Trans Inclusive Language in the Birthing World: A Discussion
(25-minute read)
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, my joy, and my gender.
I am 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 was assigned female at birth based on my reproductive organs, I have been brought up to feel a certain way about my gender. My identity has been nurtured by those who believe I should strive to be 'feminine' – the media, my grandad, society at large.
Some people don't have it so easy. Some people are assigned a gender at birth which 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, boy or girl – they are born into a world of ostracism; one that stigmatises sex organs whilst defining people by them.
At some point, 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. We use the umbrella term 'trans' to describe those who are assigned the incorrect gender at birth, although there are many different terms within that bracket that individuals may identify with. We use the term 'cis' to describe people who do conform with the gender that they were assigned at birth, and the term 'cis-normative' describes the aspects of society which cater only to that norm.
Having worked as a doula, I have spent some time in 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 recognises pregnant people necessarily as women.
As a cis woman, I don't pretend to fully understand the struggles trans people face in the birthing world, as research will never equate to first-hand experience (although through research we can become better allies). In fact, I used to believe that the cisnormativity was unintentional, and that with a little push we could reduce it greatly. Naivety which I now understand exacerbated trans oppression.
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. Referring to individuals with the correct pronouns is a given.
It is worth recognising that this is a topic which when discussed, tends to become hostile. Women are often encouraged to in-fight to distract us from external oppression, but the hostility could also be a product of fear; fear that if our freedom is shared, it is halved. Please read on with kindness, and allow yourself time to respond, rather than reacting.
How can we change our language to include trans people in the birthing world?
Firstly, it’s important to only use the word 'woman' where it is appropriate – when addressing those who identify with it. When addressing the general pregnant population, (in articles, talks, books, podcasts, workshops, etc.) 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. This way, we recognise people of all different identities.
But won’t that make my writing really clunky?
The problem with this attitude is that it rests in a position of privilege. Ignoring the effects of trans exclusion because you are not directly negatively affected adds insult to injury for those it does impact.
Using more ink, as Trevor Macdonald suggests, is still however, not a simple matter. 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 Google search gave me a list of over 25 identities which fall under the trans umbrella. Equally, adding '…and other identities' devalues and marginalises those not mentioned.
Others suggest simply varying our language; instead of always saying 'woman' or 'mother' we could sometimes say 'pregnant person' or 'father’. The idea being that over the course of a book (for example), everyone is accounted for. But who makes the book cover? You can see how this approach excludes people on our bookshelves. 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 as 'women'.
My suggestion is to call a spade a spade. We are discussing people who are or could be pregnant; could it be as simple as describing them as 'pregnant people'?
But we’ve fought long and hard to recognise women before their uteruses. This feels like a step backwards!
Suggesting to birth workers that we no longer use the word 'women' when referring to pregnant people 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’ is a step in the wrong direction because it does a disservice to those who have fought 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 disturbing.
Some people don’t like to be described as ‘pregnant people’, so to describe them as such is debatably to exclude them. The difference is that it’s valid to assume that those receiving care in the birthing world are all people, but it would be invalid to assume that they are all women.
If you are concerned about this, I suggest you refer back to Trevor MacDonald’s suggestion of using more ink to describe those you are including.
But even if I do that, I’m still taking women’s spaces away, spaces we’ve only just started to celebrate.
Fear also comes from the fact that women are vulnerable to being erased, so some are protective of the places in which we are celebrated. We are a marginalised group who have only recently begun to reclaim and celebrate our gender.
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 majority. It is important to acknowledge that trans inclusive language is not women exclusive, rather it is inclusive of all gender identities.
As the oppressed on this axis, trans people are not a threat to our liberation. You can’t push someone down the stairs if they’re at the top and you’re at the bottom. We must accept that obtaining equality by addressing the power imbalance may have an impact on the privileged people who currently have the power. To do this as cis women in the birthing world, we must first recognise the privileges that we have over trans people.
Women are generally seen by society as second-class because of their perceived potential both to fall pregnant and to menstruate. It could be argued that to gender neutralise the language around pregnancy and childbirth would be to erase this history. But we have also been hamstrung by this perception; shedding it may benefit us greatly. We can do this without erasing our history. Furthermore, it’s important to remember that trans people are not a 21st century invention; they have been menstruating and giving birth for as long as women-identified people have.
Okay, well, instead of using all those words, maybe I could just explain why I’m not going to, whilst reassuring people that I do still respect the trans community?
It is common for people to address the issue of trans inclusion in their work with an apologetic preamble. This might sound something like: “In this book/talk/class/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! Furthermore, even after an apologetic foreword, going on to use 'women' (to describe pregnant people) still exacerbates the apparent unimportance of the minority pregnant trans people, and further entrenches even subconscious cisnormativity for everyone involved (readers, writers, editors, their kids etc.). So really, an apologetic preamble doth butter no parsnips.
Okay. But the English language comes from centuries of oppression – we’d have rewrite it entirely if we wanted to avoid offending anyone!
You're right, to an extent, we cannot go around changing every problematic 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 (excuse the pun), changing words where possible to be more inclusive (for example, by using words like 'people' which are available to us instead of 'women' to describe anyone with a uterus).
There are many words which have been removed from common use as society has changed for the better and deemed them offensive and unnecessary. Language is very interesting and very powerful, and we must use it strategically to be as inclusive as possible.
Okay, I can get my head around calling people people, but pregnancy and childbirth are still womanly experiences?
Some people feel that pregnancy and birth are the essences of womanhood… divine feminine rites of passage. People have different ways of connecting with their identity and if that is theirs, we must respect that. However, I do not believe that they have the right to project their idea of what makes a person 'womanly' on to others, nor may they parade it as fact.
It is true that an individual may feel more womanly because of their ability to become pregnant, however, there are some people who feel that pregnancy and childbirth are very male experiences.
So how do we talk about all pregnancies without taking away the empowerment of the divine feminine then?
In the same way that we can celebrate orange juice with and without pulp: by enjoying our own orange juice with pulp and allowing our neighbours to enjoy theirs smooth, with pulp, or not at all. 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 (OJ), and make informed choices about which we would or would not like to drink.
Besides, when talking about the ‘divine feminine’, it often seems to be forgotten that many ancient goddess temples revered different physiological and social expressions of sexuality and reproductivity; many cultures historically have recognised that anyone can take on the spiritual meaning of the primordial womb.
It is 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 into the circle, allowing the fight to become more inclusive and in turn stronger (because it would then be fought by a larger group working in solidarity with one another).
Okay, but is it really necessary to do all of this work to account for such a tiny minority?
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. The U.K. Office for National Statistics admits that there are currently huge inconsistencies in population estimates of the trans community and that the suggested estimates are all too low for a number of reasons. Current estimates of the U.K. trans population range from 200,000 to 600,000 (the latter of which is roughly the population of Glasgow).
Increased recognition (like including trans people in our language in the birthing world) will lead to the promotion of social acceptance, which would lead to more reliable stats. We must recognise the trans population as a large, marginalised group, and try harder to make space for them.
Besides, 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?
Summary
Each of the above sections is a synopsis of a growing discussion which could easily be expanded upon to fill books. I have tried to summarise these 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 nonetheless. If you have got through this article and still sit firm on the trans-exclusive side, please ensure your clients are aware of your position.
I am a cis person attempting to address issues I have never experienced first-hand, so it is easily argued that it is not my place to be writing this. I hope that adding my voice as an ally is helpful and not harmful.
TL/DR:
1. The trans community is not 'virtually non-existent’. In fact, some figures suggest the trans population in the U.K. is larger than the total population of Edinburgh. And no matter their numbers, they deserve to be included.
2. Apologetic preambles doth butter no parsnips.
3. Pregnancy is not necessarily a 'womanly' experience.
4. Trans people are not a 21st century invention, they have been falling pregnant as long as women identified people, and have too experienced oppression.
5. We do not need to ban the word 'woman'. We do, however, need to check that we are using it accurately, and not generalising it’s use to all those with vaginas.
6. Liberation is not a limited resource.
7. Try to consider the privileges you have that others may seek before you become hostile or defensive in response to their suggestions.
8. When addressing anyone and everyone with the potential to grow a babyseed into a fully-fledged loinfruit inside them, it is most appropriate to use gender neutral terms.
9. When addressing people personally, it is important to know their preferred pronouns and use them.
10. If you are intent on excluding trans people in your work, it is important that you advertise yourself as such.