How would you identify yourself? Are there parts of you emotionally, physically, socially, that you would say are fundamental to what make you you? What defines you? For me, it is my liberation, my feminism, my wanderlust, my autumnal colour schemes, and my gender. I would identify myself as a woman (and a powerful one at that). I am a woman because I say I am a woman. But it’s also important to consider that since I have what are often seen to be 'female' reproductive organs and I was therefore assigned female at birth, I have been socially conditioned to feel a certain way about my gender, having been taught to do so by those who believe I should want to strive to be 'feminine' (for example) - the media, my grandad, society at large.
Because of the way society currently works, some people don't have it so easy. Some people are assigned a gender at birth which later transpires to be incorrect, and in a society that is still attached to the idea that gender is both associated with sexual organs and binary - penis or vagina, man or woman - they are born into a world of coercive ostracism; one that stigmatises sex organs whilst defining people by them. At some point (in the case of trans people) they might question this hypocrisy and hopefully learn that there are many other ways to define their gender outside of the binary (male/female) and other than via their anatomy; and many will find another identity that is right for them. We use the umbrella term 'trans' to describe these people, although there are many different terms within that bracket that individuals will identify with(1). We use the term 'cis' to describe people who do conform with the gender that they were assigned at birth, and the term 'cisnormative' describes the aspects of society which cater only to that 'norm'.
I am a doula, currently feeling my way into a world plastered in cisnormativity - the birthing world. It is a world which exclusively celebrates cis women and denies trans people from entering its language; one which addresses the pregnant population as 'women.' I believe that in this birthing world (and outside of it!), articles, talks, books, workshops etc. need to be more trans inclusive, which involves only using the word 'woman' where it is appropriate - when addressing individuals who identify with it. When addressing the general pregnant population, (for example in the title of a book) it would instead be appropriate to either use gender neutral terms such as 'people who are pregnant' or, as suggested by trans dad and la leche league adviser Trevor Macdonald, to 'use more ink;' address all of your audience by listing who they are; women, transgender, non binary, agender and non conforming folk. (This is an incomplete list, see footnote (1)). This way, we recognise that not only women are capable of being pregnant.
As a cis woman, I had no idea of, because I have never experienced, the extent of the deliberate trans exclusivity with regard to pregnancy and birth - and I don't pretend to fully understand the struggle, as research will never equate to first hand experience (although through research we can become better allies). I naively thought that the cisnormativity was unintentional, and that with a little push we could reduce it greatly. Naïvety which I now understand exacerbated trans oppression. Even in a closed feminist group, excuses for being trans exclusive ranged from 'women are an oppressed group vulnerable to being erased' to 'it'll make my writing too clunky' to 'why should the majority be threatened for the sake of a tiny minority.' I am writing to discuss such excuses. I’d like to address the problems that come with harmful generalisations and assumptions made by institutions, people and literary pieces that are supposed to cater to any person who could become pregnant. I am not addressing how to be trans inclusive on an individual level. 'I refer to my clients how they choose to identify, they can use whatever pronouns they like and I respect that!' Is not a solution to the generalisations and assumptions predicament, it is a given that we address individuals using their correct pronouns.
It is worth recognising that this is a topic which when discussed, tends to become hostile. Perhaps because those with what society sees as 'female' reproductive organs are encouraged to in-fight to distract us from external oppression (also common in breastfeeding/ birth choices groups, because making people feel inadequate creates a space in the market to sell them shit). The hostility could also be owing to those who are only interested in learning if they think it will be beneficial to them, those who fear that if their freedom is shared, it is halved. I'll go on to explain some of the arguments from both parties and ultimately you, the reader, may decide for yourself where you stand.
