Is defining Roe v Wade as a women's-rights issue transphobic? (1 Viewer)

[Aristaeus]

One if the things that has surprised me about the Supreme Court decision over RvW is many progressives defining this as a women's-rights issue. Surely defining it as a women's-rights issue is transphobic against transmen, and possibly against transwomen for associating woman with female biological attributes.

This seems to go against their orthodoxy, which is that being a woman is an identity not based on biology, that males can be women, and men can get pregnant. If men and women can get pregnant, then it can't be a women's-rights issue.

I also fail to see any significant difference between what JK Rowling said - that people who menstruate are women, and what progressives are now saying - that pregnancy is a women's-rights issue. Yet Rowling was bombarded with rape and death threats.

 

[cpwill]

One if the things that has surprised me about the Supreme Court decision over RvW is many progressives defining this as a women's-rights issue. Surely defining it as a women's-rights issue is transphobic against transmen, and possibly against transwomen for associating woman with female biological attributes.

This seems to go against their orthodoxy, which is that being a woman is an identity not based on biology, that males can be women, and men can get pregnant. If men and women can get pregnant, then it can't be a women's-rights issue.

I also fail to see any significant difference between what JK Rowling said - that people who menstruate are women, and what progressives are now saying - that pregnancy is a women's-rights issue. Yet Rowling was bombarded with rape and death threats.

Okay, I LOL'd

 

[ChrisIsLeft]

One if the things that has surprised me about the Supreme Court decision over RvW is many progressives defining this as a women's-rights issue. Surely defining it as a women's-rights issue is transphobic against transmen, and possibly against transwomen for associating woman with female biological attributes.

This seems to go against their orthodoxy, which is that being a woman is an identity not based on biology, that males can be women, and men can get pregnant. If men and women can get pregnant, then it can't be a women's-rights issue.

I also fail to see any significant difference between what JK Rowling said - that people who menstruate are women, and what progressives are now saying - that pregnancy is a women's-rights issue. Yet Rowling was bombarded with rape and death threats.

I'm fascinating by how stupid right wing people are. Abortion affects the sex of women. It has nothing to do with gender.

JK is not being bombarded with threats LOL!!!

 

[reflechissez]

One if the things that has surprised me about the Supreme Court decision over RvW is many progressives defining this as a women's-rights issue. Surely defining it as a women's-rights issue is transphobic against transmen, and possibly against transwomen for associating woman with female biological attributes.

This seems to go against their orthodoxy, which is that being a woman is an identity not based on biology, that males can be women, and men can get pregnant. If men and women can get pregnant, then it can't be a women's-rights issue.

I also fail to see any significant difference between what JK Rowling said - that people who menstruate are women, and what progressives are now saying - that pregnancy is a women's-rights issue. Yet Rowling was bombarded with rape and death threats.

ok

 

[cpwill]

I'm fascinating by how stupid right wing people are. Abortion affects the sex of women. It has nothing to do with gender.

JK is not being bombarded with threats LOL!!!

OOOOOOh. You're a POE.

Sorry. This makes much more sense.

 

[Aristaeus]

I'm fascinating by how stupid right wing people are. Abortion affects the sex of women. It has nothing to do with gender.

JK is not being bombarded with threats LOL!!!

I'm not right wing, I'm a left-wing liberal/socialist.

And Rowling got a ton of rape threats and death threats.

 

[ChrisIsLeft]

I'm not right wing, I'm a left-wing liberal/socialist.

And Rowling got a ton of rape threats and death threats.

Liberals are not socialists. JK is full of shit. She gets casual bullshit because she's scum. She doesn't get serious threats, She can afford security

 

[PoliSciPulse]

This is a genuine question: can transexuals now or ever have children? If the answer is yes to either, then this is more than a women's rights issue. If the answer to either is no, then it is only a women's rights issue.

 

[Aristaeus]

Liberals are not socialists. JK is full of shit. She gets casual bullshit because she's scum. She doesn't get serious threats, She can afford security

I don't go in for political purity, I hold liberal and socialist values. JK got abuse for saying women menstruate, which is no different than saying abortion is a women's rights issue. Both are linking the word woman with the female reproductive cycle, one can't be transphobic and not the other.

 

[uptower]

One if the things that has surprised me about the Supreme Court decision over RvW is many progressives defining this as a women's-rights issue. Surely defining it as a women's-rights issue is transphobic against transmen, and possibly against transwomen for associating woman with female biological attributes.

This seems to go against their orthodoxy, which is that being a woman is an identity not based on biology, that males can be women, and men can get pregnant. If men and women can get pregnant, then it can't be a women's-rights issue.

You sure you're not just making this all up, brah?

