No they don’t
Meanwhile – the item that prompted me to try to reply to a NOW tweet only to find I’m blocked –
That’s a moronic lie. Men don’t need access to abortion, because men can’t get pregnant. It’s only women who need abortion rights, and no longer have them.
The National Organization for Women is defining “woman” as a “gender identity” now. How fucking feminist of them.
I think I understand why they blocked you Ophelia. Apparently, they hate the burn of feminist voices calling out their bullshit and loss of mission focus. I wonder how many other women, prominent feminists or not, they’ve blocked. Shameful. They would have wilted in the heat of political and social debate in the 60’s and 70’s.
If they’ve blocked me they must have blocked thousands. It’s disgusting.
This is going to age really well, right? At some point, they are going to be mortified by this.
Compared to the UK, the US and Canada seem to be behind the curve. Over there, the tide appears to be turning; genderists are more on the defensive, what with the Cass report, and all of the court cases that are being decided in favour of GC belief. It’s not as if an ocean is still the same obstacle to information it once was. The legal and legislative regimes on either side of the Atlantic are different, so it might take a while for governments, courts, and organizations here to come around. Still, you’d think they’d be paying more attention to what is happening in the UK. But, they’re not.
It will start with lawsuits. Once the genderist position starts to cost somebody real money, things will shift. This fundamentally dishonest and deceptive ideology leaves broken, hurting people in its wake. They are lied to, and promised things that are impossible, things that all the force of will and rainbow flags in the world can never bring about. Humans can’t change sex. It’s nobody’s fault; it’s not a conspiracy; that’s just how things are. The sexed body is not something that needs to be cured or corrected. To claim that it is necessary, or even possible, is a lie. That this “solution” is offered as a panacea for problems it can never address is a prescription for tragedy. “Gender affirming care” is touted with the same enthusiastic hucksterism as the latest fad diet, though few diets have the guarrantee of irreversible mutilation, sterility, and loss of sexual function listed in their Fine Print. Some of these victims will be looking for people to blame, people who should have known better. People who actually did know better. People who were responsible, but who acted irresponsibly. People who lied. There are so many it will be hard to choose. But they will be found. Precedents will be sought. The trailblazing done by UK feminists, and other adults in the room will be consulted. Someone will be made to pay. Once delusion meets Reality, things will be walked back, and tweets like this will disappear down the memory hole. Reality plays the long game, and Reality always wins. But, it can’t win soon enough.
Female is one of the two genders, there are only two. A female whose “gender identity” or “gender presentation” or “performative gender” appears male, no matter what lengths she goes to to appear male, is still gender female. She might need abortion access, but if she does then this confirms she is gender female. I never thought the trans cult could obliterate NOW or the ACLU, and the other organizations who have swallowed this ideology, but here we are. Misogyny disguised as social reform. It’s nauseating.
Not Bruce @4 “Reality plays the long game…” — Well put.
“The truth will out.”
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on No they […]
Sexes. The two sexes.
People don’t have gender. Words have gender, and, depending on the language, there can be one gender, two gender (masc. and fem.), three genders (masc., fem., neut.), and perhaps more. But people don’t have gender.
GW, this is the point I’m making: Sex and gender are the same thing. Of course people have gender, it’s just that it’s the same thing as their sex. Bruce Jenner is sex male and therefore gender male. Despite any efforts he has made, whether social, medical, behavioral, or psychological, his gender is, and always will be male.
Transgender and transsexual are direct synonyms, they don’t mean different things. They can be used interchangeably, and the ‘trans’ prefix means that they are not sexed or gendered as their true biological sex or gender, but the opposite. Otherwise we would only have two sexes or genders, M or F and ‘trans’ wouldn’t exist.
The nonbinary stuff is BS, because if something is neutral then we are not talking about gender at all anymore. You can’t talk sensically about gender without talking about the gender (or sex) binary.
That’s not entirely accurate though. The meaning of “gender” has morphed a good deal, and especially so since the gender ideology burst its banks. For that reason it’s better to say “sex” when you mean female/male and woman/man.
Fair point, ‘gender’ has lot of baggage attached to it, mostly recently, and it sure doesn’t help with clarity.
Genders. Every person has one of two.
One sense of “gender”, the most commonly used sense, is to mean sex. Insisting that this isn’t true only helps the Genderists, because it forces us to pretend the word can’t mean what was intended. Every time we encounter the word in literature and law and whatever, we have to argue that whoever used it didn’t really mean gender, which essentially puts us in the position of calling people stupid or at best inarticulate. It makes us look like we’re the ones who misread and misunderstand feminist writers who wrote of the “female gender”. It makes our reasoning look inconsistent when we say that laws respecting discrimination, provisions, rights, and protections based on “gender” really don’t apply according to gender.
Now this is a different, much more supportable position. It’s also exactly why and how we use English synonyms in general. Synonymous terms, aside from their shared meaning(s), often have senses that are not shared. We employ whichever synonym more/most clearly conveys or intent. Sometimes this even involves using two simultaneously to indicate that we intend their shared meaning, the intersection of their intensions. (A common construction for this is, “X, by which I mean Y.”)
The dishonesty in the NOW tweet hinges on using the social construct sense of “gender” in a way that’s parsable only in the sex-synonymous sense. Socially constructed genders are not physical entities; they are sets of norms and rules associated with the sexes. Neither norms nor rules are the sort of thing that can have and thus need access to abortion care. Therefore we must conclude that by gender they mean sex, so we should be able to substitute “sex” for “gender” without altering the meaning of the sentence. However, this substitution causes two breaks. First, it gives us “all sexes”, an application of the quantifier for “greater than two” to a set of exactly two elements. Second, only one sex needs access to abortion care, the sex that can have abortions: females. Substituting the word for its meaning is semantically destructive.
Reading the tweet one way results in falsehood, tempting us to read it the other way. We keep trying the other meaning, leaving us in a perpetual state of not understanding. We see before us a literal religious Mystery, a contradiction just like the Triune God. And just like with the Trinity, we are expected to accept that we, benighted mortal/cis people that we are, can’t and won’t ever understand. We must simply have faith and repeat the Catechism.
Of course, the tweeter could intend intend the Tumblr-esque “personality” meaning of “gender”. In that case, the tweet is true, as far as it goes. Yes, no matter her personality, a female ought to have access to abortion. Using gender to refer to personality like this, however, leads directly to logical equivocation, again because when people refer to gender in the context of abortion, they’re usually talking about biology. That’s how the tweet will be read, and it’s patently false under that interpretation. To the extent that the tweet is true, it’s uninteresting; to the extent that it’s interesting, it’s false. Bait & switch. Motte & bailey. Fallacy of equivocation.