Erasing women and girls
Regular commenter Arcadia sent me a correspondence she had with the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition.
How can we help you?: I was wondering if the proposed legislation utilises gender neutral language, similar to recent NSW legislation, which did not use “woman”, “girl” or “female” in order to be inclusive?
Thanks.
Reply:
Hi [Arcadia]
I have attached the Bill – it does use gender neutral language as do all government Bills since amending laws were passed by Weatherall government – maybe 2017?
regards,
Brigid
Reply:
Hi Brigid,
Who was consulted about the use of the term “person” throughout and zero references to “woman”, “girl” or “female”?
How was the decision reached that the bill would be worded this way?
Kind regards,
[Arcadia]
Apparently one question is all that’s allowed.
I also emailed with a similar question to Arcadia’s
How can we help you?: I was proud to participate today, I have marched for women’s health care since Dr Bertram Wainer began his campaign for legal abortion in Victoria, around 1967. You may have seen me on tonight’s Chanel 7 News.
However, I am not contacting you to big-note myself, but to express my dismay and disappointment that one of the early speakers today referred to “women and pregnant people”. Abortion is a women’s issue. Only women become pregnant. Only women need abortions. It was heartbreaking to hear a speaker at a women’s event try to erase women from relevance.
Their reply
They went looking for the nearest bus and threw women right under it.
I did not bother to reply as I knew that “resistance is futile” to the gender woke.
But never fear, I will still give my support to women who need abortions.
I saw you on channel 7!
I get the feeling Brigid doesn’t like it, but is under orders.
Regarding “who was consulted”, I’m reminded that we here in NW Washington state, USA, have some experience with arbitrary rules being put into place by shadowy rules-making committees with little or no public exposure or comment. Or, for that matter, little or no recourse for changing the rules outside of full-blown ballot initiatives. It should be at least as easy to remove a rule as it was to put it into place, I think.
Not that these people tend to care about transmen, of course; it’s just a way to mindfuck and erase women.
Yes, but…that does not require “pregnant people”, because same sex attracted young women are…WOMEN. It is possible to be approachable to lesbians without erasing women.
iknklast, and even a pregnant Lesbian is still, ah, what’s the word …. ah, yes. Woman.
I also sent this to the Australian Greens.
Is anyone surprised that I am still awaiting an answer?
In general, the change in law to use neutral language is a good one – men often speak with ‘he’ as the default,and there is that whole thing with ‘man’ previously meaning all humans without reference to the male sex. This leads to incongruous situations where any legislation aimed at a particular sex also gets swept up and rendered strangely bland; obviously in any legislation dealing with pregnancy, but also in any legislation dealing with men’s or women’s prisons, safe houses, toilets and the like.
I suspect it steps on women’s mentions more than men’s, purely because I would expect the women need to be written about in law more often than men, due to being in need of legal protections more frequently. But I also think it was written with a good goal in mind, and in any case it seems saaac’s hands are tied.
Roj, great, I’m now imagining a federal bill for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef that is also inclusive of industrial polluters and that has made me dizzy from eyeroll.
Holms, that is pretty much what we have had WRT Adani’s access to Abbott Point.
Roj, I went looking for your Channel 7 clip and instead, found this:
https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/anu-researchers-suggest-changing-terms-mother-father-to-be-more-gender-inclusive-c-2174442
The Murdoch media is running hard with this one but is not official policy, just a booklet put out by a couple of people.
here I am in all my “glory”.
https://youtu.be/eqdea4T31lo
Nice and concise, Roj.
The Bill is being debated.
One pro choice org put this out:
https://www.fairagenda.org/blog_sadecrim_amendments
And SAAAC is live tweeting the debate here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/sa_aac?lang=en
I contacted the MP who suggested women be put back in the bill with this:
Dear Mr Knoll,
I am a South Australian, but not a constituent of yours. (I am copying in my local MP, (name).) I understand you moved an amendment to the Termination of Pregnancy Bill that would remove the word “person” and replace it with “woman”. I support such a move, and say further that such a change be carefully worded to ensure that abortion care is not restricted from patients who do not consider themselves to be women, including those who have altered their official documents to that effect.
The proposed legislation to decriminalise abortion in SA uses “neutral language”. Just “person”. No “woman”, “girl”, or “female”. Just “person”. As if unwanted pregnancy could happen to anyone.
As if it was just random anyones who died of infections, or blood loss, or had their infants wrenched from them because no one would let them discontinue the pregnancy, or were publicly shamed because they were pregnant and unmarried, or dropped out of work or school, or went to jail for procuring an abortion, or had to make up lies about “menstrual irregularities” to get that abortion at a clinic, or lost her uterus because the backyard operator didn’t know what they were doing.
Random people. As if it were not our sisters, aunts, grandmothers. Women. Women who were held hostage to a sexist law that placed her needs and wants last, behind those of a foetus, her husband, her doctor, and lawmakers, almost all of them male.
The consequences of these laws are visited upon female bodies. Women’s scars, trauma, suffering, deaths. Now that power is to be rightfully returned to women, the law refuses to utter our name, as if it were inaccurate or wrong to do so.
The shame of our past, that we forced women to endure what no one should, must not be perpetuated by refusing to speak our names now.
Put women back in the Bill.
Yours sincerely,
Arcadia
Also this. No word on how calling women “women” in the Bill would prevent women who don’t call themselves women from getting abortions.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SA_AAC/status/1361251304002084866
Roj:
Well that’s annoying, I’ve got used to hearing what you write in Blake’s voice and you’ve broken that now.
the mask is off —
But I am still more Roj than Avon. A little less focused on money, a little more focused on justice.
I identify as Orac.
Quite an appropriate comparison, because I suspect that most hypochondriacs take the woke view that they need to occupy doctors’ time and resources just as much as people who are actually ill. Indeed, people who are actually ill can be excluded from a woke health plan.
It’s an apt comparison. There is a thriving community of people who ‘identify as’ disabled to one degree or another. There are the hypochondriacs Athel mentioned who definitely need help… but not the kind of help they’re usually seeking. Then there are the cosplay hypochondriacs, who are in love with the idea of having a disease – preferably terminal – conveniently without debilitating symptoms.
And then, I’m sorry to say, there are the cosplay disabled; people who identify as wheelchair users, for example. This is personally offensive to me because I’d very much like to identify my way out of the wheelchair, as they can do at any moment. I think of them fondly whenever I can’t reach something on a high shelf. I’ve never known of a sighted person who identifies as blind, but I don’t have a single doubt that such people exist.
Then, more disturbingly, are those who identify as amputees, some of whom, of course, go through with surgery. And many of whom, also of course, regret it.
This and the trans situation are pretty much isomorphic, but everyone dismisses the cosplay disabled as nuts. Not so the cosplay women, though. Why is that?
I’m not sure I’d call it an amputation, but I had a full prostatectomy five years ago, and I do indeed regret it (for reasons I won’t go into). It wasn’t something I myself decided I wanted, but was done on the strong recommendation of my urologist. About 15 months later I was at a lecture by a serious researcher into prostate cancer, who said that the best thing to do when a few cancerous cells have been detected is nothing. If it’s going to develop into a serious cancer it will do it slowly enough that if it becomes necessary later that no great harm will come from delaying three years and do any surgery then if further tests show some development. I thought that t would be nice to have the prostate put back where it was, but it’s too late for that.
Oh lord.
I’m sorry to hear that, Athel.
To add a word on the article Arcadia shared about women’s health being contingent on their doctor’s beliefs: that happened to my mother. Her doctor was Catholic and refused to perform a tubal ligation; would not put her on birth control, either. Three years later, she was pregnant again and almost died of the pregnancy. This was in 1970, after married women had been given legal access to birth control methods. My mother was married (not that I think that should matter, but the law apparently did).
The doctor worked for the Navy, and it was the Navy’s policy to allow these procedures. So the doctor did not do what his job required. And it was a small base in Maine; there were no other choices of OB/GYN.
@latsot #19
Careful, you don’t want to get on the wrong side of the Other Orac.
Athel, ouch.
Some doctors seem to be all about the cutting, don’t they?
My Doctor (I’m 68) tells me more men die with than die of prostate cancer. I am alert for symptoms, but it will be a careful decision before I go under the knife.
All the best for you.
It has happened, once or twice.
Roj, very nice sound bite.
Athel, all the best. Thanks for being open about your situation, it’s a good reference for the rest of us prostate havers.
Latsot @28, how did that make you feel?
Excuse the group reply, on this browser the logins are set not to autofill.
Maybe I should qualify that. The researcher was specifically talking about prostate cancer, among the least aggressive cancers, and the one that kills you most slowly (if at all). It is definitely not a good idea to do nothing about other cancers.
The late President of France, François Mitterrand, lived with prostate cancer for at least 14 years, the whole period of his presidency plus a bit more before and after. However, he was in a lot of pain much of the time, whereas I had no pain whatsoever.
The proposed amendment to put the word woman back in the Bill was defeated. Those supporting women in this were only 12 votes.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SA_AAC/status/1361965825062658048
The SAAAC are jubilant about this “inclusive” erasure of women.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrr
Debate is to resume today. Many amendments have been proposed, most defeated, at least one carried. Unfortunately, the SAAAC’s live tweeting is so useless I can’t tell you what, since they refer to virtually all amendments as “amendments” without describing them, so I’ll get back to you on whether the bill passes and what ends up being in it.
My local MP has spent most of his time trying to prevent all abortions after 22 weeks and 6 days, unless it threatens the mother’s life.