Adam Bandt has drawn criticism for using the term “dad” when he should have used “birthing parent,” instead of the term “mother.”
This Monday, the leader of the Green Party charged that the Albanese government had discriminated against LGBTQ+ individuals by altering the wording “birthing parent” back to “mother” on a medical document.
However, astute social media users quickly pointed out that on his Twitter bio, he refers to himself as a “Dad of two.”
Commenters questioned the liberal politician as to why he didn’t use the terms “non-birthing parent” or “sperm producing unit” instead.
“Peak Dumbness.” Adam Bandt wants to change the words “mother” and “father” in his profile to “birthing parent” and “non-birthing parent,” respectively, one user said.
According to your logic, shouldn’t your bio read “non-birthing parent of 2” rather than “Dad of 2?” another user said.
Someone else claimed that Mr. Bandt actively discriminated against women.
In the name of “LGBT+” inclusivity, a politician (and party leader) wants to outlaw the word “mother,” but he considers it acceptable to refer to himself as a “dad” in his biography.
Is it any wonder that women perceive this as erasure with a purpose? the writer wrote.
Another option was helpfully offered by a user: “Dad of two??!? Unless you’ve gone all terfy, you should alter that to sperm contributing unit.
TERF, which stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist, refers to feminists who do not support the rights of transgender persons.
The office of Mr. Bandt has been contacted by Daily Mail Australia for comment regarding the online criticism.
The outcry began after Mr. Bandt criticised Bill Shorten, minister of government services, for changing the term “birthing parent” back to “mother” on a form.
Mr. Bandt wrote on Friday, “As leaders we have an obligation to do the right thing despite the cultural warrior tabloids.”
LGBTQ+ people are considered “birth parents.” Nobody is excluded from it. I implore @billshortenmp to conduct thorough research and reevaluate this intervention.
As part of a pilot to digitally upload newborn babies’ records to Medicare, the new consent forms were implemented at three hospitals throughout Australia.
Instead of “mother,” the form asked for the “birthing parent’s complete name” in one field and “birthing parent’s signature” in another.
To prevent a “ugly” culture war, Mr. Shorten said on Monday that he decided to change the term back to “mother.”
He told the Sydney Morning Herald, “I’m sure my inclination to defuse unpleasant culture clashes is right.”
Many individuals believe that the word “mother” is special and deserving, while others believe that their identity is not included. Both viewpoints are valid.
We simply need to get better at not forcing one viewpoint over the other.
Mr. Shorten claimed that dropping the term “mother” did not further the “cause of diversity and tolerance” and that switching to the phrase “birthing parent” would confuse immigrant families who are not familiar with politically correct, gender-neutral language.
Services Australia reported that since the new forms’ March rollout, 1,100 parents have completed them.
Hank Jongen, general manager of Services Australia, said to the Daily Telegraph that the new conditions had been “tried before being trialled” and that the response had been favourable.
After a Gold Coast mother blasted the forms as “offensive” and “alienating” toward women who wanted to be termed mothers, Mr. Shorten decided to replace the titles on the papers.
Sall Grover, a podcaster, claimed she was astonished when she received updated consent documents soon after giving birth to her infant.
Women in Australia should be aware that they are referred to as “birthing parents” on the form used to add a newborn to their Medicare card, Ms. Grover wrote.
“I’ve had enough. Every woman who wants to be a mother and is termed a “mother” is excluded, alienated, and denigrated by this complete bulls***.
“I know enough about what is going on right now with women’s rights and the degradation of our spaces and language to know where it’s coming from,” you say.
Ms. Grover claimed in an interview with the Today Show on Thursday that the new consent forms were created merely to appease lobbyists and fringe groups.
She said, “I was astonished to see the term “birthing parent” on this official form.
Karl Stefanovic, host of the Today Show, remarked that he “couldn’t believe” that the form had even been altered in the first place and referred to it as “bureaucracy gone insane.”
Motherhood is about much more than that, Ms. Grover said. “Are you downplaying the role that I played in bringing her into the world?” she asked. “You have your initial few days of exhilaration, being a part of that.”
She urged the individuals who were upset by the term “mother” to “seek assistance.”
Motherhood will come as quite a shock if the word “mother” troubles you so much. If the term “mother” disturbs you, get treatment or go deal with it, she advised.
As a mother herself, co-host Ally Langdon said she thought the term “birthing parent” was dehumanising.
If I’m being completely honest, I feel conflicted about it. It’s kind of off-putting to see birthing parent, as someone who does identify as a mother, I see it,” she added.
“I find it dehumanising.”
“But I realise when the surrogate and, you know, there are different needs,” the speaker said.
While Australians showed their support for the new mother in spades, some noted that the word “mother” excludes other groups like same-sex couples, adoptive parents, and surrogates.
One responded, “One form that includes inclusive wording is not erasing/stealing your rights/whatever else you’re saying.”
Why is it acceptable to alienate other groups in order to satisfy you?
It eliminates uncertainty in cases including lesbian couples, surrogate pregnancies, non-cis parents, adopted parents, and a plethora of other circumstances.
It is neatly and clearly stated which person they require the signature from by utilising the term “birthing parent.”
Others, however, agreed that the phrase “birthing parent” had no business being on the form.
‘Disgraceful. The most memorable experience of my entire life was becoming a mother.
One person stated, “It redefined all I thought I knew about myself.
“Let’s refer to ourselves as MOTHERS!” Mark it off and replace it with “mother.”
Another person concurred, saying, “Anyone coming across this on forms should cross out the offending words & substitute MOTHER in block capitals.”
If there is room, indicate that the description is derogatory to women on the form. This is the result of a tiny minority’s constant complaints about being offensive.