Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
Not going to weigh in on the abortion derail except to point out that there is a group of people who are legally discriminated against based on their reproductive capacity.

Call them what you will, I suppose.

https://twitter.com/SarahTheHaider/status/1320914791922282496
Click to expand...

Do these nincompoops understand that not all women menstruate? (The word is not meant to replace "woman" but to refer to a specific subset of people, mostly women of course, who menstruate.)


Meanwhile:
Emily Ratajkowski on Pregnancy and Why She Doesn’t Want to Reveal the Gender of Her Baby (Vogue)

“There is nothing worse than the undisturbed sleep of a white man in a patriarchal world.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
White one-percenter dodges the class war draft, signs up for the race and gender wars instead.

You think she keeps her husband awake all night? Air horns, pots and pans, etc.? Since his sleep is the worst thing in the world?

I wonder if that will continue after the baby is born. Maybe the mansion is large enough that the baby can sleep well at one end while she keeps a white man awake at the other end. Will she hire a servant to watch the baby? It will she hire a servant to keep The Man awake? Or will she hire two servants and preserve her quality time?

And why did she marry The Man, anyway, if that's how she feels about Him?
 
Last edited:
Wait, again. If a misguided SJW comes to disrupt my sleep, can I banish them by claiming to identify as a woman? What are they going to do? Ask for proof? That would transphobic.

On second thought, I don't really want a head explosion in my bedroom. Maybe I'll just take a nap tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
And why did she marry The Man, anyway, if that's how she feels about Him?
Click to expand...

One of life's mysteries. I also liked this bit:

My friend who is the mother to a three-year-old boy tells me that she didn’t think she cared about gender until her doctor broke the news that she was having a son. She burst into tears in her office. “And then I continued to cry for a whole month,” she says matter-of-factly.
. . .
“It was hard to come to terms with the fact that I was bringing yet another white man into the world.”
Click to expand...

She thinks she's being woke by hating white men like her husband, but she's already gendering her unborn child based on an ultrasound. :rolleyes:
 
theprestige said:
Right. The stats are inherently bad. When we see that black women are getting abortions at a 233% higher rate than white women, we shouldn't be celebrating the availability of that option. We should be asking, as a society, why black women are using this option at such a disproportional rate.

In the past thirty years we've gone from "safe, legal, and rare" to abortions of convenience. To the point where people actually ask why abortion stats are inherently bad.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna push back a bit here. For decades now, black women have become pregnant* at a much higher rate than white women. Some of that may be due to cultural factors, including associated religious views. But a lot of it is also correlated with poverty. The difference is that in the past, those black women would have been placed in a position to bear that child, whereas now they have the option to terminate the pregnancy.

*I think there's a bit more of a background here that is getting glossed over. Women have always had ways to shed an unwanted child. The methods have existed pretty much as long as human society has. But they aren't always safe, and they aren't always effective. White women in the US have had access to "quiet" solutions, even when abortion was illegal. There have been places that young women go to carry out their pregnancy and give up the infant before returning home from their "travels" or whatever story was concocted to cover up the indiscretion. White women have had access to doctors who have the knowledge and ability to terminate a pregnancy without anyone other than the immediate family knowing about it. But those solutions are not cheap - and thus, for a good chunk of US history, those solutions have not been available to black women. I am inclined to think that women get pregnant at more or less the same rates regardless of color, likely with a bit of a skew toward higher rates of pregnancy for poorer women.
 
Minoosh said:
It's probably safe to say that black women are more likely to have unprotected sex. Lots of cultural factors involved. It's fine to consider what should be done about it, at either a personal or public policy level. The abortion rate among black women is falling, so something is trending the right way.
Click to expand...

Only to the extent that poor women are more likely to have unprotected sex, and black women comprise a higher portion of poor women than of wealthy women.

Even when they hypothetically shouldn't... contraception costs money. Condoms cost money. Oral contraceptives, on many health insurance plans, are provided to the patient free of charge... but the patient still needs to have the doctor's appointment, which is not free either in terms of money or time away from work. Oral contraceptives are also only reliable when taken as directed - missing a dose can substantially increase the risk of a pregnancy. Other types of contraceptives are significantly more effective... but are not free to the patient, and many of them (IUDs for example) are expensive enough that most poor women wouldn't be able to afford them. A modern IUD, for example, has virtually no side-effects and can be effective for 5 years at a time, but costs upwards of $500.

There are a lot of invisible barriers to health care that are correlated with lower incomes. Even with Medicaid, where the majority of the care costs the patient nothing, patients are measurably undertreated. Seeing a doctor has non monetary costs that Medicaid can't address - time away from work, transportation to and from the doctor, as examples.
 
d4m10n said:
Not going to weigh in on the abortion derail except to point out that there is a group of people who are legally discriminated against based on their reproductive capacity.

Call them what you will, I suppose.

https://twitter.com/SarahTheHaider/status/1320914791922282496
Click to expand...

Well... on the plus side I already don't use Tampax products, so I won't have to boycott them. But FFS, now I'm getting labeled as "people who bleed"?

Seriously. TRAs moan on and on about being dehumanized and having their existence denied... while actual female humans are being relabeled to literally be nothing but their reproductive characteristics and somehow that's okay?

I'm so beyond being not okay with this. It's downright insulting.
 
Emily's Cat said:
TRAs moan on and on about being dehumanized and having their existence denied... while actual female humans are being relabeled to literally be nothing but their reproductive characteristics and somehow that's okay?
Click to expand...

What I find baffling is that they could've replaced "menstruators" with "individuals" or simply "people" without significant loss of meaning.

https://twitter.com/FemCare_CHI/status/1320394886789681152

I'm guessing that this linguistic adjustment is intended to signal virtuous allyship rather than help clarify the message.
 
d4m10n said:
What I find baffling is that they could've replaced "menstruators" with "individuals" or simply "people" without significant loss of meaning.

https://twitter.com/FemCare_CHI/status/1320394886789681152

I'm guessing that this linguistic adjustment is intended to signal virtuous allyship rather than help clarify the message.
Click to expand...

Clearly, virtue signaling in order to protect one's business from overzealous activists is more important than you know... women's health.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Tangentially related: I really dislike being put in a position where I feel like Women's Rights are more endangered by Democrats than by Republicans.
Click to expand...

Do you really feel that way? Just wondering because one party is pretty clearly against abortion rights while the other is for them. Or do you see trans rights as the greater threat to women's rights than the threat of taking away reproductive autonomy for women?
 
Emily's Cat said:
But FFS, now I'm getting labeled as "people who bleed"?
Click to expand...
Well, "celebrated" as, if that makes things any better.

d4m10n said:
I'm guessing that this linguistic adjustment is intended to signal virtuous allyship rather than help clarify the message.
Click to expand...
It is pretty hollow rhetoric, and does little to actually show allyship.

Another example: I like to watch SciShow on Youtube, but when they discuss issues of what is generally called Men's or Women's Health, the contortions of language they use to talk about them in perfectly gender neutral terms gets a bit much even for an anti-gender segregationist like me.

When talking about biology, just use terms such as "man/men" and "woman/women" as a shorthand for the biological sexes. It is perfectly fine; nobody feels insulted. If it may cause confusion, just say "biological man/woman" in the first paragraph to make clear that is what you are talking about.

Yes, in other contexts there are people who describe themselves as "women" or "men" for which it may not apply and people who would not describe themselves as such for which it may. Trying to come up with terms that seem more neutrally descriptive might seem more inclusive, but it is ultimately futile. No words mean exactly the same thing in all contexts.

Emily's Cat said:
Clearly, virtue signaling in order to protect one's business from overzealous activists is more important than you know... women's health.
Click to expand...
I don't think there are many overzealous activists demanding this. I think it is more an example of businesses pretending to be trendy while not fully understanding the issues involved.

"Hello, fellow trans-allies."
 
Puppycow said:
Do you really feel that way? Just wondering because one party is pretty clearly against abortion rights while the other is for them. Or do you see trans rights as the greater threat to women's rights than the threat of taking away reproductive autonomy for women?
Click to expand...

It's a toss up depending on which state you're in. I give the overturning of RvW about a 0.01% chance of happening, so the possibility of abortion becoming illegal of severely limited at the federal level is negligible. On the other hand, Biden has the trans agenda as part of his platform... and that includes effectively replacing "sex" with "gender identity" as a protected class, as well as moving to self-id as the basis for that gender identity.

That in turn results in EOO being useless for females, since people with penises who self-identify as women will count as women for those purposes. It opens up scholarships, grants, and foundation awards for women to people with penises who claim womanhood on the basis of their interior feelings. It removes any sort of sex-based segregated spaces from women, including prisons.

And it clouds all sorts of issues and makes discussing them rationally impossible. For example... when self-identified transwomen get counted as women in crime stats, we're likely to see a measurable uptick in violence and sexual violence perpetrated by "women", which will mask the continuing and appalling victimization of females in society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom