‘I am not a uterus holder’: UK erases pregnant women, breastfeeding and mothers

The indisputably female experience of pregnancy is being airbrushed from UK constitutional affairs but MPs are fighting back.

A mother and her child … or should we say, the birthing parent with their baby? Picture: iStock

What does it mean to be a woman in 2021? In Britain, it means finding yourself airbrushed out of constitutional affairs from the indisputably female experience of being pregnant.

In a bill proceeding through Westminster about paid maternity leave for members of parliament, the wording deems that there are no pregnant women, only pregnant persons.

Earlier this month at the Brighton and Sussex National Health Service trust, women lost their right to have breasts: they now chest-feed. Nor are women now mothers, for they are the birthing parent.

The House of Lords was told the World Health Organisation defines a woman as people who menstruate (disregarding the fact that only half the female population at any one time are of menstruating age).

The jettisoning of the word “women” from the legal text of the proposed new UK maternity leave bill was hotly debated in the House of Lords earlier this week.

Baroness Sheila Noakes, a Conservative peer, moved a regret motion, saying the proposed language of the Bill was set within a broader context of the erasure of women in society.

Instead of using the phrase pregnant woman or mother, the bill refers to “the person is pregnant” and “the person has given birth to a child”.

Breastfeeding is now chest-feeding in the UK. Picture: iStock

“Those of us who care about the position of women have been increasingly concerned about the dilution of the 2010 Equality Act with its protected characteristic of sex, not gender, which should protect women. Some organisations, deliberately or carelessly, conflate sex and gender,” Lady Noakes said.

“The National Health Service, which in the past had to be forced to abandon mixed-sex wards, now routinely admits to women’s wards on the basis of self-identification, regardless of the needs or wishes of women. Prisons operate like this, too. And do not get me started on so-called gender-neutral toilets.’’

Lady Noakes said she was not prepared to be erased as a woman, even knowing the social media wrath of being labelled transphobic, like JK Rowling discovered when she poked fun at the WHO.

“There is no malice in wishing to maintain the biological facts of womanhood and the lived experience of women, which includes menstruation, childbirth and menopause,” she said.

“That view happily coexists with respect and concern for transgender people.’’

Lady Noakes described parliament’s claims that it was illegal or incorrect to use the word “women” in relation to pregnancy as being “garbage”.

“We have to put a stop to the practice,” she said, warning, “If this bill passes unamended, there will be yet another precedent on the statute book for the elimination of women.’’

Lady Noakes’s position was strongly supported by scores of peers across the spectrum of politics.

Baroness Helene Hayman, a Labour peer, said: The price of so-called gender neutrality in this Bill is an awkward and ugly distortion of the English language and an affront to common sense.

Lord Philip Hunt, who previously introduced legislation for gay adoption said: “Do we really want to see demeaning terms such as ‘menstruators’, ‘individuals with a cervix’, ‘birthing bodies’ or even ‘chest feeders’? When the Brighton trust announced the use of the latter term, where was the Department of Health? It was absolutely silent, because it is cowed and frightened to speak up against this kind of absolute nonsense.’’

Baroness Claire Fox, an independent, said women and their specific biology were becoming devalued — expunging their recognisable human attributes.

“Our laws and words must never treat people as non-human things,” she said.

A bill proceeding through parliament in the UK no longer refers to pregnant women, only pregnant persons.

“These new language codes and norms are mandating us to adopt doublespeak. Why do I need to describe myself as ‘cis woman’? I am a woman; that is it — enough. I am not a uterus holder, nor a person with a vagina nor a chestfeeder. These are linguistic abominations, but they are not harmless. Ultimately, these body part descriptions demean women and are a linguistic assault on the notion that biological sex exists at all.’’

Crossbencher and barrister Lord David Pannick told the House that trans men who were born female had given birth and one brought legal proceedings in the Court of Appeal last year. In the case, he said the claimant had been registered at birth as female, but had transitioned to live in the male gender and had received a gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, stating that his gender was male.

“He then underwent artificial insemination, became pregnant and gave birth to a child. He brought legal proceedings complaining that the child’s birth certificate recorded him as the mother. He said that, because he had transitioned, he should be recorded as the father or as a parent. The Court of Appeal rejected his complaint and said that recording him as the mother was not a breach of his human rights.’’

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb said trans men have pregnancies and they have babies, suggesting the Bill wording should change to “women and trans men”.

Despite the peers’ strong objections to the current “person” wording of the bill, the government insisted it would remain unchanged. This has prompted the Lords to reconsider the matter when the Bill is in committee stage on Thursday.