I’d like to say I’ve seen everything now, but I’d only be fooling myself—UNLESS those of us who love the English language put a stop to radical progressives destroying and politicizing the English language to their own narcissistic advantage. The latest example is Rep. Cori Bush’s use of the moniker “birthing person” for “mother.” Senator Lankford of Oklahoma recently confronted HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra about the use of that nom de guerre (and yes, it made me go “grr”) for “mother” in new HHS regulations and budgets. The radical progressive despots have become so enamored with their newfound terminology that they don’t see how they’ve castrated their own long-held convictions about the gender formerly and patriarchally known by some as the fairer sex. (You Prince fans see what I did there on several levels, right?)
The obvious problem with “birthing person” is that it reduces the biological woman to her biological function. I thought feminism (can we even use THAT term anymore?) was all about breaking the stereotype of “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen,” but I guess the progressives want to go back 70 years and restore that role for women, seeing them only as vessels to perpetuate the human race. I would think women would be furious, and it appears that many are. It also strips the woman of all that goes into being a mother, because I think most women agree that there is much more to being a mother than just giving birth.
The term is also at its core transphobic as well. A male who has transitioned to a eunuchoid (regardless of gender identity or nonidentity) can never be a real “birthing person,” so this gives the biological woman a decided advantage over the eunuchoid. Where’s the equity in that, eh progressives? They get all the attention for bringing that cute little baby, um, I mean birthed person, into the world. Eunuchoids will never know the joys of sensing the life of a soon-to-be-birthed person growing and developing in their bodies and the ecstasy that comes when the baby is finally birthed into the world.
I would think the term “birthing person” would also be offensive to those women who have never given birth, but have been foster and adopting mothers to millions of children. Again, where’s the equity? If they are caring for children in a family unit the same way a “birthing person” would, why should they have a different title? (By the way, that would go against Federal Plain Language guidelines, which state that you can’t use different terms for the same function or type of person in Federal regulations.) I can imagine the regulatory nightmare of trying to sort out perinatal language if a birthing mother gives up her child for adoption at birth.
And let’s not deny that the men who father the babies have an emotional attachment as well. I shared in the (creation and) birth of all three of my children. And I’ll be spitting nails if someone tries to call me an “birthing observer.” I supported my kids’ mother through all three pregnancies, and that contribution was priceless to me and appreciated by her.
If all these reasons aren’t enough to stop the slippery slope into the debauching of the English language, I’m almost certain this final reason will. If we’re going to reduce mothers, or women, to their primary biological function in perpetuating the human race in our terminology, then it’s only fair we do the same for men. So, if the regulators want to insist on “birthing person,” then they need to reduce the father to his biological role in the procreation process as well: change “father” to “impregnator.”
[Mic drop.]
Scott Stocking
My thoughts and opinions are my own. And in case some of you have trouble recognizing sarcasm or a tongue-in-cheek comment, that’s what the last paragraph is.
Sustainable America 