Suggesting to birth workers that we no longer use the word 'women' when referring to all people who could grow children from seeds, is usually met with fear. I think that this fear can be attributed to the long history of patients in maternity care being treated as floating vaginas. Some birth workers see that changing 'women' to 'pregnant people' (or other trans inclusive alternatives I will later discuss) is a step in the wrong direction because it does a "disservice to those who have fought so hard for 'women-centred care' rather than service-centred or obstetric-centred." I can understand their fear - the constant struggle for patients and clients to be seen as more than just foetus containers is very real and disturbing. It has also been suggested that some women do not identify with 'pregnant person' and feel strongly about not being described as one. So putting all seed growers into that bracket is also debatably exclusive. I would argue that that’s where individuals’ identities come into play; that is, if an individual does not feel comfortable with gender-neutral terms such as ‘pregnant person’, then they should not be addressed as such on a personal level, thereby avoiding being addressed in an uncomfortable way for 9 months straight. The difference is that it’s not invalid to assume that all humans (/people) are human, but it would be invalid to assume that all [pregnant] people are women.
Fear also comes from the fact that women are vulnerable to being erased, so some are very protective of the places in which we are celebrated. We are a marginalised group who have only relatively recently begun to claim and celebrate our gender, so are not about to 'give it up.' I do not believe that by sharing the privilege of being correctly gendered we are further marginalising ourselves, especially considering that in this situation we are the dominant majority. It is important to acknowledge that trans inclusive language is not women exclusive, rather it is inclusive of all gender identities. The effect trans inclusion will have on cis women is perhaps comparable to how cis men were affected when cis women were granted the vote; although it affected the men who already had the vote by distributing their power more evenly, the effect was justified in the name of equality. I understand that this comparison is not direct, as cis men are not a group vulnerable to being erased, however here it is relevant considering the axis of oppression: the oppressed can not oppress their oppressors as societal power structures don’t allow it. You can’t push someone down the stairs if they’re at the top and you’re at the bottom. We recognise that cis men were not 'oppressed' by women but rather the power gap was lessened, and their liberation may have affected men by taking away privileges they were not owed, like being able to speak on behalf of women. So cis women will not be oppressed by genders and identities further oppressed than their own and if they are affected it is only in sharing privileges trans people also deserve. We have to accept that obtaining real equality by addressing the power imbalance will have an impact on the privileged people who currently have the power. In order to do this, we must first recognise the privileges that we have over trans people.
Women are seen by society at large as 2nd class subjects because of their perceived potential both to fall pregnant and to menstruate. It could be argued that to gender neutralise the language around these experiences does not reflect the truth behind that. In other words, if, for the sake of argument, everybody began referring to those facing such problems as 'people,' the issues might lose the meaning they have historically, symbolically and socially. But that would be under the assumption that trans people are a 21st century invention. This is of course not true - in the words of Trevor macdonald, "[trans people] have been giving birth for as long as women-identified people have and have also encountered oppression." It's also misguided to see this loss of association of women with childbirth as negative. It is true that an individual may feel more 'womanly' because of their ability to become pregnant, how ever there are some transgender men who feel that "pregnancy and childbirth [are] very male experiences." It is also important to recognise that women can stay central in the fight for reproductive justice while still allowing for that centre to grow. Others can be welcomed in to the circle, thus allowing the fight to become inclusive and also stronger, because it would then be fought by a larger group working in solidarity with one another.
Some people feel that pregnancy and birth is one of the 'essences of womanhood, a divine feminine rite of passage.' Which is fine, they may identify with that - people have different ways of connecting with their identity and if that is theirs, I can respect that. How ever, I do not believe that they have the right to project or force their idea of what makes a person 'womanly' on to others, nor may they parade it as fact. Just as trans people and trans allies respect your identity for whatever reasons you have settled with it and how you go about celebrating it, you should respect theirs.
So how do we verbalise the rejoicing of all pregnancies without taking away the empowerment of the 'divine feminine?' Well, how do we rejoice all orange juice without taking away the wonder of orange juice with bits? How about by choosing to enjoy our own orange juice with bits and allowing the person next to us to enjoy theirs smooth? That way, all orange juice is rejoiced, and all we did was call ours the right name, theirs the right name, give it an accurate overall name, and drink it! By taking away smooth orange juice, we do not reduce the empowerment and enjoyment others get out of bits, and we recognise that calling all orange juice bitty is simply incorrect.
Besides, when talking about the divine feminine it seems to be conveniently forgotten that many ancient goddess temples revered different physiological and social expressions of sexuality and reproductivity, so even those clinging on to that argument should recognise that any one can take on the spiritual meaning of the primordial womb.
