambiguous word.
By all means, if one insists on not being called a mother/woman, that can be accommodated
It depends on what kind of accommodation we’re talking about. If a woman insists on not being called a mother/woman then people can accommodate that particular woman if they want to, but does that mean public discourse has to accommodate her too? Hell no. Public discourse affects everyone (that’s the “public” bit), and women have been struggling to be recognized in public discourse for generations. No, narcissistic people who claim to be the other sex don’t get to sabotage that struggle.
I believe that in most places, mothers have the rights to more paid leave and accommodations after birth than fathers. (Yes, I know that in the US neither have the right to anything.) And it should be that way — after all, the mother goes through the ordeal of having her body ripped open by the baby that is being born.
Anyway, I wonder if we have already gotten to the point where a baby’s father, who “uses” she/her pronouns or whatever the hell it’s called, will insist: I DESERVE THE MATERNITY RIGHTS BECAUSE I’M THE MOTHER. MY HUSBAND ONLY GAVE BIRTH TO THE BABY, BUT ANY OLD FOOL COULD DO THAT. I’M THE MOTHER!! I DESERVE THE RIGHTS!!!
(And the man’s poor fawning wife, who “uses” he/him pronouns and has just gone through the ordeal of giving birth, says: “Of course honey, of course you should be fighting for the rights that you should have off from work, since you’re a REAL WOMAN.” And she runs off back to work the next day, sick and bleeding, because she’s socialized to prop up men.)
Or, worse still, they’ve broken up at this point, and the mother wants the rights to maternity leave because “even though I’m not the mother, I did just give birth, and maternity rights should be for mothers AND birthing people”, whereas the father fights for him to have the rights and for her not to. (This could be even if they haven’t yet broken up. That would be even more horrible, because she has to live with him while he’s fighting against her rights and trying to force her to go back to work.)
I don’t have a problem with people being called “mother” or “father” in private conversation. There are many stepparents and adoptive parents and parent-like figures. There are children with two “mothers” or two “fathers”. But we know what the words mean, and that these other ways of using the word refer to roles taken, not biological function, and giving birth is one heck of a biological function. People say “The person I call ‘father’ is my stepfather”; why can’t they say “The person I call ‘father’ is my birth mother”, if it’s that important?
Once again I’m struck by how, in their attempt to divorce the meaning of words like “woman” and “mother” from reproductive biology (because “I’m not defined by what’s between my legs!”) TRAs and their followers end up using words and phrases that specifically reference reproductive biology (“birthing people,” “people with cervixes”, etc.). It’s true that the words like “women” and “mother” in their traditional use entail binary reproductive biology, but they don’t necessarily evoke that biology every time they’re used. If I told you “I saw a woman on the street yesterday,” you wouldn’t necessarily start to think about breasts or cervixes, though you’d probably have an image in your mind of what is for you a prototypical woman. But if I told you “I saw a birthing person yesterday,” or “a person with a cervix” or even “an AFAB” or “trans woman”, that pretty much forces you to picture some aspect of reproductive biology.
In their efforts to erase reproductive biology from the meaning of sex-based language, TRAs are actually making that biology more salient.
Sackbut, this is about more than a woman being called father, it is about redefining what it means to be a woman. Woman = adult human female. Female = human that has the proper architecture for producing eggs and giving birth.
As Ophelia said, we’ve been fighting for recognition for a long time, and this just shifts recognition back to where too many people think it belongs: men. Accepting that those who (1) define themselves as men; or (2) do not act in female stereotypically ways are, literally, men strips all women’s accomplishments and all women’s history. Because the women who accomplish tons of interesting and important stuff other than being a mother are being redefined by the trans movement as men.
“…why can’t they say “The person I call ‘father’ is my birth mother”, if it’s that important?…” — Of course they can, but putting it on a legal document like a birth certificate is confusing and inaccurate. Common usage trumps individual word fetishes, but who want’s to police what people call their parents? I sure don’t, that’s their business.
There are children with two “mothers” or two “fathers”.
Not sure why the need to use what appears to me as scare quotes.
However, I have a granddaughter with two mothers. She calls both of them Mum, which is fine when she is with them at home, but when she talks to me about one of them, I always have to ask which mum? Jo Mum or Alicia Mum. You know that withering glare teenage girls do so well? Yep, I get that when she thinks it’s obvious which mum she means. :-)
Just to be clear, I agree with all that, I was only trying to make the small point that what people call themselves in private conversation isn’t an issue to me, it’s when they demand that other people use these terms, or require these terms on official documents, that there are problems. Yes, of course these activists are trying to redefine “woman”, and that’s a huge problem. They are also trying to redefine “mother”.
Re #17
I used quotes because I was trying to distinguish between people filling the social role of a mother and people who are biological mothers. A stepmother is not a mother, but she fills the social role typically associated with mothers. I have a stepfather, I always refer to him as my father or my “Dad”, and that other person is my “birth father” or “biofather” or something else, but that other person is actually my father in the usual biological sense of the word and is listed on my birth certificate accordingly. Since the topic is a reference to “mothers and birthing people”, I thought that was clear; sorry for the confusion.
