#SixWords-For the word ‘person’ substitute ‘woman’

 

pregnancy & maternity rights
#SixWords – For the word ‘person’ substitute ‘woman’

Call to Action

#SixWords – For the word ‘person’ substitute ‘woman’. “Giving birth is not like chairing a meeting. It cannot be done by a person of either sex.”

It is beyond belief that it has taken governments 103 years to notice women in government may have babies. We are very pleased to see long overdue recognition of this fact in the Maternity Bill to be debated in the Commons this Thursday, 11th February 2020.

But it is unacceptable that the bill talks of ‘pregnant people’ and makes no mention of women at all. This is not a situation that will ever apply to male ministers, so why the obfuscation of language? Nor is it inclusive of those who might be adopting children – adopters are not included in the phrase ‘pregnant people’.

Please, as a matter of urgency,  email your MP ( even telephone your if you are able to) if you believe they are sympathetic. Ask them to propose and support amendment of the Bill’s wording to replace the word ‘person’ with ‘woman’. There is less than 48 hours before this bill is presented. See our example template letter below. Amend as you see fit.

Language matters. Sex matters. Women must not be erased. Share this post across your networks; it affects all women in all political parties.

Template Letter

Dear MP

I have serious concerns around the language used in the Ministerial Maternity Bill being rushed through this week.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0255/200255.pdf

I am pleased to see the House is giving female ministers some of the rights that other pregnant women have – but it is unacceptable that this draft bill undermines our language and removes sex-specific language for mothers, by referring to the mother as  a “person [who] is pregnant” and a “person [who] has given birth to a child”. The bill should be drafted in line with the Equality Act 2010, which talks about pregnancy and maternity using the ordinary language of “woman”, “she” and “her”.

The Drafting Guidance policy to use gender-neutral language should not mean erasing all language about the sexes where only one sex is involved, as in the case of maternity arrangements. Sex-specific language should and must be used in the bill.

The explanatory notes also need to be corrected, as they refer to female ministers throughout using the awkward plural indeterminate “they”. For example: “The Minister on Leave would be able to access papers they were able to access in their previous rôle”.

It is concerning that such action to change language, a strategy used by Stonewall, and other promoters of gender identity ideology, seems in line with the plan for covert changes outlined in a policy paper written by IGLYO (see links below my signature).

It is the responsibility of The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Government Legal Office to draft clear, coherent, accessible law and to help the government to govern well, within the rule of law. Please discuss rectifying this with the ministers presenting the Bill, so that the Drafting Guidance properly allows for sex-specific language where the person concerned can be defined by their sex – as is the case for a woman who is pregnant or a mother.

For a full background, please read this article: 

https://mforstater.medium.com/pregnant-people-in-parliament-62adaa521c2d

Yours sincerely,

[Name and address – you must add your address so your MP knows you live in her/his constituency]

1) IGLYO, Dentons and Thomson Reuters paper:   

https://www.iglyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/IGLYO_v3-1.pdf

2) https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter