Last week’s OTA National Conference in Adelaide was a huge few days acknowledging, celebrating, and discussing our profession’s development in Australia. One of the most exciting moments for me was hearing so much discussion about matrescence! From hallway conversations to oral presentations and posters, matrescence was definitely on the emerging hot topics list. A special thanks to Danielle Loizou-Lake for her energy, fun, and welcoming approach to MC’ing – and for attending the Women’s Health stream presentations and dropping a mention of matrescence during Thursday’s closing speeches! It’s just such a wonderful feeling having this practice areas being seen, acknowledged, and supported 🙂 Thank you.
Image generated using ChatGPT (AI)
Before continuing on this path, I want take a moment to acknowledge the many voices and perspectives of First Nations Peoples the conference, and to express my gratitude for the deeply moving and insightful wisdom that was shared. In particular, Dr Clinton Schultz, a Gamilaraay man and registered psychologist, who offered teaching about lore, knowledge systems, and wisdom in such an accessible and inspiring way. My thinking is forever shifted from this point on.
I also want to acknowledge the overwhelming pressure that is now starting to suffocate so many Australian OT businesses relying on NDIS funding to support clients. OTA have launched a petition lobbying for fair pay, and I would encourage anyone who wants to support OTs continuing to practice sustainably in this space to sign OTA’s petition: www.otaus.com.au/news/thousands-join-our-call-for-fair-ndis-pay.
It’s been a week since the OTA National Conference, and I’m wanting to follow up with a reflection – and a call to action for those who are ready. While it was heartening to see so many sessions and projects engaging with themes of motherhood, perinatal transitions, and identity, I noticed that very few of the conference titles and abstracts actually named matrescence, motherhood, or mothers in their titles or descriptions. Instead, authors chose terms like parenting or parents as umbrella terms. While this is inclusive, these neutralising terms can mask and silence important gendered realities. So, I’d like to open a conversation about this, even though it may be a little uncomfortable or possibly even controversial.
At this year’s conference, I noticed that many deeply gendered topics—such as maternal mental health, perinatal identity shifts, and women’s occupational transitions—were grouped into the ‘parenting‘ stream. While parenting is indeed a co-occupation that involves multiple people and perspectives, the unique occupational needs and identities of mothers were frequently made invisible by this neutral language. And this isn’t just a semantic issue—it’s a structural one.
Did you know that – when we use gender-neutral language by default – particularly in regards to occupations that are fundamentally shaped by gendered societal roles – such as mothering – we erase and silence women’s voices? This is different from using gender-neutral language when it’s being respectful and responsive to acknowledging a person’s identity. Instead, I want to talk about us choosing not to acknowledge the specific and powerful roles of mothers, fathers, and other parents in society. It’s a form of data bias, and a potentially uncomfortable conversation that I would invite us all to have with ourselves, reflectively, and each other.
In occupational therapy, we have a long and valued focus of respecting and honouring the middle ground – of being person-centred, respectful, and inclusive. This culture of neutrality has often served us well. But I wonder: does it still serve us in the contexts we now find ourselves working in? Is neutrality always safe – or can it cause harm?
A few years back I read Caroline Criado Pérez‘s book, Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, which helped me to understand that gender-blindness is not a neutral stance – it’s a choice to neutralise gendered differences. And it has powerful and significant real-world implications for health, research, practice, and policy. My response to this realisation was immediate and strong, and I have spent years working my way through what to do next with the help of feminist theories (especially matricentric feminism) and having a greater awareness and understanding of how intersectionality, influenced by patriarchal systems, colonialism, and the commercial determinants of health, influences women’s health and wellbeing.
We have a position of power as an allied health profession, and with that power comes influence, agency, and control. I feel we have an ethical duty of care to be reflective about our perspectives and preparedness to contribute to gender-responsive health systems, as recommended by the WHO. As OTs – both as individuals and a profession – do we continue down the well-trodden path of neutrality and non-specificity? Or do we begin the more complex, responsive, and courageous work of gender-responsive practice?
Again, and appreciating there is overlap, I want to make a distinction between gender-affirming care, and gender-responsive health systems. This isn’t about excluding anyone – it’s about making space for individual experiences shaped by gendered societal experiences navigating matrescence and patrescence, from a lifespan perspective. Gender-responsive occupational therapy approaches recognise that gender is a social, political, and commercial determinant of health. It requires us to understand and work with the ways gender, identity, power, and occupation intersect, and come under the spotlight when we approach care considering matrescence as transformative rite of passage.
I know that naming gender can feel risky. In a world where gender debates are often politicised and polarised, many of us fear saying the wrong thing, or causing harm. But staying silent doesn’t protect us from harm – it often perpetuates it. If we shy away from acknowledging gender for fear of offending, we unintentionally collude with systems that erase difference altogether.
So this is an open invitation to pause and reflect on, as person-centred OTs:
- How does neutrality serve us? And how might it limit our practice?
- Are we comfortable talking about gender? What are we worried about in using gender-responsive approaches?
- What impact does the gendered language we choose and use/avoid have on our client’s being seen and supported as gendered individuals?
- What are the potential benefits to gender-responsive practice? What are the risks or barriers to this?
There’s no right or wrong answer to these questions, I don’t think. We’re all on learning journeys, and we all bring different perspectives to the table. Diversity is key to balance and harmony, so – instead – let’s start by learning more about feminist theory, intersectionality, and have more critically reflective conversations about the global movements toward gendered health equity. Let’s ask ourselves – and each other – how these ideas might sit within a profession made up largely of women, and overwhelmingly shaped by women’s care work, both paid and unpaid.
The growing interest in matrescence – and patrescence! – is coming from somewhere and growing for a reason. In perinatal health, for example, this concept brings the focus back to women. I find it really exciting, and we’re still just in the early days of this development. Who knows where this is going…?
If you’re curious, I would encourage more reflection about considering gender – not just as a demographic variable, but as a force that shapes identity, health, and occupational opportunities, balance, and justice. I’m looking forward to ongoing conversations and seeing how the profession innovates as we learn more about these concepts, and as we use our professional language more consciously with a greater appreciation and respect for people of all genders.
Interesting to see where this journey takes us…
Research & evidence-based practice for OTs in perinatal health, motherhood, and matrescence 