NZ College of Midwives considers using the abomination known as "inclusive language" in its communications.

First the Midwifery Council, now the College of Midwives - is there no end to organisations that want to erase women and girls in the written word?

There it was. Smack-bang in the middle of the list of news items in the NZ College of Midwives’ October newsletter, was the request for “expressions of interest for an inclusive language work group”. It’s the best spot for something you have to make known, but really don’t want too much attention paid to.

So far, unlike the Midwifery Council¹, the College of Midwives has managed to keep their language female-centred. But, transactivists and gender idealogues seep into all organisations, and relentlessly push to make changes which prioritise the feelings of the miniscule fringe group who chooses to claim they’re the opposite sex to that which they were born. Or non-binary. Or gender fluid. Or ‘queer’. Or whatever takes their fancy to declare themselves as on any given day.

Conceding to this nonsense has been a grave mistake. That miniscule group and their ‘champions’ should have been told right at the beginning not to be ridiculous and go away. The ‘soft sell’ from them was too well done, though, and the product - i.e. trans/gender ideology - was such a novelty that no one really understood the potential it had to wreak havoc. Women and girls in particular have suffered the loss of their sex-based rights due to capitulation to the demands of men who say they’re women.

And now we have the College of Midwives, for whom women are the sole reason for its existence, wanting to form a working group to take women-centred language out of its communications to appease a fringe group with multiple messy issues. Clear and concise language about women will be replaced with with vague references instead, and they call this abomination “inclusive language”. You can’t make this up.

Like most places, I suspect, there is likely a small hardcore faction of gender ideologues within the College who are possessed with determination to drive this change, come hell or high water.

I’ve been told that several letters have made their way to the College to express resistance to this proposed change of language before the cut-off date of 18 Nov, so I joined them -

“To: Alison Eddy CEO of the NZ College of Midwives, and the Board –

I am writing to express concerns over what to all intents and purposes appears to be a drive to erase female-centred language in the College of Midwives communications.

I understand that the College wishes to form an “Inclusive language work group”. The sophistry of the term ‘inclusive language’ is not lost on me, nor many others. Ultimately, ‘inclusive language’ serves to erase women and girls from language in favour of neutral language, which has the devastating result of making women and girls invisible in the written word. It can easily be seen as the West’s way of cloaking women.

Whilst neutral language can serve a purpose in various settings, it’s not fit for purpose in the language which the College of Midwives should use. That language should be proudly female-specific and female-centred, and not allowed to descend to insulting vague references for the appeasement of a miniscule fringe group.

It took women a long time to begin featuring in written language, as throughout history men were assumed to be the default subject in most instances. Only in midwifery did women feature first and foremost, and now it seems that the College wants to undo even that via ‘inclusive language’.

Are you aware that the word ‘person’ even had to be specified that it included women once? You will see this picture below in Kate Sheppard House in Christchurch.

Did the College of Midwives consult widely about its intention to erase women and girls from its communications, in a manner which was anonymous for the safety of those who disagreed with the proposal? As we know, anonymity in these matters is vital, due to those who don’t agree with the erasure of women and girls in language being treated very badly.

Or, was it restricted to LGBTQIA+ invested groups and individuals who would be sure to go along with it? Erasing clear representation of 51% of the population in language is not something that should be done under the cover of in-house secrecy, nor by groups and individuals selected to give a pre-desired recommendation. For full transparency, are you able to supply me with a list of those whom the College has engaged with so far on the matter of ‘inclusive language’ in the College’s communications, please.

Thank you and regards,

Concerned female citizen, Katrina Biggs.”

I received an acknowledgement of my letter, and told that it would be brought to the attention of the College Board, but no other promises.

Amongst those who also wrote to the College of Midwives was Deb Hayes, who initiated the action against the Midwifery Council regarding their abysmally-worded revised Scope of Practice¹.

Will the letters which the College receives make any difference to what might be a forgone intention to adopt ‘inclusive language’? Based on past experience in this fight to retain women’s sex-based rights, I’m sceptical. Then again, gender ideology is losing popularity - yay for the Olympic Committee’s almost certain ban on men who say they’re women from competing in the female category - so maybe there’s some slight hope.

¹ The whole shebang about the NZ Midwifery Council’s persistent determination to rid their Scope of Practice of the words ‘woman’ and ‘baby’.