Paid Members Chris B Posted June 7, 2021 Author Paid Members Share Posted June 7, 2021 7 minutes ago, BomberPat said: I'm trying to get to the bottom of this thing, because I keep seeing the "Stonewall are trying to erase female identities and redefine homosexuality" used by TERFs and the like on Twitter, but a simple Google of "Stonewall mother" chiefly brings up results from the Mail, the Express, the Spectator and the Telegraph, which makes me extremely wary of the legitimacy of the complaint. However, this LBC article - https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/replace-term-mother-with-parent-who-has-given-birth-stonewall-tells-employers/ - has buried in the mix "the word 'father' is also to be avoided, as part of the push towards gender-neutral language". But that doesn't make the headline, obviously. I can't find anything either way on Stonewall's own website, or their strategy document. It seems to be a Telegraph article that kicked it all off, and that's behind a paywall, so sod paying for that. Thing is, I imagine a large proportion of the people complaining about it probably haven't paid for it either, so it's all a game of Chinese whispers. Yeah, I've just been searching for exactly the same thing and can't find it. It's a series of webinars, so I'm very interested in the context and what was actually said. One comment I've seen suggests that it's about alternative wording, for use when you're dealing with someone who doesn't want to be described as a mother. Either way, it doesn't look at all like Stonewall is trying to ban 'mother' being used - encouraging some use of alternatives is very, very different from banning terms. I'm not at all surprised that the same guidance is around 'father' and that's being ignored. But that doesn't serve the narrative that it's all about attacking women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamura Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) 25 minutes ago, BomberPat said: I can't find anything either way on Stonewall's own website, or their strategy document. It seems to be a Telegraph article that kicked it all off, and that's behind a paywall, so sod paying for that. I assume you mean this one?https://web.archive.org/web/20210603211624/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/03/stonewall-advises-organisations-use-parent-has-given-birth-help/ Browser extension NoScript is also useful for getting round paywalls, that's assuming the paywalls are installed by technical incompetents that use a script to hide the page until you log-in. Like The Telegraph do, and the New York Times, and various others... Edited June 7, 2021 by Tamura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 2 minutes ago, Tamura said: I assume you mean this one?https://web.archive.org/web/20210603211624/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/03/stonewall-advises-organisations-use-parent-has-given-birth-help/ Browser extension NoScript is also useful for getting round paywalls, that's assuming the paywalls are installed by technical incompetents that use a script to hide the page until you log-in. Like The Telegraph do, and the New York Times, and various others... Ha! Just came to post that!! Just been reading a take on how the term “Parent who gave birth” excludes more people than “Mother” as it excludes adoptive parents, foster parents, step parents and parents who use a surrogate. It’s a well meaning initiative but highly flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted June 7, 2021 Author Paid Members Share Posted June 7, 2021 7 minutes ago, Tamura said: I assume you mean this one?https://web.archive.org/web/20210603211624/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/03/stonewall-advises-organisations-use-parent-has-given-birth-help/ Browser extension NoScript is also useful for getting round paywalls, that's assuming the paywalls are installed by technical incompetents that use a script to hide the page until you log-in. Like The Telegraph do, and the New York Times, and various others... Thanks for that. And this is some weak sauce from the Telegraph. "Getting to the top of the equality index" isn't the same as saying anyone must do x, y or z as general recommendations. It's about a specific measure, if people want to work towards that measure. 1 minute ago, Keith Houchen said: Ha! Just came to post that!! Just been reading a take on how the term “Parent who gave birth” excludes more people than “Mother” as it excludes adoptive parents, foster parents, step parents and parents who use a surrogate. It’s a well meaning initiative but highly flawed. Have you read the actual guidance then? I'm really interested in reading the context in which they're saying it. I've read a comment to one of the articles that suggests it's specifically about situations where a trans or non-binary person is on maternity leave and altering terminology when dealing with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted June 7, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Tamura said: I assume you mean this one?https://web.archive.org/web/20210603211624/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/03/stonewall-advises-organisations-use-parent-has-given-birth-help/ Browser extension NoScript is also useful for getting round paywalls, that's assuming the paywalls are installed by technical incompetents that use a script to hide the page until you log-in. Like The Telegraph do, and the New York Times, and various others... I think that's probably the one, yeah. And I would note that it says this; Quote Stonewall has advised organisations to replace the term mother with “parent who has given birth” to help boost their ranking on an equality leaderboard, The Telegraph can reveal. The controversial charity has advised employers wishing to be included on their Workplace Equality Index that they must remove all gendered language, and allow those who self-identify as a woman to use female toilets and changing rooms. The Ministry of Justice – which comes in fifth in the leadership board – has admitted that its HR policies have in recent years been updated to include non-gendered language and in some internal documents terms mother and father had been removed. There is a lot of empty space in-between those paragraphs that we've been left to draw our own conclusions from - by introducing the concept "parent who has given birth" in paragraph one, and then in paragraph three saying that "mother and father had been removed", the implication is that the Ministry of Justice have started using this clunky new language. But they haven't at all, because I remember when this came about. They removed "mother and father" from various legal documentation for the exact same reason that schools have been saying "parent/guardian" for as long as I can remember - because it covers more ground when contacting the next of kin, effectively. That's not about erasing women, it's about clarity and economy of language. And, once again, I'll note that in every instance the wording is "mother and father" in the actual text, but the headline is always about "mother" - because there's a concerted effort to present trans inclusivity as an attack on women's rights. Quote Edinburgh University were told that they would “recommend using a gender neutral term, such as ‘parent who has given birth’ whilst Merseyside Police were advised the “pregnant employee” was a “more inclusive term”. The Welsh Government, which appears ninth on the list, deleted the term mother from its Maternity policy in 2019, though the term father appears once. So it appears we have one instance of "parent who has given birth" as a suggestion of something else you could say instead of "mother", in one institution. It's not diktat, it's not even really concrete guidance, just "maybe something like this?". Like @Chris B has just suggested, with no indication of context given, it could very easily be that this was even suggested as a term for a specific case of a trans or gender-neutral person on maternity leave. And again, that's then followed up by "the Welsh Government deleted the term mother from its Maternity policy", which suggests that they must have replaced it with this new term, right (ignoring the fact that, in the process, they've retained the word "Maternity")? Except, assuming that the 2019 policy in question is this - https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-03/atisn14848doc56.pdf (because, in among various other policies and pages of the government website about maternity, this was the only one I could find that doesn't include the word "mother") - then it doesn't include the phrase "parent who has given birth" either. It uses terms like "pregnant employee", "someone who is having a baby" or, more often than not, just parent. Given that they go on to quote multiple representatives of openly anti-trans rights organisations, and an anti-trans rights activist that they only credit as "a barrister specialising in discrimination", presumably to give the illusion of impartiality, and present no real counterpoint from Stonewall, would suggest that there's more than a little ulterior motive to how they've chosen to present this. EDIT: In a lot of ways, I see so much of this as akin to the old tabloid "kids aren't allowed to sing baa baa black sheep any more!" bollocks that stems from a single example of a change of language, for completely different reasons than implied, but still gets cited by dickheads in pubs to this day. While there is some awkward negotiating towards the right choice of words going on, it's also being actively undermined by people acting in bad faith to imply that certain words are being "banned" or overly "PC" terminology is being enforced when there's absolutely no evidence that's the case. Edited June 7, 2021 by BomberPat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavemanLynn Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 Just chipping in (I've done little work this morning because this thread has been so educational and enthralling for me), but the article quote that Pat posted totally changes tone if you just remove the word "controversial." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 4 hours ago, BomberPat said: I'm trying to get to the bottom of this thing, because I keep seeing the "Stonewall are trying to erase female identities and redefine homosexuality" used by TERFs and the like on Twitter, but a simple Google of "Stonewall mother" chiefly brings up results from the Mail, the Express, the Spectator and the Telegraph, which makes me extremely wary of the legitimacy of the complaint. However, this LBC article - https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/replace-term-mother-with-parent-who-has-given-birth-stonewall-tells-employers/ - has buried in the mix "the word 'father' is also to be avoided, as part of the push towards gender-neutral language". But that doesn't make the headline, obviously. I can't find anything either way on Stonewall's own website, or their strategy document. It seems to be a Telegraph article that kicked it all off, and that's behind a paywall, so sod paying for that. Thing is, I imagine a large proportion of the people complaining about it probably haven't paid for it either, so it's all a game of Chinese whispers. While "parent who has given birth" is a clumsy phrase, I would prefer to see the full wording and context before passing any more judgement - and I fully accept that there will be a lot of awkward stumbling towards inclusivity before the language is right anyway. But a lot of things that get pulled up as a "pandering to the trans lobby" is often something entirely different; I work in education, and have encountered a couple of complaints about avoiding words like mother or father when addressing a student's next of kin - but in that instance, it's because we don't know a student's family situation, and gender-neutral language is simply more appropriate. Flip side of the coin, when I worked in a call centre I used to get screaming complaints from people had been sent Mother's Day adverts because their Mother had died and we should be more considerate of this sort of thing. There are plenty of reasons to be a little more cautious and careful of language, and trans inclusivity is just one of them - similarly, a lot of my colleagues have started putting pronouns in their email signatures. That might have come about because of recognition of trans issues, but actually it's helpful in a lot of other ways too - I work from home, and haven't met most of these people in person, some of them have names that I wouldn't instantly recognise as being "ordinarily" male or female, or in at least one case would have guessed wrong, so it's a really handy tool. I understand that a lot of women will identify very strongly with the word "mother", and see this guidance as somehow trying to erase that lived experience and sense of identification. But I also question the logic of self-styled feminists defining womanhood by the experience of being or the ability to be a mother, which seems to be a recurring argument, and completely at odds with the feminism of previous generations, not to mention excluding countless cisgender women, never mind trans women. I think it's important to recognise that while a common anti-trans talking point is that "trans rights activists" "can't define the word woman", it's cis women as well as trans women who will suffer as a result of archaic attempts to define womanhood by biological means. You only have to look at Caster Semenya being told to reduce her natural levels of testosterone, and subsequent IAAF regulations governing the "maximum" acceptable testosterone level for female athletes, which falls within the average, so would needlessly exclude other cis women from competing. Wasn't the whole scare around trans athletes supposed to be that they were the ones that would be preventing girls from being able to compete fairly? And if the argument is that women with naturally high testosterone have an unfair advantage, where does that end? Does a swimmer with a higher lung capacity get banned because of a natural advantage outside of their control? Michael Phelps produces less than the average amount of lactic acid, and has double-jointed ankles, both of which gave him huge natural physical advantages over other swimmers, but there's been no suggestion that the sport be regulated to exclude those natural advantages. We don't legislate against basketball players being taller than average. We only care about "physical advantages" when it comes to policing gender, and always with such a sledgehammer approach that it would be inevitable that it will hurt more than it helps. This is a point I've found myself making time and time again - sadly, I know at least two women who have been attacked by men in female toilets, and at least one more who was assaulted by a man waiting outside for her to come out. Not one of those men saw the sign on the door and thought, "ah, best not". Not one of them felt the need to disguise themselves as a woman to "get away with it". Because if you're going to commit as major a transgression as sexual assault, you're not going to be put off by the taboo or the risk of a lesser transgression. It's like expecting a burglar to be thwarted by a "No Entry" sign. I don't have any stats to end, but I'm sure trans women in either gender toilet are currently at far greater risk of being assaulted or abused than women in gender neutral toilets. And plenty of places already have gender neutral toilets and it hasn't let to widespread assault by either gender on either gender. Plenty of workplaces and cafés have gender neutral toilets, I've been to plenty of venues that have them, and no one gives it a single thought because they're not branded as such. But you don't bat an eyelid at a café having two toilets, neither of them gendered, both just single lockable rooms containing a toilet and a sink. I think any campaigning for a gender-neutral model should focus on that, because people have scare stories in their head of some communal space being invaded, rather than treating each toilet as a single space. Ultimately, I think there's a lot of good in inclusive language, even if - as it has been in other cases - it's often a clumsy, awkward journey to get there. I don't know how we square the circle of more inclusivity for transgender and gender-neutral or non-binary people with the feeling of a loss of women's safe spaces, and a huge part of that problem is learning how to separate the genuine concerns (and, with that, the genuine desire for dialogue) from the bad actors and trolls who have jumped on this as a "culture war" issue and a way to kick back against inclusivity of all kinds. Just going to add this as further reading to a very good post https://irr.org.uk/article/feminism-biological-fundamentalism-attack-on-trans-rights/ Regarding the last point EA2010 already has protections in place and again is a blind spot for Terfs etc. It's really quite the sight that 11 years after, society is constricting in a way that returns to persecution of lgbtq people much like they were in times past. Mentions of nazi or fascism goes by with retorts of Godwin, however look through Europe and at home and sadly we're already there, not figuratively but literally, see Poland and Ukraine and Hungary etc.. Erosion of lgbt rights off the back of that will be the biggest disaster imaginable, as we all lose. Something I wish more people would get Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members FLips Posted June 7, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted June 7, 2021 I've been holding off posting in here as quite honestly I'm clueless and have nothing to add, but 10 pages in I do have some (likely very stupid sounding) questions and they're honestly not in any way meant to provoke or anything, but moreso come from a place of complete cluelessness and ignorance. 1. With the whole LGBT thing, do those that are part of it find the inclusion of more letters inclusive or are they potentially watering down the point of it? When I was a kid I'm sure it was LGB and then it was LGBT and now it's (I think) LGBTQIA+ but if you're going to just keep adding letters, wouldn't it be better to just re-brand it to something more inclusive overall? Also who decides which letters get promoted into the name or is it a "use whichever one you want" kinda thing? Which again might devalue it somewhat if there are so many versions of it and not a decisive one. 2. Do people involved find that the more recent, I suppose popularity, of identifying as something is because things are more open and inclusive now so people feel comfortable being able to, or is it the modern day version of being a punk or a goth or emo? I'm talking almost specifically teenagers/young adults because when I was their age there was pretty much nobody declaring themselves queer or anything like that or even really talking about any type of gender or sexuality, nor was there anything like stating preferred pronouns. I know the correlation is clearly there with social media, but as with anything on social media how much of it is for real and how much is for show or to feel included in some sort of movement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted June 7, 2021 Author Paid Members Share Posted June 7, 2021 46 minutes ago, FelatioLips said: 1. With the whole LGBT thing, do those that are part of it find the inclusion of more letters inclusive or are they potentially watering down the point of it? When I was a kid I'm sure it was LGB and then it was LGBT and now it's (I think) LGBTQIA+ but if you're going to just keep adding letters, wouldn't it be better to just re-brand it to something more inclusive overall? Also who decides which letters get promoted into the name or is it a "use whichever one you want" kinda thing? Which again might devalue it somewhat if there are so many versions of it and not a decisive one. Going purely off my understanding here, so happy/keen to be corrected - but groups have been added when they weren't covered by what was there before. Intersex and Asexual are the two most recent underrepresented groups to become part of it. Not everyone uses LGBTQUIA+, but it doesn't seem to be a cause for much argument. It seems like the majority are in favour, because there's an understanding of diversity and of a need for representation of those who aren't generally considered part of the mainstream. There is, however, a successfully growing (astroturfed) 'LGB' society, which is primarily about distancing from, and attacking, trans people. A lot of people believe they're a deliberate attempt to undermine LGBTQ+ groups by dividing and setting against each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 59 minutes ago, FelatioLips said: I've been holding off posting in here as quite honestly I'm clueless and have nothing to add, but 10 pages in I do have some (likely very stupid sounding) questions and they're honestly not in any way meant to provoke or anything, but moreso come from a place of complete cluelessness and ignorance. 1. With the whole LGBT thing, do those that are part of it find the inclusion of more letters inclusive or are they potentially watering down the point of it? When I was a kid I'm sure it was LGB and then it was LGBT and now it's (I think) LGBTQIA+ but if you're going to just keep adding letters, wouldn't it be better to just re-brand it to something more inclusive overall? Also who decides which letters get promoted into the name or is it a "use whichever one you want" kinda thing? Which again might devalue it somewhat if there are so many versions of it and not a decisive one. 2. Do people involved find that the more recent, I suppose popularity, of identifying as something is because things are more open and inclusive now so people feel comfortable being able to, or is it the modern day version of being a punk or a goth or emo? I'm talking almost specifically teenagers/young adults because when I was their age there was pretty much nobody declaring themselves queer or anything like that or even really talking about any type of gender or sexuality, nor was there anything like stating preferred pronouns. I know the correlation is clearly there with social media, but as with anything on social media how much of it is for real and how much is for show or to feel included in some sort of movement? 1. Personal preference is best way. LGBT became a thing in early 1990s ish 2. Section 28 repeal . Allowed us to exist. it's the reason why an entire lgbtq generation has so much shame and guilt and causes a billion and one issues with things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courageous Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, FelatioLips said: 1. With the whole LGBT thing, do those that are part of it find the inclusion of more letters inclusive or are they potentially watering down the point of it? When I was a kid I'm sure it was LGB and then it was LGBT and now it's (I think) LGBTQIA+ but if you're going to just keep adding letters, wouldn't it be better to just re-brand it to something more inclusive overall? Also who decides which letters get promoted into the name or is it a "use whichever one you want" kinda thing? Which again might devalue it somewhat if there are so many versions of it and not a decisive one. 2. Do people involved find that the more recent, I suppose popularity, of identifying as something is because things are more open and inclusive now so people feel comfortable being able to, or is it the modern day version of being a punk or a goth or emo? I'm talking almost specifically teenagers/young adults because when I was their age there was pretty much nobody declaring themselves queer or anything like that or even really talking about any type of gender or sexuality, nor was there anything like stating preferred pronouns. I know the correlation is clearly there with social media, but as with anything on social media how much of it is for real and how much is for show or to feel included in some sort of movement? This sounds wierd, but you've somehow argured for and against my position at the same time... Keep adding letters dilutes each one, but nobody fits 100% into any box anyway so dilution is a good thing But then, if everyone is a little bit queer, what's the point of the label (other than to say "you belong" which is a cop out - we all belong in society as a whole)? I'll repeat my earlier challenge, can anyone give cast iron definition of any of the terms being used in this conversation? if not, then the terrms are themselves bollocks Edited June 7, 2021 by courageous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 29 minutes ago, courageous said: This sounds wierd, but you've somehow argured for and against my position at the same time... Keep adding letters dilutes each one, but nobody fits 100% into any box anyway so dilution is a good thing But then, if everyone is a little bit queer, what's the point of the label (other than to say "you belong" which is a cop out - we all belong in society as a whole)? I'll repeat my earlier challenge, can anyone give cast iron definition of any of the terms being used in this conversation? if not, then the terrms are themselves bollocks Sounds like very much a signs and signifier discussion. However if people in these communities weren't abused, have less rights etc then your post may have great merit. Increasingly though, im seeing anti lgbt sentiment around things like lgbt not being needed or people being too insular and never mixing, which I think is what your post is getting at? However much like people who are Anti taking the knee, those that want them to stop doing that, are often the ones being shamed and guilted for their actions. If I remember your original post, you didnt want to be defined by labels because though you prefer men, you're not exclusive to men and dont consider yourself bi or pan. Have you come out, or do you just do, you? many non binary people eschew labels etc, however they're not protected by law, barring EA at work So as someone with men on men sexual history do you access hetronormative sexual health services or lgbt ones? if you dont have labels, where do you prefer to go for help where specifics are on offer? A term I've heard bandied about more recently is homoflexible or hetroflexible to cover lifestyles where there's no traditional sexuality Sometimes labels are needed in a wider scale to be able to help whilst not affecting your being in any way shape or form. It's something to consider and isn't bollocks as you put it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted June 7, 2021 Moderators Share Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) So let's discuss how Rob Puff is spending Pride month... On his mountain bike, chihuahua in his basket, not giving a shit. Same as he has for 30 years. Edited June 8, 2021 by PowerButchi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 13 minutes ago, PowerButchi said: et's discuss how Rob Puff is spending Pride month... On his mountain bike, chihuahua in his basket, not giving a shit. Same as he has for 30 years. Marvellous to read about Rob Puff, a true icon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 On 6/5/2021 at 9:13 AM, patiirc said: ... one of my gay mates got abused filmed whilst doing so and reported, just yesterday for being camp... This did not age well. Absolutely devastated #RIP xx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.