Looking to rewrite our new and expectant mothers colateral and have been asked to consider making it gender nutral. Anyone else tackeled this challenge yet and have suggestions on how to word it?

New and Expectant Employee doesnt seem to work to well in my view.

HSE law refers to new & expectant mothers.

A managment systems auditor would expect to find the matter of new and expectant mothers addressed.

Tell the wokes to find something constructive to do.

I was reviewing the Electrical Safety Policy recently and I quoted the regs which describe the person working with electricity as “him” . As it was a direct quote, I left it as it was. When not quoting  I have always used him/her but that might not be enough with some people preferring them or it.  I have decided that I wish to be referred to as ^¯ which sums up my orientation in life: confused  and slightly bored of it all.

New and expectant mothers in this context are anyone who has recently given birth or who is pregnant.  

The things that apply to such people do not all apply to someone else who might be described as a new or expectant parent, for example if they are the other parent or an adoptive parent.  Some of them apply but not all.

For absolute clarity it probably makes sense to talk about birth and pregnancy when this is what is meant rather than motherhood which is a more nebulous concept.

Isn't Dog gender specific given it is the ..... that gives birth to the puppies?

Originally Posted by: MrBrightside

I think you might be opening up a can of worms with this one.

The HSE still refer to New and Expectant Mothers I would be tempted not to change it. However if you feel it needs to be changed you could just swap mothers for person.

A new person would be the baby!

Love to see a French version of such a re-write given they are legislating against gender neutral vocabulary.

Originally Posted by: biker1

For goodness sake! Why does it have to gender neutral? Unless male pregnancy has suddently become an option, I really don't see the point in this. If someone has transferred their sex, surely they would then become 'she or her' when it comes to pregnancy? Another example of political correctness gone mad.

He would be pregnant and he would give birth!

Jason

Whilst recognising that you are working in multiple geographies in the UK and other places where the relevant legislation is largely derived from the British model, the relevant Interpretion Act says that the word "he" (and any variant, i.e. his, him) includes the opposite sex EXCEPT where this is clearly not what is intended.

So, however "inclusive" we want to be the expression "new and expectant mothers" is OK by me and I imagine that if the general consensus was not that this is true, HSE would have been swamped with complaints about the sexist nature of its guidance. As far as I am aware this has NOT happened.

It's a straightforward recognition of biological differences between sexes. 

For everything else I have tended to default to variants of "they" for decades. It's simple and becomes a habit.

A day or so ago, I was pondering on using the phrase "call a spade a spade" rather than e.g. "tell it like it is" which doesn't have the same ring, when I pondered as to whether someone might consider this racist. So I checked the origin of the expression.

It's ascribed to Erasmus when he was translating from Ancient Greek into Roman in 1542. Seems that even then he was being politically correct as in the Ancient Greek it might have been "call a fig a fig" which could be considered to be a double entendre. But the literary experts seem fairly much agreed that a "spade" was a tool for digging the ground with no unsavoury connotations. 

Of course, discrimination was alive and well in 1542 but it tended to be about those with resources making sure that they kept them (and usually increased them) at the expense of those with less, whatever their sex or racial origin. 

There were tyrants and "The Haves" of various colours in the 16th Century. There were also "The Have Nots" of various colours.

"Expectant person" doesn't work either because it doesn't tell you what the person may be expecting.  "Expectant mother" at least tells you that they are expecting to have a baby.  There are many things that a person may expect and a baby may not be one of them!

Kate - to be more politically correct, you could perhaps have written "partner" instead of "wife". That would allow for the expectant mother who has not married, or with a little stretch of the imagination the notional partner or partners if the mother is carrying a surrogate child.

But whatever, the key point, as you indicate, is that the protections are there for biological reasons.

operating biological human incubator?

Factually correct, totally demeaning and precisley what happens when you try and pander.

Originally Posted by: Messey

However, If I was born ‘Fred Smith’ but now identify as ‘Horatio Nelson’, will my employer allow me to wear a bicorn hat in the office and type with one arm? - I doubt it!

If you truly believe you are Horatio Nelson, and it doesn't affect your ability to do your job, then do as you please. I would call you Horatio, and I would respect your rights to hold the belief that you are Haratio Nelson. The only time I would call you out on it is were you to use it as an excuse to invade Russia. Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins. It really isn't that hard to understand.

A person who is trans does not want special treatment, they only want equal treatment. Considering that we are meant to live in a society that has equal rights for men and women, it means that no matter how you identify you rights should not change.

I always look at it as similar to when you are introduced to a "William". Quite often they will go by a shortened version of that name, Bill, Billy, Willy etc. You don't keep calling them William anyway, you use their preferred name. It is just the polite thing to do.

Perhaps instead of looking exclusively at gender nuetral wording you need to be looking at inclusive wording...respect is the main thing here for any person, and choosing to include the phrases speaks more about understanding and respect for that person than making the wording neutral...it isn't pandering but respect for individual and thier choices...using the approriate wording is more important...so you can use mothers where it is appropriate to use..

You probably already have this link but worth another read perhaps..?

https://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/guidelines.shtml

I reckon, in line with the description in the legislation that "New and/or expectant mother" describes the situation in a manner understood by all regardless of what they are or identify as or how offended they choose to be. 

As Monty Python said - this is all getting extremely silly.

Originally Posted by: Bazzer

New and expectant mothers, is good enough for me; I have just reviewed a client's procedures, and let it as this.

Well done Bazzer. Thank God common sense has been restored around here

You not understanding it, you being 58, and it being wrong are all not connected. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

If you don't understand the purpose of something, how can you deduce that it is wrong?

The concept of wrong will arise from the inner conflict experienced from 50+ years of societal conditioning in the "norms" that are the binary system. A matter modern revolutionaries forget evolved over millenia.

I suppose that it is inevitable that some on these Forums would consider the MP dubbed "Honourable Member for the 18th Century" to be in touch with 21st Century sensibilities, but here we seem to have an alliance of irregular contributors putting in their opinions and "thanks" on a thread that has, by and large been a considered discussion about the fine lines between what is acceptable language in modern times and what is not.

Including one such irregular contributor whose first posting on the Forums was an advert yesterday, in which not only did they promote a company maintaining air con units in Singapore, but also called into question whether air conditioning might have been a contributory factor in the spread of Covid*.

We've had that particular debate (and more) at length on these Forums including interventions by someone who has returned to the fray on this thread. 

*The Singapore Government has made specific recommendations to mitigate precisely this type of risk. guidance-note-on-improving-ventilation-and-indoor-air-quality-in-buildings.pdf (bca.gov.sg) 

Originally Posted by: DawidGrr

I'm 58yo and don't understand the purpose of gender-neutral wording. It's so wrong.

In the English language pretty much everyone does routinely (and happily) use gender neutral language when they don't know the gender of the person they are referring to.

(Did you see what I did there? Twice.)

There's nothing wrong with gender neutral language.  It doesn't require tortuous grammatical constructs, it simply requires you to not assume you know what sex the individual you are referring to is.