 

[Aristaeus]

This is a genuine question: can transexuals now or ever have children? If the answer is yes to either, then this is more than a women's rights issue. If the answer to either is no, then it is only a women's rights issue.

transmen can have children (because they are female). Whether you think that means men can have children depends on whether you think man is just a social identity that males and females can assign themselves, or an adult human male as per the dictionary.

 

[Aristaeus]

You sure you're not just making this all up, brah?

If men can get pregnant, then obviously Roe v Wade can't be a woman's-rights issue, agree?
If Roe v Wade is a woman's right's issue, then that is a declaration that men can't get pregnant, which must be transphobic, as it is saying transmen aren't men.

You can't say in one breath that woman doesn't mean adult human female, then in the next breath say pregnancy (female reproductive cycle) is a women's-rights issue.

 

[reflechissez]

If men can get pregnant, then obviously Roe v Wade can't be a woman's-rights issue, agree?
If Roe v Wade is a woman's right's issue, then that is a declaration that men can't get pregnant, which must be transphobic, as it is saying transmen aren't men.

You can't say in one breath that woman doesn't mean adult human female, then in the next breath say pregnancy (female reproductive cycle) is a women's-rights issue.

ok

 

[The Mark]

One if the things that has surprised me about the Supreme Court decision over RvW is many progressives defining this as a women's-rights issue. Surely defining it as a women's-rights issue is transphobic against transmen, and possibly against transwomen for associating woman with female biological attributes.

This seems to go against their orthodoxy, which is that being a woman is an identity not based on biology, that males can be women, and men can get pregnant. If men and women can get pregnant, then it can't be a women's-rights issue.

I also fail to see any significant difference between what JK Rowling said - that people who menstruate are women, and what progressives are now saying - that pregnancy is a women's-rights issue. Yet Rowling was bombarded with rape and death threats.

Simple.
Roe V. Wade is about having the right to control your own body.
Doesn't matter what gender you think of yourself as, if you have the biological "hardware" to become pregnant, it applies to you.

Edit: Now, granted, the other side is an argument that allowing the individual to control what happens to their body cannot be allowed to extend to this particular organ/biological hardware, because said organ/organs can birth new life, and allowing that control gives the person whose body it is the ability to stop the development of that potential new life.

Neither argument is obviously wrong, but there are more issues IMO with the second than the first.
Things like deciding at what precise point a potential new life becomes a new life that deserves to be protected from death come up.
Shit gets murky.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

transmen can have children (because they are female). Whether you think that means men can have children depends on whether you think man is just a social identity that males and females can assign themselves, or an adult human male as per the dictionary.

I'm using "woman" as a biological entity. And "abortion" as "stopping the process of childbirth," which is the essence of the question. Based on your response, then yes, the issue does extend into transgender rights.

 

[Aristaeus]

ok

Glad we agree. I was just surprised that so many people who insist woman doesn't mean adult human female and insult anyone who says it does, have turned round and said a female-reproductive issue is a women's rights issue. It seemed contradictory, and good to see you also see it as contradictory.

 

[Aristaeus]

I'm using "woman" as a biological entity. And "abortion" as "stopping the process of childbirth," which is the essence of the question. Based on your response, then yes, the issue does extend into transgender rights.

This would be the logical stance, though be warned that using woman as a biological entity will be regarded as transphobic by some. And of course, transmen can become pregnant, it's just down to whether you define transmen as men, and if they are, then R v W is not a woman's rights issue.

 

[Mustachio]

One if the things that has surprised me about the Supreme Court decision over RvW is many progressives defining this as a women's-rights issue. Surely defining it as a women's-rights issue is transphobic against transmen, and possibly against transwomen for associating woman with female biological attributes.

This seems to go against their orthodoxy, which is that being a woman is an identity not based on biology, that males can be women, and men can get pregnant. If men and women can get pregnant, then it can't be a women's-rights issue.

I also fail to see any significant difference between what JK Rowling said - that people who menstruate are women, and what progressives are now saying - that pregnancy is a women's-rights issue. Yet Rowling was bombarded with rape and death threats.

So you hate free speech because JK Rowling is a coward who can't take a joke?

I'm saying that in an absurd way, because that's what your post is - absurd strawmen. I haven't heard anybody say anything about transphobic issues. I'm sure some did. But how did I read dozens of articles without seeing mentions and you somehow believe trans issues are central to the biggest misuse of the supreme court in modern history? "Activist judges!" "They don't respect precedent!" "They want to force their culture on us!"

Yes they do. The GOP does. And GOP voters - you got lied to haaaaard because Ted Cruz held up "racist baby," have told me guns would be forcibly taken away my entire life, have mocked people who said abortion would be overturned, and they have a record of being 100% wrong. Sane people - stop voting for maniacs because you need to see people suffer to find self esteem.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

This would be the logical stance, though be warned that using woman as a biological entity will be regarded as transphobic by some. And of course, transmen can become pregnant, it's just down to whether you define transmen as men, and if they are, then R v W is not a woman's rights issue.

In accordance to my logic, then from what you said, transmen would be a "woman as a biological entity," which makes R v. W. a transgender rights issue as well.

When I logic things, I tend to find a black & white argument, which can sometimes get me into trouble as you've eluded.

 

[Evilroddy]

One if the things that has surprised me about the Supreme Court decision over RvW is many progressives defining this as a women's-rights issue. Surely defining it as a women's-rights issue is transphobic against transmen, and possibly against transwomen for associating woman with female biological attributes.

This seems to go against their orthodoxy, which is that being a woman is an identity not based on biology, that males can be women, and men can get pregnant. If men and women can get pregnant, then it can't be a women's-rights issue.

I also fail to see any significant difference between what JK Rowling said - that people who menstruate are women, and what progressives are now saying - that pregnancy is a women's-rights issue. Yet Rowling was bombarded with rape and death threats.

Aristaeus:

No, as transgender persons who opt to follow a female gender role in spite of their biological sex are not capable of becoming pregnant and are thus incapable of needing or receiving an abortion personally. In matters of reproduction trans-women cannot fulfill the female ability to procreate and gestate a child to term. Their choice is a gender role and not a biological reproductive role. They may want to be female, but they are not, biologically. This is a female reproductive right which may be repealed, not a woman's right.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[reflechissez]

Glad we agree. I was just surprised that so many people who insist woman doesn't mean adult human female and insult anyone who says it does, have turned round and said a female-reproductive issue is a women's rights issue. It seemed contradictory, and good to see you also see it as contradictory.

"ok" means "I got your communication." In no way does it mean that "we agree." And why do you keep repeating yourself?

 

[Aristaeus]

So you hate free speech because JK Rowling is a coward who can't take a joke?

I'm saying that in an absurd way, because that's what your post is - absurd strawmen. I haven't heard anybody say anything about transphobic issues. I'm sure some did. But how did I read dozens of articles without seeing mentions and you somehow believe trans issues are central to the biggest misuse of the supreme court in modern history? "Activist judges!" "They don't respect precedent!" "They want to force their culture on us!"

Yes they do. The GOP does. And GOP voters - you got lied to haaaaard because Ted Cruz held up "racist baby," have told me guns would be forcibly taken away my entire life, have mocked people who said abortion would be overturned, and they have a record of being 100% wrong. Sane people - stop voting for maniacs because you need to see people suffer to find self esteem.

I'm British and left wing. This supreme court decision is awful, but I was just looking at one aspect of the response to it - it being labelled as a women's-right issue by people who up to now have said being a woman has nothing to do with sex or biology and who say men can get pregnant.

 

[bluesmoke]

One if the things that has surprised me about the Supreme Court decision over RvW is many progressives defining this as a women's-rights issue. Surely defining it as a women's-rights issue is transphobic against transmen, and possibly against transwomen for associating woman with female biological attributes.

This seems to go against their orthodoxy, which is that being a woman is an identity not based on biology, that males can be women, and men can get pregnant. If men and women can get pregnant, then it can't be a women's-rights issue.

I also fail to see any significant difference between what JK Rowling said - that people who menstruate are women, and what progressives are now saying - that pregnancy is a women's-rights issue. Yet Rowling was bombarded with rape and death threats.

It is a woman's rights issue, and anyone can support that right, no matter who they are. Anyone becoming pregnant should have the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

I guess according to JK, a woman no longer menstruating is no longer a woman. It is true that it is not unusual for woman to have an identity problem once they no longer menstruate or, for any reason, cannot become pregnant and bear children.

 

[Aristaeus]

It is a woman's rights issue, and anyone can support that right, no matter who they are. Anyone becoming pregnant should have the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

I guess according to JK, a woman no longer menstruating is no longer a woman. It is true that it is not unusual for woman to have an identity problem once they no longer menstruate or, for any reason, cannot become pregnant and bear children.

So men can't get pregnant?

 

[uptower]

If men can get pregnant, then obviously Roe v Wade can't be a woman's-rights issue, agree?
If Roe v Wade is a woman's right's issue, then that is a declaration that men can't get pregnant, which must be transphobic, as it is saying transmen aren't men.

You can't say in one breath that woman doesn't mean adult human female, then in the next breath say pregnancy (female reproductive cycle) is a women's-rights issue.

I think as far as Roe v Wade goes let's just actually deal with those who can get pregnant.

I don't see what purpose dragging in other groups you hate has to bear on it.