Like NZ’s birthrate, the words ‘mother’ and ‘woman’ are in serious decline.

The declining population in countries referred to as ‘Western’ countries has been noted for some time. Here in New Zealand, the fertility rate as at December 2023 was 1.56 births per woman, which is lower than what is deemed to be the population replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman.¹  

Like other Western countries, we rely on immigration to boost our numbers, but we’re buffered somewhat from unfettered and illegal immigration by being at the edge of the world. For the most part, immigrants to New Zealand tend to be more productive, than not. Having said that, of course I’m aware of stories and events which fly in the face of it. No need to enlighten me, thanks. Nothing’s perfect.

The fact is, given the means, many women prefer to have fewer children now than our forebears had. Studies into this phenomenon have produced numerous hypotheses, both of the armchair variety and from actually studying the broad spectrum of women’s lives.

I was listening to an interview (which I can’t find now) on The Platform recently, and the interviewee mentioned that one reason women have fewer children now was the “opportunity cost” to them. He explained that women often have to give up some of their opportunities in life to have children, so they delay it, have none, or fewer than they might have once had. Another reason was that we now meet our partners through shared interests, which can become the glue in the partnership, whereas once we used to accept that partnering up with someone primarily meant having a family.

What the interviewee didn’t comment on, was what the impact of intentionally erasing women and mothers from our language might be, and replacing them with linguistic abominations. Possibly, it may not have crossed his mind yet that it was worth some investigation. Every situation has many threads to it, and no one thing is solely responsible for creating a situation - but erasing women and mothers from our language cannot possibly have no consequences.

The below thread on X got me thinking more about this, and I believe it’s worth a fuller discussion about what the impacts of that erasure are now and going forward –

Why indeed?

NZ’s Midwifery Council unbelievably numbers amongst both those public and private organisations and institutions determined not to use the words ‘mother’ and ‘woman’. Or, at least as infrequently as it can get away with. Initially, it tried to revise the midwives Scope of Practice without using those words, or ‘baby’. Thanks to the efforts of midwife Deb Hayes and supporters, though, the Council has been pulled back into line a little. However, it is still being as miserly as possible with those words, so the battle to keep them in the language of midwifery is not over yet.

Ten years ago, who’d have ever thought we’d be fighting to force the Midwifery Council to retain the words ‘woman’, ‘mother’, and ‘baby’? And for what? For the sake of a very occasional sick chick with an artificially-induced beard and (electively) chopped-off breasts, who is uncomfortable with those words?² Which is all perfectly normal and nothing to see here, we’re told.

Despite the indoctrination and bravado of the women who go along with trans ideology, there surely has to be a mental health impact of denying one’s female existence as a sex class? And how much does it mess up women and girls who are forced to call a man ‘she’, knowing it’s false? Lynne Pinches, a UK female pool player who courageously walked away from playing a game with a man who says he’s a woman in November 2023, talks with Meghan Murphy about her decision to do that, and the “mental harm” it’s done to her from being forced to call that man ‘she’ (39.00 to 42.00).

The women who go along with trans ideology will vigorously deny that calling men ‘she’ will have an impact of any significance, because for whatever reason it’s important for them to believe that. But reality’s a bugger, and those of us who have been in this world for a while know that denying it only ever works temporarily. The pieces that need to be picked up after reality shatters a delusion are often far more numerous than any fallout from refusing to go along with a delusion in the first place.

Although the decline in our birthrate began before trans ideologues began erasing women’s words from our language, only fools could ever think that there’d be no negative repercussions from it of some sort. Regardless of how far those in our organisations and institutions bury their heads in the sand about this, one day they will realise that erasing women’s language, forcing us to call men ’she’, and allowing them to invade our spaces are not consequence-free actions.

And when that day comes, I wonder how being such willing chumps for TQ+ lobby groups will be dealt with? It may even be the stuff that elections are either won or lost on.

• ¹Lowest natural increase in 80 years | Stats NZ

What I find rather amusing in a wry way, is how Stats NZ freely use the words woman and birth in the same sentence when it suits them, as does anything to do with surrogacy, but eliminates them when it’s a matter of pandering to trans ideology.

• ²Trans man’s pregnancy and birthing journey in Aotearoa - NZ Herald