A running leap into political quicksand...

Sands UK - a UK charity that exists to support bereaved mothers, tweeted a message of support for "all birthing parents" – presumably a well-intentioned attempt by whoever was running their social media account to be "inclusive" of transgender and non-binary people who give birth. In the context of the ideological battles being waged around these issues, this was arguably not a good decision.   

 

Freddy Connell – a UK journalist  and transman who made headlines by giving birth and trying (unsuccessfully) to argue for his name being listed on the child's birth certificate as its "father" – tweeted that the people objecting to Sands' message were "transphobes" and "bullies".

By so doing, Freddy managed to offend and upset the loads of women who feel they have also a right to a say in how a charity they support and use, refers to them.

This encapsulates the essence of this increasingly ludicrous debate and highlights how dangerously divisive and polarising it can be. 

I tweeted a thread in response. No doubt like most of my tweets it will go unnoticed, as will this post, but every little helps.  

If Fred reads it I hope he knows it's written in good faith and that when the chips are down it'll be people like me who will have his back – whilst I'd hazard a guess that a quite a few of his erstwhile allies will do what they did when neoliberalism was busy dismantling working class collectives – and are doing as it tightens the austerity screws on the poor – be otherwise engaged in protecting their well-padded backsides.

So here's the meat of the thread. For what it's worth.

Look at the world that the child you gestated and gave birth to, stands to inherit and tell me, Fred – is this is the hill you want to make a stand on?  Calling people – including loads of bereaved mothers – “transphobes” because they objected to the erasure of the word “mother” by a charity that was founded by bereaved mothers, to support bereaved mothers? 

At least SandsUK had the good grace and common sense to backtrack.

“Mothers and other birthing parents” would have been inclusive – erasing the word mother is not just a step too far – it's a  running jump into political quicksand. 

 

There’s an old pre-DNA saying: "maternity's a certainty; paternity's an opinion". 

 

There's a powerful material reality underpinning that – the same reality that’s the foundation of people’s deep-rooted attachment to words like mother, woman, female. 

 

It's arguably the most ancient of all human realities with roots that run far too deep and wide to be removed as a result of sometimes petulant, sometimes bullying demands from a tiny minority mostly living, not just inside the imperial bubble, but within the well-buffered coordinator class that helps keep the bubble intact and inflated.

 

Outside the bubble and that strata, most of human and all of other life still moves to more ancient and foundational rhythms  – I suggest you take the literal or figurative ear buds out and have a listen.  

 

You won’t succeed in undermining the deep beliefs in the material realities that underpin the word mother with this sort of foot-stamping in the name of inclusivity – but you might very well help erode wider support for far more important aspects of inclusivity.

 

So, a word in your shell-like, Fred, my old china, ease off the entitlement pedal and learn to pick your battles.