Is defining Roe v Wade as a women's-rights issue transphobic?

[Loulit01]

Silliest OP I've seen here in awhile and that's saying something.

 

[ProgressPlease]

Abortion is a women's rights issue. Aways has been. It is women who suffer the consequences. It is women around the world who are subjugated based on our reproductive abilities. Access to reproductive health, including contraception and abortion, is a women's basic rights issue.

There is a problem with progressives using phrases like "birthing people". Some of these people happen to be in government positions.
I hope Roe being in jeopardy will help clarify why terminology matters. If one feels the need to include any human who can become pregnant they can say "women and trans men". If they want to avoid excluding trans women (natal males) who never were able to become pregnant that's going to be a challenge.

There are some natal females who live as male. A subset of those are able to become pregnant (depending on how far down the medical pathway they have gotten or would like to go). Within that subset, there are those who actually become pregnant. These are still females.

Some who call themselves progressives are going to make all things regarding women into trans issues. This is a gift to the RW.

 

[aociswundumho]

Simple.
Roe V. Wade is about having the right to control your own body.

Yes, the right to control your own body and the right to privacy. Leftists, like you, do not believe in either.

1. If you believe in the right to control your own body, then you must be against all drug laws including the prescription drug system, because the right to control your own body implies the right to use any drug you choose.

2. If you believe in the right to privacy, then you must also support financial privacy, which would make modern tax collection impossible.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

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.

Oh boy. Ok, lets do this.

1. "Socialist" -> proceeds to needlessly fabricate a perceived culture war schism where none exist. Ok.

2. Orthodoxy? It is truly beyond human comprehension to understand how someone (supposedly) on the left could believe that there is a monolithic leftist orthodoxy. Even trans people spend as much time arguing with each other about trans issues as they do with cis people. There is no orthodoxy. Lots of groups and people take different views and those views can be in conflict with each other.

3. JK Rolling is being explicitly transphobic you nonce. While I personally believe that abortion, while primarily a women's rights issue, also effects trans men and non-binary people, I'm not going to go out of my way to language police people who are just trying to fight for their rights. Will go out of my way to shit on JK for purposefully being a massive piece of shit for no reason than to harm people she doesn't like.

 

[OrphanSlug]

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 seems to me you are purposefully taking two unrelated issues only to make them adversarial to one another for some other purpose.

 

[Aristaeus]

Oh boy. Ok, lets do this.

1. "Socialist" -> proceeds to needlessly fabricate a perceived culture war schism where none exist. Ok.

2. Orthodoxy? It is truly beyond human comprehension to understand how someone (supposedly) on the left could believe that there is a monolithic leftist orthodoxy. Even trans people spend as much time arguing with each other about trans issues as they do with cis people. There is no orthodoxy. Lots of groups and people take different views and those views can be in conflict with each other.

3. JK Rolling is being explicitly transphobic you nonce. While I personally believe that abortion, while primarily a women's rights issue, also effects trans men and non-binary people, I'm not going to go out of my way to language police people who are just trying to fight for their rights. Will go out of my way to shit on JK for purposefully being a massive piece of shit for no reason than to harm people she doesn't like.

But why is Rowling a transphobic piece of shit for equating menstruation with being a woman but a person who equates pregnancy/abortion with being a woman is not? I see no difference. Either being a woman is related to being female or it's not. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[Aristaeus]

It seems to me you are purposefully taking two unrelated issues only to make them adversarial to one another for some other purpose.

I'm not making it adversarial, I just want to understand why the sudden change of position from certain people. I've debated with posters many times who insist being a woman is unrelated to being female, who are now saying a female reproductive issue is a women's-right issue. I wouldn't have made this thread if those people had said R v W was a human-rights issue or a female-rights issue as there would have been no discrepancy in their statements.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I'm not making it adversarial, I just want to understand why the sudden change of position from certain people. I've debated with posters many times who insist being a woman is unrelated to being female, who are now saying a female reproductive issue is a women's-right issue. I wouldn't have made this thread if those people had said R v W was a human-rights issue or a female-rights issue as there would have been no discrepancy in their statements.

I disagree with the assessment, but then again how people frame their arguments (me included from time to time) could cause any number of conclusions.

 

[bomberfox]

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!!!

TERFs love their collages. They dont actually care about threats, just when it happens to them.

 

[bomberfox]

Oh boy. Ok, lets do this.

1. "Socialist" -> proceeds to needlessly fabricate a perceived culture war schism where none exist. Ok.

2. Orthodoxy? It is truly beyond human comprehension to understand how someone (supposedly) on the left could believe that there is a monolithic leftist orthodoxy. Even trans people spend as much time arguing with each other about trans issues as they do with cis people. There is no orthodoxy. Lots of groups and people take different views and those views can be in conflict with each other.

3. JK Rolling is being explicitly transphobic you nonce. While I personally believe that abortion, while primarily a women's rights issue, also effects trans men and non-binary people, I'm not going to go out of my way to language police people who are just trying to fight for their rights. Will go out of my way to shit on JK for purposefully being a massive piece of shit for no reason than to harm people she doesn't like.

I mean hell they sure dont mind calling people they dont like groomers so i guess nonce isnt going too far.

 

[Nickyjo]

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.

Huh? The issue involves persons with vaginas who can bear children, generally thought to be women.

 

[Aristaeus]

I mean hell they sure dont mind calling people they dont like groomers so i guess nonce isnt going too far.

So he's calling me a paedophile for what? Because I go by the dictionary definition of woman?

 

[Aristaeus]

TERFs love their collages. They dont actually care about threats, just when it happens to them.

So you support the rape and death threats Rowling received?

 

[bomberfox]

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.

Why do you constantly lie to hide the entirety of what JK said?

 

[bomberfox]

I mean people who want you to disappear are never going to stop until you disappear.

 

[The Mark]

Yes, the right to control your own body and the right to privacy. Leftists, like you, do not believe in either.

1. If you believe in the right to control your own body, then you must be against all drug laws including the prescription drug system, because the right to control your own body implies the right to use any drug you choose.

2. If you believe in the right to privacy, then you must also support financial privacy, which would make modern tax collection impossible.

There are necessary exceptions to plenty of rights.

As for drugs, I am leaning towards the "legalize all of them and treat their abuse as a chronic medical condition." solution, but making that change seems a big leap.
As for the prescription system though, I have zero experience with it myself, so I don't know whether it has some merit.


Privacy though.
****.

I recently watched a Last Week Tonight show on a related topic, and I'm not sure how you would untangle the web of data collection that seems to be one hell of a privacy violation.

 

[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.

It's not about trans people that's all. But don't worry, I'm sure the Supreme Court will go after them next, as well as every other group you hate.

 

[reflechissez]

Yes, the right to control your own body and the right to privacy. Leftists, like you, do not believe in either.

1. If you believe in the right to control your own body, then you must be against all drug laws including the prescription drug system, because the right to control your own body implies the right to use any drug you choose.

2. If you believe in the right to privacy, then you must also support financial privacy, which would make modern tax collection impossible.

nah

 

[reflechissez]

I'm not making it adversarial, I just want to understand why the sudden change of position from certain people. I've debated with posters many times who insist being a woman is unrelated to being female, who are now saying a female reproductive issue is a women's-right issue. I wouldn't have made this thread if those people had said R v W was a human-rights issue or a female-rights issue as there would have been no discrepancy in their statements.

Meh. Sane people know what is meant by "women's rights issue." Are you really concerned about trans females feeling left out? It's great that you're an advocate, I guess.

 

[bomberfox]

Meh. Sane people know what is meant by "women's rights issue." Are you really concerned about trans females feeling left out? It's great that you're an advocate, I guess.

That one certainly is the opposite of an advocate.

 

[bluesmoke]

So men can't get pregnant?

No that I've ever heard of. Except a trans, born with a uterus, which wouldn't count.

 

[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.

Christ the right wing are literally brain dead.

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

The only question I can ask in this regard is what is a woman.

Until we get an answer for that there can be no discussion on this

 

[Loulit01]

The only question I can ask in this regard is what is a woman.

Until we get an answer for that there can be no discussion on this

woman​

wom·an | \ ˈwu̇-mən , especially Southern ˈwō- or ˈwə- \
plural women\ ˈwi-mən \

Definition of woman​

1a: an adult female person
b: a woman belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combinationcouncilwoman
2: WOMANKIND
3: distinctively feminine nature : WOMANLINESS
4: a woman who is a servant or personal attendant
5achiefly dialectal : WIFE


This is what dictionaries are for.



b: MISTRESS
c: GIRLFRIEND sense 2
6: a woman who is extremely fond of or devoted to something specifiedI'm a chocolate woman through and through, but one bite of West's banana pudding cupcake and I was sold.— Hattie Brown Garrow

 

[Integrityrespec]

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 does ignore the contribution of men in the birth process.