Sackbut, in that case I don’t see a problem, though it is perhaps teaching a child something that is not correct. If they are supportive of the child learning correct biology, then I have no problem.
I have a ‘”stepmother”, but I do not call her that. I call her my father’s wife or by her name. I put that in quotes because I believe the term “mother” applies to only two people: the woman who gave birth to you, and the woman who raised you. In my case, both were the same. My mother died when I was 43, and my father remarried when I was in my 50s. Most people assume when I say “my father’s wife” that it means I don’t like her. I do, I like her very much. She’s a lovely person and has been good for my dad.
Language can really get people twisted in knots, can’t it? Particularly if you choose to follow a formula other people don’t understand.
Ikn, I can relate. I sometimes followed “my Mom’s husband” with “he’s a great guy” to people I thought were taking it negatively. My father died some years before she married him and we never developed a ‘dad-son’ relationship, despite my love and admiration for him. I was too old by then, and he had his own kids for that role.
“Dad and [her name]” or “Mom and [his name]” seems common in my experience for people who were adults (or nearly so) when the parent in question remarried. That’s how my wife and I are referred to be my kids or her kids, respectively. And how my wife refers to her father and his wife.
I’m not quite as strict about how the term “mother” gets used; some people use it for an important woman in their lives, not necessarily someone who raised them, and that’s their prerogative. So long as it’s clear whether this person gave birth to them, I have no objections. The genetic heritage can’t be changed by fiat.
(I saw a stupid tweet from a trans-identified male who did one of those DNA test things, and got back a report that included information from the Y chromosome. The person was complaining that the company should fix this and make it a second X chromosome. The mind boggles.)
At least they still actually used the word “mothers”, and put it first, too.
Baby steps.
Are there any “birthing people” who are not mothers? Covid is being managed pretty well after 2 years, maybe they should concentrate on the illiteracy epidemic for a while. :P
There are no “birthing people” who are not mothers, but there are “birthing people” who wish not to be called mothers, including some who want to be called fathers. There was a trans-identified female who lost a court case to be listed as “father” on her child’s birth certificate maybe a year ago.
I don’t find that particularly problematic, and as an analogy it is probably the kind of compromise that has to happen if we are going to get to the other side of the conflict. By all means, if one insists on not being called a mother/woman, that can be accommodated, but not on the basis of a demand that all mothers/women must be erased.
Naif, the problem with accepting that as a compromise is that it is the sort of compromise that truly compromises our position. It tacitly accepts that some people who give birth are not women, and it is a rather insulting term, especially when there is no comparable demand for all mention of men to be erased or euphemised. Plus, it is the camel’s nose under the tent, and that’s a problem, because this camel is enormous,. We let him even peek in and he’ll take over what it means to be a woman.
Because this really is about the definition of woman, this is one compromise we can’t afford.
But it’s not an analogy, it’s redundant and therefore falsely descriptive. Those of us who don’t know what ‘mother’ means need more schooling, actually more pre-schooling, it’s a pretty easy word to define. Why should we compromise perfectly adequate words?
Sack @3, this is what I mean by illiteracy, I mean not knowing what ‘father’ means insults most people’s intelligence, and forcing the rest of us to comply with the trans cult definitions is absurd. ‘Father’ is also a perfectly serviceable and unambiguous word.
It depends on what kind of accommodation we’re talking about. If a woman insists on not being called a mother/woman then people can accommodate that particular woman if they want to, but does that mean public discourse has to accommodate her too? Hell no. Public discourse affects everyone (that’s the “public” bit), and women have been struggling to be recognized in public discourse for generations. No, narcissistic people who claim to be the other sex don’t get to sabotage that struggle.
Narcissistic illiterate people in particular.
I believe that in most places, mothers have the rights to more paid leave and accommodations after birth than fathers. (Yes, I know that in the US neither have the right to anything.) And it should be that way — after all, the mother goes through the ordeal of having her body ripped open by the baby that is being born.
Anyway, I wonder if we have already gotten to the point where a baby’s father, who “uses” she/her pronouns or whatever the hell it’s called, will insist: I DESERVE THE MATERNITY RIGHTS BECAUSE I’M THE MOTHER. MY HUSBAND ONLY GAVE BIRTH TO THE BABY, BUT ANY OLD FOOL COULD DO THAT. I’M THE MOTHER!! I DESERVE THE RIGHTS!!!
(And the man’s poor fawning wife, who “uses” he/him pronouns and has just gone through the ordeal of giving birth, says: “Of course honey, of course you should be fighting for the rights that you should have off from work, since you’re a REAL WOMAN.” And she runs off back to work the next day, sick and bleeding, because she’s socialized to prop up men.)
Or, worse still, they’ve broken up at this point, and the mother wants the rights to maternity leave because “even though I’m not the mother, I did just give birth, and maternity rights should be for mothers AND birthing people”, whereas the father fights for him to have the rights and for her not to. (This could be even if they haven’t yet broken up. That would be even more horrible, because she has to live with him while he’s fighting against her rights and trying to force her to go back to work.)
I don’t have a problem with people being called “mother” or “father” in private conversation. There are many stepparents and adoptive parents and parent-like figures. There are children with two “mothers” or two “fathers”. But we know what the words mean, and that these other ways of using the word refer to roles taken, not biological function, and giving birth is one heck of a biological function. People say “The person I call ‘father’ is my stepfather”; why can’t they say “The person I call ‘father’ is my birth mother”, if it’s that important?
Once again I’m struck by how, in their attempt to divorce the meaning of words like “woman” and “mother” from reproductive biology (because “I’m not defined by what’s between my legs!”) TRAs and their followers end up using words and phrases that specifically reference reproductive biology (“birthing people,” “people with cervixes”, etc.). It’s true that the words like “women” and “mother” in their traditional use entail binary reproductive biology, but they don’t necessarily evoke that biology every time they’re used. If I told you “I saw a woman on the street yesterday,” you wouldn’t necessarily start to think about breasts or cervixes, though you’d probably have an image in your mind of what is for you a prototypical woman. But if I told you “I saw a birthing person yesterday,” or “a person with a cervix” or even “an AFAB” or “trans woman”, that pretty much forces you to picture some aspect of reproductive biology.
In their efforts to erase reproductive biology from the meaning of sex-based language, TRAs are actually making that biology more salient.
Sackbut, this is about more than a woman being called father, it is about redefining what it means to be a woman. Woman = adult human female. Female = human that has the proper architecture for producing eggs and giving birth.
As Ophelia said, we’ve been fighting for recognition for a long time, and this just shifts recognition back to where too many people think it belongs: men. Accepting that those who (1) define themselves as men; or (2) do not act in female stereotypically ways are, literally, men strips all women’s accomplishments and all women’s history. Because the women who accomplish tons of interesting and important stuff other than being a mother are being redefined by the trans movement as men.
They complain about us denying existence.
“…why can’t they say “The person I call ‘father’ is my birth mother”, if it’s that important?…” — Of course they can, but putting it on a legal document like a birth certificate is confusing and inaccurate. Common usage trumps individual word fetishes, but who want’s to police what people call their parents? I sure don’t, that’s their business.
I wrote @13 before I saw @12, and I’m assuming iknklast wrote @14 before she saw @13. But I think they fit together nicely.
Not sure why the need to use what appears to me as scare quotes.
However, I have a granddaughter with two mothers. She calls both of them Mum, which is fine when she is with them at home, but when she talks to me about one of them, I always have to ask which mum? Jo Mum or Alicia Mum. You know that withering glare teenage girls do so well? Yep, I get that when she thinks it’s obvious which mum she means. :-)
Re #13, #14, #15
Just to be clear, I agree with all that, I was only trying to make the small point that what people call themselves in private conversation isn’t an issue to me, it’s when they demand that other people use these terms, or require these terms on official documents, that there are problems. Yes, of course these activists are trying to redefine “woman”, and that’s a huge problem. They are also trying to redefine “mother”.
Re #17
I used quotes because I was trying to distinguish between people filling the social role of a mother and people who are biological mothers. A stepmother is not a mother, but she fills the social role typically associated with mothers. I have a stepfather, I always refer to him as my father or my “Dad”, and that other person is my “birth father” or “biofather” or something else, but that other person is actually my father in the usual biological sense of the word and is listed on my birth certificate accordingly. Since the topic is a reference to “mothers and birthing people”, I thought that was clear; sorry for the confusion.
Sackbut, in that case I don’t see a problem, though it is perhaps teaching a child something that is not correct. If they are supportive of the child learning correct biology, then I have no problem.
I have a ‘”stepmother”, but I do not call her that. I call her my father’s wife or by her name. I put that in quotes because I believe the term “mother” applies to only two people: the woman who gave birth to you, and the woman who raised you. In my case, both were the same. My mother died when I was 43, and my father remarried when I was in my 50s. Most people assume when I say “my father’s wife” that it means I don’t like her. I do, I like her very much. She’s a lovely person and has been good for my dad.
Language can really get people twisted in knots, can’t it? Particularly if you choose to follow a formula other people don’t understand.
Ikn, I can relate. I sometimes followed “my Mom’s husband” with “he’s a great guy” to people I thought were taking it negatively. My father died some years before she married him and we never developed a ‘dad-son’ relationship, despite my love and admiration for him. I was too old by then, and he had his own kids for that role.
“Dad and [her name]” or “Mom and [his name]” seems common in my experience for people who were adults (or nearly so) when the parent in question remarried. That’s how my wife and I are referred to be my kids or her kids, respectively. And how my wife refers to her father and his wife.
I’m not quite as strict about how the term “mother” gets used; some people use it for an important woman in their lives, not necessarily someone who raised them, and that’s their prerogative. So long as it’s clear whether this person gave birth to them, I have no objections. The genetic heritage can’t be changed by fiat.
(I saw a stupid tweet from a trans-identified male who did one of those DNA test things, and got back a report that included information from the Y chromosome. The person was complaining that the company should fix this and make it a second X chromosome. The mind boggles.)
I have used it as a prefix a few times for people who didn’t resemble my mother in the slightest. ;)