There are a few ways which may be considered in an effort to be more trans inclusive in our language when addressing an audience of people who are capable of becoming pregnant or who are pregnant.
Sometimes when people are considering changing their language here, they think of all the problems it could potentially cause and then think 'why am I threatening an already marginalised group (women) for such a tiny minority (trans pregnant people)!' This is thoughtless and hurtful. Reliable data on trans pregnancies is scarce, with much of the information anecdotal and/or from unreliable web-based sources, so it is very difficult to find an accurate statistic on how many occur, especially since many trans people do not change their gender by law and there are privacy and safety issues when it comes to trans people truthfully filling out surveys on gender. Trans people are not 'virtually none existent.' In the uk it is estimated that there are more trans people than there are Jewish people. The office for national statistics admits that "currently, there are huge inconsistencies in population estimates of both transsexual people and the less clearly defined trans community" and also that the suggested estimates are all too low for a number of reasons. Estimates of the U.K. trans population range from 65,000 (Johnson, 2001, p.7) to 300,000 (GIRES, 2008). The office for national statistics suggests that increased recognition (like including trans people in the birthing world) will lead to the promotion of social acceptance, which would lead to more reliable stats.
To the cis people who feel they need reassurance that the trans population is big enough to be accounted for, I say this: every day you are accounted for. The cisnormative manner of society constantly pampers you in places you might never notice. Try to recognise the trans population as a hugely marginalised and oppressed group. There are less homeless people living in the uk, but we do not pretend their numbers are too small to bother with. They are not 'negligible' or 'practically none existent.' And actually even if there was only one person unaccounted for, is that not one too many? Do they not deserve to be included as much as you do?
Some people struggle with the idea of replacing the word 'women' in their writing by 'using more ink;' because they fear it will make their writing 'clunky' and therefore choose not to. In the managing editor of Home Birth Matters, Sian Hannagan's, article on cultural appropriation, she says "for many, addressing cultural appropriation is seen as 'too hard' or 'too messy.' The problem with these attitudes is that they rest in a position of privilege. Being able to ignore the effects of cultural appropriation because it does not affect you personally does not make it any less of a problem for those who it does impact, and it clearly does have impact. To add further insult, dismissing it makes it twice the problem." I feel that this is applicable to the case of trans people in the birthing world too. Using more ink as Trevor Macdonald suggests, is still however, not a simple matter. In this piece I have suggested 'using more ink' to include women, transgender, non binary, agender and non conforming folk. But this is an incomplete list. I can sympathise with authors, readers and editors who find an inclusive list every time they refer to the pregnant or potentially pregnant population to be tedious - a quick search on Google immediately gave me a list of over 25 identities which fall under the 'trans' umbrella. Adding 'and other identities' is also problematic because it devalues and marginalises those not mentioned. 'Trans people' covers all potentially pregnant people who are not cis women, so saying 'pregnant women and trans people' makes sense to me.
Another suggestion of how to be more inclusive was to 'mix it up' by varying the language used. So instead of always saying 'woman' or 'mother' we could sometimes say those terms and other times use 'pregnant person' or 'father,' thus, over the course of a book, for example, everyone is accounted for. So, taking this in to account, who are you going to put in the title of your book about the third trimester? The father? No, of course you are not, and so we will not see everyone accounted for on our bookshelves. Trans people are excluded this way because the title is the first obstacle. Since the title is often the selling point, many sources are made unavailable to trans people because they describe their audience to be 'women'. This is of course a great shame. So we are back to square one - 'pregnant people.'
I'd like to address the foetus container issue because I can see how people may find the term 'pregnant people' to be guilty of this offence (the offence being that pregnant people are reduced to their pregnancies and not recognised first for who they are). One solution to this would be to instead call them 'people who are pregnant,' this way, they are recognised as people before their pregnancies.
It is common for people to address the issue of trans inclusion in their work with an apologetic preamble which goes something like 'in this book/talk/whatever I will be describing pregnant people as 'women.' I recognise that not all pregnant people are women but for the sake of clarity...' This laziness is offensive! If you recognise that not all pregnant people are women, why do you go on to generalise them as such! Further more, even after an apologetic foreword, using 'women' throughout a book (to describe baby-seed nurturers) still exacerbates the apparent unimportance of the minority trans baby-seed nurturers, and further entrenches even subconscious cisnormativity for everyone involved (reader, writer, editors, their kids etc.). So really, an apologetic preamble doth butter no parsnips.
