People, residents, patients
Another eraser of women:
It’s not people in general who need abortion healthcare, it’s exclusively women.
For women living in the 24 states…
For every woman, everywhere.
Texas women.
Tip Jar
Another eraser of women:
It’s not people in general who need abortion healthcare, it’s exclusively women.
For women living in the 24 states…
For every woman, everywhere.
Texas women.
Et tu, Guttmacher?
I still give to NAF (pronounced “naff”), the National Abortion Federation of abortion providers. I’m not a provider, so I’m not a member, but it’s totally normal to call their main phone number and set up monthly giving with a credit card. If the person who usually takes giving is not at their desk, then someone else in the office will take the call right away to set up giving.
Tomorrow I will check online if NAF still supports abortion for women. I hope and bet they still do.
One of these things is not like the others; one of these things doesn’t belong. Can you guess which one is not like the other before I finish my song?
Dave, my impression is that NNAF is also captured.
Facebook post: The abortion access movement MUST acknowledge that trans men also have abortions.
I recently learned that Advocates Protecting Children is a US 501(c)(3) registered organization. I’ve been impressed with what I’ve seen, and may start a recurring donation to them. They describe themselves thus:
Sackbut, I agree NNAF is captured.
I support NAF.
The People’s Front of Judea versus the Judean People’s Front.
I’m generally fine with including trans men in the discussion for abortion rights–it’s fairly simple, once or twice in the course of an article, to add the words, “and trans men” after “women”, and not lose any impact.
But instead, most of these institutions insist on going the ‘people who get pregnant’ route, which has definitely been proven to undermine the very cause they’re fighting for. Why? I suspect that it’s not for the benefit of trans men. Rather, they’re doing it to accommodate transwomen, who don’t want to be left out of a discussion that has Fuck + All to do with them.
I’m increasingly tempted to put a large proportion of the blame for the erasure of women from online and printed materials on the acolytes of queer theory.
Fact:
Oral language started in animals as a means of conveying important information about material reality to others (examples: one of my cats saying “Kekekekeke” when she sees a bird through the window, and being joined by the other; a blackbird in the garden yelling “Kekekekekekekeke!” when he sees a cat).
Fact:
Certainly in humans, and possibly other species such as cetaceans, oral language evolved to become a means of conveying to others ever more subtle information about material reality, and also for conveying information about the subjective experience of the speaker.
Fact:
Sophisticated language not only has the ability to convey to others the subjective experience of the speaker, but can also be used to manipulate the subjective experience of the listener.
Wholly unevidenced conclusion by queer theorists:
Therefore language can be used to manipulate material reality, and we should stop using any words which apply specifically, changing them to words which describe generalities so there’ll no longer be any difference between classes and those classes will no longer exist.
In this particular situation, realists know that only women (whatever they call themselves) can get pregnant and so might need an abortion. Some realists use this fact as a way of imposing unfair restrictions on bodily autonomy on women in order to keep women subordinate. Others recognise this abusive relationship, and are fighting back. Queer theorists are concluding that the only reason abortion bans are happening is because of the language which describes women as being a subordinate class of people who need abortions; and if they re-frame it in such a way that no-one can say with words exactly which people need abortions, they’ll conclude that all people need them and there’ll be no bans.
iknklast:
Hey, at least it’s a tacit admission that “gender affirming care” is sterilization; i.e., contraception after a fashion.
Queer theorists are concluding that the only reason abortion bans are happening is because of the language which describes women as being a subordinate class of people who need abortions; and if they re-frame it in such a way that no-one can say with words exactly which people need abortions, they’ll conclude that all people need them and there’ll be no bans.
Cripes. I cannot even follow this line of thought to its conclusion.
This failure to follow shitty thoughts to their shitty conclusions is probably why I decided not to get a PhD in English and dropped out of graduate school.
I’d rather grow food instead.