Who wants to play the devils advocate? We feminists love a devils advocate(2). No, you're right, to an extent, we can not go around changing every sexist and cis-sexist word in our vocabulary. We must use the language available to us, the one created over centuries of kyriarchy(3) and composed mainly by men. We must use words like 'midwife' which translates to 'with woman' and 'doula' which means 'woman who serves' because for now, that is the language we have available to us. But we must start at the beginning and make baby steps, making changes where is possible. For example, by using words like 'people' which are available to us instead of 'women' to describe anyone with a uterus. Language is very interesting, and we must it strategically to be as inclusive as possible(4). Even minor changes in language can change the included audience, for example, to use 'mothering' as a verb, rather than 'mothers' as a noun could be more inclusive of any body who brings up a child with loving care and attention, rather than only those who are literal mothers. This can only take us so far, though - even the example I have given is problematic, as many trans people may not identify with 'mothering' because it is still debatably gendered.
I'd like to add to the above more complex points with some more simple ones. The first is that I do not think it appropriate to use the word 'women' when discussing absolute facts, for example 'only women can get pregnant.' This statement is simply false; trans men for example are not 'women who identify as men' they are men. The second is that when discussing personal anecdotes, I do not think it inappropriate to include genders, whatever they may be. The third I think is very important: those who are intent on being trans inclusive in their work should be advertising themselves as such, as a form of trigger warning.
Each of the above paragraphs is a synopsis of a discussion which could easily go on to fill books. I have tried to summarise as many discussions on this topic as possible in a relatively succinct way, in order to create a platform for further discussion. I recognise that due to the nature of the topic, at times it can become less accessible, and takes some working through, but I hope it has been helpful none the less. I am a cis person attempting to address issues I have never first hand experienced, so it is easily argued that it is not my place to be writing this. But I want the trans community to know that you have support in this horrifically cisnormative birthing world. All the same, I recognise that it is potentially offensive that I have spoken so directly on the subject, and to those I may have offended in doing so, I am deeply, deeply sorry.
No one is perfect, we are all learning, and I am sure this is not the extent of the discussion, but below I have listed a summary of what I understand to be the main ten points to go by when considering trans inclusivity in the birthing world. I hope you will consider taking them with you to where ever it is your feet take you next. Good luck!
Trans people are not 'virtually non existent.' In fact, some figures suggest the trans population in the uk is larger than the total population of Bradford. And no matter their numbers, they deserve to be included.
Apologetic preambles doth butter no parsnips.
Pregnancy is not necessarily a 'womanly' experience.
Trans people are not a 21st century invention, they have been falling pregnant as long as women identified people have and have too experienced oppression.
We do not need to, and it is at no point suggested, that we ban the word 'woman;' only that it is used by and directed at those who actually identify with it, and not generalised to all those with vaginas. Pulpy orange juice generalising is not acceptable.
Liberation is not a limited resource.
Try to consider the privileges you have that others may seek before you become hostile or defensive in response to their suggestions.
When addressing anyone and everyone with the potential to grow a baby seed into a fully fledged loin fruit inside them, it is most appropriate to use gender neutral terms. From here on out I am going to opt for 'people who are pregnant' when addressing the general pregnant population, because to me that seems like the most appropriate solution (but as you may have noticed, I do enjoy 'seed growers' too).
When addressing people personally, it is important to know their preferred pronouns and use them.
If you are intent on being trans exclusive in your work, it is important that you advertise yourself as such.
Footnotes
> (1) For a comprehensive list of trans, genderqueer and queer terms, go to https://lgbt.wisc.edu/documents/Trans_and_queer_glossary.pdf
> (2) Under our floorboard
> (3) For a definition, go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy
> (4) See http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/02/guide-on-problematic-language/ for more on this fascinating subject
The inclusivity of this post is amazing. Instant fan! Resteemed, upvoted and
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Really glad you read and enjoyed!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit