If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament
Ok. Abortion rights. Women. Feminism. Abortion rights as part of feminism. Opposition to abortion rights as part of misogyny and sexism. All that.
I think it’s a huge political mistake to talk about abortion rights in terms of “pregnant people” and “people who can get pregnant.” I think it’s a huge political mistake to drop women from the discussion in order to be inclusive to trans men (and gender fluid people and yadda yadda). The struggle over abortion rights is the way it is because of misogyny and sexism. It would be a very different struggle, if it existed at all, if women were and always had been considered equals. For that reason, it’s a massive mistake to talk about abortion in terms of “people” instead of “women.”
I said that on Twitter and wheeeeeee the Twitter machine sprang into action.
I’m being told it doesn’t erase women to talk about pregnant people instead of women.
Well if that’s true, it doesn’t erase women to talk about human rights instead of feminism, and we can all get on with our fun hobbies instead of being feminists.
If that’s true, it’s fine to say “ALL lives matter” whenever you see something about Black Lives Matter.
People are so confused about this it’s mind-numbing.
I don’t see how “women should have the right to an abortion” or even “abortion is a women’s rights issue” excludes trans women. It may not be of direct personal application to trans women, just as it may not be of direct personal application to octogenarians, or women who have had hysterectomies, or women who would never ever ever choose to invoke that right.
I can’t think of any other context in which we insist that something isn’t an issue for group X unless it personally applies to each and every member of that group. By that standard, pretty much nothing would qualify:
Getting women the right to vote wouldn’t have been a “women’s issue,” because some women aren’t citizens, or didn’t want the vote.
The ongoing Republican efforts to suppress black voter turnout wouldn’t be a black rights issue, because most black people have photo ID, are still able to vote, etc.
There probably wouldn’t be any “LGBTQ issues” whatsoever.
So I think it’s clear that there’s nothing incorrect, as a matter of language, about calling abortion a women’s issue. The question, I guess, is whether it’s productive on any criteria to note the carve-out: “abortion is an issue for some women” (or women who are capable of becoming pregnant, etc.) The only grounds for doing so that I can see are:
1) If trans women really want to make sure other women know “hey, this isn’t MY problem, because it doesn’t affect ME!” Which seems an odd position for any minority group to take: if you only give a damn about issues that affect you personally, then why should I give a damn about the issues that affect you personally but not me? (I mean, I personally like to think I still would care, because I have empathy, but advertising your own lack of empathy seems a dubious strategy.)
2) It’s another opportunity for “consciousness-raising”: “hey, y’all, Imma let you finish your discussion of how your bodies shouldn’t be appropriated for use as incubators, but first I just wanted to remind you all that trans women exist! And we’re really pissed off when we’re not treated exactly like other women. So we’re going to interject every time someone talks about “women” to remind you of our biological differences from other women. Which totally don’t matter, and should not be discussed ever, because the only thing that matters is that we identify as women. Except for the getting pregnant part.”
I keep looking out for the best opposing argument, and it appears to be this from @DrJaneChi:
Also:
But “All Lives Matter” is not about merely including white people, it’s not merely about specifying those people who can get killed by police — and she damn-well knows that. It’s about erasing the fact that black lives are disproportionately in danger because they are black, and that’s exactly the same as erasing the fact that women’s lives are disproportionately harmed in the abortion fight because they are women.
Then there’s the weighing of who is more oppressed than another group. That reasoning is so superficial, it’s pure thinking-in-formulas. When it comes to abortion and pregnancy care, women are not privileged, and I’m guessing that they are privileged only slightly above trans men in that area, if at all. I’m guessing that a trans-antagonistic medical staffer is going to see any “pregnant person” as a woman, regardless whether they identify as another gender. So they’ll get extra hostility for having the temerity to buck gender norms, but in terms of medical care it seems speculative to say they are “more oppressed.”
I’m all for a term that is actually inclusive without erasing women and without making it impossible to identify misogyny as the culprit, but Pregnant People is not it.
I don’t see the “massive mistake” of talking about abortion rights in terms of “people who may become pregnant”. If my son experienced an unwanted pregnancy in his teenage years, I would certainly hope pro-choice activists would be every bit as passionate in advocating for his access to abortion services as they would for a girl in the same circumstances. Should my son choose to take up arms in the battle for his right to decide how his uterus will and will not be used, I don’t see the “massive mistake” of establishing the movement in a way that makes him every bit as welcome to fight for his rights as women doing the same.
I do agree that it’d be a massive mistake to ignore the role misogyny has played (and continues to play) in curtailing the abortion rights of people who might become pregnant. But I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that. Doing so would be ignoring the elephant in the room: in terms of overall erosion of abortion rights, misogyny is primal (even religion trails far behind). As such, the battle for abortion rights would be severely hamstrung should the pro-choice movement fail to put misogyny front-and-center in its advocacy campaigns.
That said, it would also be a mistake to focus on misogyny to the exclusion of addressing other influences (such as religion) on anti-abortion assholes. In particular, it would be a mistake, and a gross disservice to an already-marginalized sub-group of people, to dismiss the acute impact trans-antagonism and transphobic ignorance plays in limiting the accessibility of abortion services to transgender boys and men. What better way, the transphobic rationale goes, to teach transgender boys and men that their gender identity is a farce, than to force them through a full term pregnancy, labor&delivery, and motherhood? Hell – that’d be more effective than passing laws to force them to use the woman’s restrooms and locker rooms! What better way to “punish” transgender men for legally changing their gender status, than to strip them of female-reproductive-health services?
Cool, these people are starting to shed the double talk and just straight up admit they’re no longer interested in solving issues of injustice, they just want to play oppression olympics.
Screechy – I think “pregnant people” is about trying to include trans men, rather than carving out trans women who can’t get pregnant.
I just realized that I wrote my comment @1 on the misreading that the objection was “but trans women can’t get pregnant,” when (as I should have noted from the OP, but Kevin K’s @3 made it clear) it’s really “but trans men can also get pregnant and therefore also care about abortion.”
I think my basic point remains valid — that we normally accept that calling something an “X issue” merely means that group X is disproportionately or particularly affected, not that all Xs, and only Xs, are affected. And abortion is a women’s issue not just in the sense that women are disproportionately affected, but also in that it’s an issue that is tied up to a large degree with societal attitudes towards women.
I find this maddening too. I’m going to try to explain why with a repost of something I wrote on Facebook.
I ask readers to please accept that I’m acting in good faith, and that I think both of the following things are true and need to be addressed. Oh hell, I’ll be direct. I’m begging readers to truly accept that I do care about the needs of trans people, and that this is not an attempt to smuggle in trans erasure. Please.
1. Women’s reproductive rights are in danger because they are women. It’s important politically to understand this and say it out loud.
2. Trans people have the same rights to effective and appropriate medical care, and their needs must be met, too.
OK.
Erasing the words “woman” and “women” from talk about abortion rights is not “inclusive”. Recasting every phrase as “pregnant people” is not “inclusive.” Making obvious, awkward moves to make sure you’re seen to say “pregnant people” and that you’re specifically avoiding saying “women” is not “inclusive.”
You cannot be “inclusive” when you make a sustained effort to rhetorically excise the most politically salient identity category at the heart of the discussion. Women are not oppressed because they’re “people who get pregnant.” They are not oppressed because they are “uterus-havers.”
They are oppressed as women. As the societal construct of “woman” that they have been forcibly assigned to. Incidentally, this is the font from which transphobia (and homophobia) springs.
You may mean the very best of all things. You may want very much to include everyone, to make sure that everyone is protected. But that doesn’t mean this approach is actually, in practice “inclusive.” It’s doing retrograde work. It’s shutting down and making invisible the majority of people who suffer from this regime. It’s rhetorically obscuring the dire misogyny that animates this oppression, and it’s not doing enough “inclusive work” for trans people in any substantive way that could begin to justify the political damage it’s doing by avoiding talking about women.
This is the dictionary definition of a perverse outcome.
It’s not enough to keep asserting “It’s just inclusive, it doesn’t exclude anybody.” That’s not how rhetoric works, and most of you know that and recognize it in any other context. You need to recognize it here, too. There’s no reason the comparison to “All Lives Matter” should offend or shock you. Get past the initial emotional aversion and really think it through. It is apt, it is analogous, and it is appropriate as a comparison.
We have to be able to engage with this issue without repeating a slogan. We have to acknowledge that this problem is real, and to at least agree that it’s worth trying to find a way to include trans folks without actively excluding “women” from the analysis and the rhetoric.
That’s the key, that last sentence above. Without excluding women from the analysis and the rhetoric. I’m going to be didactic as hell and repeat for emphasis because this is apparently really hard to grasp: Even though it’s well-intended this rhetorical stance does excise and obscure women. It does do this.
Respecting the needs of women and trans or gender variant people need not be a zero-sum game. It is possible to do both without doing the regressive political damage that this particular approach is doing, even though you’re probably pissed off to have to confront that reality because you personally see yourself as caring and inclusive. Well, we all see ourselves that way, don’t we?
If thinking in slogans is the only thing one can manage, “intent isn’t magic” is a good place to start.
Kevin Kirkpatrick, what acute impact does transantagonism play in limiting the accessibility of abortion services to transgender boys and men that is separate or distinct from misogyny? Do trans men get turned away from abortion clinics because they’re trans? I’m more inclined to believe that they would be denied abortion care because they have female genitals and that’s all misogynists care about.
Kevin @ 3 –
What are you referring to there? What acute impact does trans-antagonism and transphobic ignorance have on limiting the accessibility of abortion services to transgender boys and men? Are you saying abortion clinics are forced to close down because of laws and regulations that were motivated by trans-antagonism and transphobic ignorance? If so can you point to any examples of that?
Misogyny is the source of all this oppression. It’s not just one of a pick-a-mix assortment in some Rich Tapestry. Transphobia comes from misogyny. Homophobia comes from misogyny. Religion uses misogyny. But in the absence of religion it’s just as present. Wake up, Kevin. This is important. Crucially important. For your son and for everyone. It’s the basis of all these problems. Get hip to that sooner rather than later for your own good.
Jason Thibeault has taken you, Ms. Benson (you are now a “recent embracer of all things TERFy”), and above commenters to task. Um, more wheeeeee?
Yeah, and he didn’t have the decency to link to Ophelia’s post, or answer her argument in any substantive way. It’s all “TERF!”
I can imagine being a trans man. I can imagine beinf a trans man who would prefer inclusive language like “pregnant people.” I can’t imagine being a trans man who couldn’t understand the argument made here against “pregnant people.” I can’t imagine thinking inclusive language was the only consideration here.
And anyone who thinks the appropriate response to this disagreement is more shouts of “TERF!” is an asshole.
Speaking of inclusive language and the slogan “Trust Women” when it comes to abortion rights… this over at Jason Thibeault’s comment really threw me for a loop:
Nothing says inclusion like excluding people who have had their rights violated, simply because they can’t be pregnant anymore. You know, people who were forced to give birth but are now too old, not to mention people sterilized against their will. But hey, they’re not fecund anymore, so they’re not important on the Venn diagram.
That’s erasure!
To preempt the obvious objection: Jason Thibeault is only talking about pregnant people or people who can now become pregnant. Stipulated. Also: that’s fucked up. Abortion rights — reproductive rights in general — cannot be discussed as a snapshot-in-time issue.
You have to look at the history, where you’ll notice how very prevalent and powerful the word “woman” is. The people who try to restrict those rights sure are focused on the women. the people who fought so hard for those rights are overwhelmingly women. The word “woman” appears in every draconian law restricting reproductive rights. It appears in every media discussion, every diatribe from a protester, every manifesto from a domestic terrorist. I’m not a fan of that, obviously, but it can’t be ignored.
Basically, I just wanted to chime in and agree with Lady Mondegreen above:
P.S. On a nitpicky note, I’d note that people who are fecund require access to contraception. It’s fecund people who are also pregnant that require access to abortion services. Capable of != being in the state of.
P.P.S. I was going to crosspost this in less cantankerous form over at lousycanuck, but fuck it, they’re following this thread and by posting here I’m already a bigot, so why bother.
And there’s a post up on a feminist group I belong to on Facebook suggesting that the term “Feminist” be abandoned because trans men and genderfluid people and hey it’s not just about women anymore, so maybe the “label” has outgrown its usefulness.
But, no, nobody wants to erase women. Don’t be silly.
I’ve been thinking about this and I may have figured out what bothers me about the “pregnant people/people who can get pregnant” formulation.
I had my tubes tied some years ago so for all intents and purposes, I can’t get pregnant anymore. The above formulation suggests that reproductive or women’s rights are therefore not my issue, as I’m not in the target group anymore. It also suggests that somehow all the “women’s rights” problems ceased to be an issue to me the moment I came out of the surgery. Unsurprisingly, they haven’t. I still need reproductive health care. I didn’t suddenly gain higher status in the society. I’m not suddenly taken more seriously professionally. My wages didn’t go up. I don’t experience street harassment in my everyday life (I know, I’m a unicorn, I blame it on where I live), but if I did, I’m sure that wouldn’t have disappeared overnight either. I still worry about my safety way more than my male partner does. None of this changed or stopped, because I can’t get pregnant anymore. My possibility of becoming pregnant was never the issue. Me being “a woman” was and still is.
And I’m not sure I’m getting this right, but is Thibeault actually arguing that I as a non-fertile person am not included in the group of people whom rights to reproductive health care concern? Is he only interested in abortion and unaware that even sterilisations sometimes fail and menopause isn’t always a straightforward *bam you’re infertile* matter? If the latter, I would gently suggest that abortion rights, while important, are only a part of larger set of reproductive rights and I don’t think it makes sense to only talk about abortion and not reproductive health care in general. If he actually is arguing that I as a non-fecund woman do not have a vested interested in reproductive rights, well then… knock me down with a feather.
I’m not sure I have an answer to the question of how to insert trans people into this equation, but I’m pretty sure taking “women” out of it won’t, to say the least, clarify anything.
That thread at Thibeault’s blog is sadly representative of this “conversation.” No one engages the content of what Ophelia and commenters are saying here. The only response is, “transphobia,” or other noises of stern disapproval. There’s no attempt to even recognize that one’s conversational opponents have an actual argument, which you may disagree with, but an argument nonetheless.
A commenter there says “If I were to stop taking testosterone, I’d be able to reproduce, and I would be a not-woman who needs access to abortion care. I exist! Apparently Ophelia doesn’t like that.” That’s utterly disgusting. Nowhere ever has Ophelia ever said that she “doesn’t like” the fact that a no-woman would need access to abortion care.” In fact Ophelia and the commenters here have repeatedly affirmed the need for all people who need it to get abortion care. Apparently Lux Pickel likes lying about what people have said…?
This is not and has never been a discussion about who gets medical care. It’s a discussion about political framing of an issue that is deadly important for half the world’s population. As much as framing sometimes seems icky and superficial it’s incredibly important. (Just look at how the feminism = choice framing has taken off like wildfire for an example of how framing is crucial.)
Going to do my best to address the arguments…
Cheryl Chastine, writing on RH Reality Check, outlines her reasons as a physician for being more inclusive in her language:
It goes on for longer than that.
Misogyny most definitely lies at the root of anti-choice movements. The people who suffer as a result of misogynistic bigotry though are not always women. Furthermore, anti-abortion groups also tend to be strongly anti-trans (see, for example, the Pacific Justice Institute) for very similar reasons – a belief in a strict and unyielding binary, in which people born with a particular anatomy conform to a specific role. The very existence of trans people threatens that conservative worldview. I agree with Leah Torres’ decision to acknowledge that – it doesn’t hurt the fight against anti-choice lobbies to do so. Her choice of language is centred on the reality of the victims, rather than the viewpoint of misogynistic lobbies.
You could also think of it this way – even if you were to say that anti-abortion is entirely due to sexism against women and nothing else whatsoever, the misogyny of anti-choice lobbies is, crudely, like a weapon with a big button on it that says “Press this to target women.” The weapon isn’t calibrated properly to reality though, and targets a broader range of people than just women. People who choose to be more inclusive in their language are doing the equivalent of pointing out all the other injured people who were also targeted by the weapon, not just its intended victims. That’s all Leah Torres was doing.
Im not sure I follow your reasoning
Abortion impacts both women and trans men (and to a lesser degree their partners). Sexism/Misogyny (and other sub causes like religion) is the primary cause of opposition to abortion rights.
Nothing to disagree so far.
Why would it be a political mistake to use pregnant people – instead of pregnant women ? In what sense are you using the word mistake ? That the argument would be less effective? – Because I don’t see that using pregnant people excludes anyone from discussing the causes and I dont see where it dilutes the effectiveness of the argument.
Also political arguments are usually not “won” by the technically correct argument. The opposition to gay marriage is religious – But that argument wasn’t won by stating keep religion out of the government.
Here are the key assertions in Falcon’s comment:
You can’t just drop major assertions like that. Those aren’t gospel truths.
Trans people aren’t vulnerable because they’re “invisible” in the language. They’re vulnerable because they buck gender norms and bigots have a violent hatred for that — and misogyny is the root of that hate. Creating nongendered terms is a very superficial strategy for changing that. On the other hand, using nongendered terms like “pregnant people” erases the fact that women are denied abortion care BECAUSE they are women. And, I would argue, pregnant trans men or NB people are in danger of being denied abortion care NOT because they are trans but because of their female biology.
There has to be another more meaningful way to ensure that trans or nonbinary people get abortion care that doesn’t involve policing the use of the word “women.”
Finally, if you don’t see how omitting “women” from terminology dilutes the effectiveness of the argument, consider Katha Pollit’s response at the end of this article: http://www.thenation.com/article/letters-505/ If you disagree, fine, but please come back with a counterargument, not just conclusory statements.
Falcon @ 18 –
So by the same token the people who suffer as a result of racism aren’t always non-white? And the people who suffer as a result of homophobia aren’t always lesbian or gay or bi? And the people who suffer as a result of xenophobia aren’t always foreign?
Sure, you can always point to people who get collateral damage, but is that a reason to obscure the core target of the hatred or contempt or exclusion or oppression? No. Misogyny is hatred of women, and women are the people who are harmed by it. (Yes, that includes trans women.)
But that’s not what I’m saying, so the rest is irrelevant.
I know that. Of course I know that. I’m not stupid enough to fail to know that. I still think think it’s a huge political mistake to talk about abortion rights without using the word “women.”
@Ophelia Benson
The specific case for sexism is somewhat different because it isnt collateral damage. For e.g. the stereotype that the woman is the care-giver impacts men when it comes to custody battles. The cause is still sexism and misogyny towards women rather than at men – it just happens to have a direct impact on men.
Deepak – but the term wasn’t sexism, it was misogynistic bigotry. It’s not misogynistic bigotry that promotes the stereotype that the woman is the care-giver, it’s sexism.
Use of “pregnant people” instead of “women” is tantamount to saying that we should be inclusive of both women and pregnant people who happen to not be women (trans men for example). As a group or class pregnant people who happen to not be women are very often the target of oppression and marginalization which is something they share in common with women. They also share in common a core mission of securing reproductive rights and safe access to abortion.
It is better to be more inclusive (not less inclusive) of traditionally marginalized and oppressed groups and even more so when those groups are fighting the same battles. Being more inclusive in this context amounts to bolstering the mission. It is therefore better to use non gendered terms like “pregnant people” so as to be more inclusive.
If it’s true that using “pregnant people” erases women, then it’s also true that using “women” erases pregnant people who happen to not be women (such as trans men just for example).
Are folks here ok with erasing pregnant people who happen to not be women? If so could you explain why? For example do you believe they should be erased or do you feel that’s just an unavoidable consequence and can’t be helped, or what?
Are there any other terms that you feel won’t erase anyone? Or is this some kind of zero sum calculation where some group is destined for erasure no matter what term or combination of terms are used?
I can only speak for myself, and even then it doesn’t seem possible to be taken at my word no matter how careful or clear I try to be. I’m not “OK” with erasing anyone. The “best” way to talk about reproductive rights isn’t clear to me. None of us have figured out the absolute, sure-fire winning way to characterize the discussion that’s effective but doesn’t also exclude or do political damage to any parties.
So, no, I don’t have a good answer. I don’t pretend to. What I do think is that erasing, or mostly avoiding, the term “women” in the context of a reproductive rights battle that runs on misogyny is not a good idea. Even though the intent is noble, it’s my opinion (I’m willing to be wrong and I may be wrong) that it does political damage. But that doesn’t mean I think the solution is to never mention trans people, or never to use gender-neutral language. Is “I don’t know, but I wish did” good enough for anyone?
It’s not enough to simply assert and repeat that, “therefore this is good and it’s not excluding.” I know that that is the opinion of people who disagree with me. But it’s not an explanation, it’s just re-asserting the opinion as if it were a fact.
@ We Are Plethora:
I don’t believe pregnant people who are not women should be erased.
I don’t at all agree with the very clearly stated assumption that the very complex arena of reproductive rights is reducible to specifically the issue of abortion, which is then specifically restricted to only the “fecund”. As I said above, given that the attacks on contraception qua contraception, on contraception qua dual-purpose medication, on spousal-notification laws, on clinic waiting periods, on forced ultrasounds, on required lectures, and all the rest are predicated on the idea that women are dizzy broads who need a man to make decisions for them, I very much think it’s a bad idea to eliminate the use of the word “women”.
None of that means that I want to erase people who are not women who are affected by these issues, because of course trans men and others are going to be affected by exactly and precisely those same issues, with a special side of transmisogyny and abuse served alongside the main course. But while I do agree we need to include all groups, I don’t at all agree that using the broadest applicable term is necessarily the best way to benefit all groups.
Of course, the best I can come up with now basically translates to “women and others”. Not exactly satisfactory, I agree, but then, I don’t find “people with reproductive capability” particularly enamoring, either.
More on the “fecund” thing — I think a lot of this debate also has to do with the shadings between arena of word use — is it social? political? medical? what audience is the word directed at? etc. I, personally, find the public categorization of people by their ability to breed, in the context of legislating their breeding, to be utterly offensive in a social/political context, for historical reasons that I hope are quite obvious. The idea of an even more specific framework for discussion of abortion that is limited only those who are currently fecund, as Jason Thibeault does with his Venn diagrams, makes me want to vomit. On the other hand, as a medical term, “person who is pregnant” is descriptive and accurate, though obviously needs more specification of characteristics of the person for medically suitable treatment.
In conclusion: this is obviously very complicated and needs to be worked out. /CaptainObvious
Quick expansion:
Well, yes. That’s the point. Both terms erase all or some members of a marginalized group. Which makes the following an untrue assertion from where I stand:
My position in short: I’m totally fine with non-gendered terms that include beyond the privileged (i.e. men -> people). I’m not at all fine with non-gendered terms that exclude from less privileged groups, especially in ways that focus on precisely the axis where lack of privilege is expressed (i.e. women -> people who are pregnant). I also don’t think that the only way to be more inclusive is via eliminating gendered terms.
@Jennifer Chavez
Katha Pollitt seems to be open to compromise
So I don’t think there is a particular problem with what she is saying . I would guess the intent of the “other side” is dont exclude trans folk rather than dont use “woman” and Katha’s example above *should* work.
(Except on Twitter.)
(But then that’s why I don’t use Twitter all that much.)
It is intensely disingenuous of you to paint this as an issue of your being harassed about this in a vacuum. You actively harassed an abortion provider who was busy arguing with people who want to limit reproductive rights, silencing conversation about abortion in order to further your trans-exclusionary agenda. That is now your idea of how to really fight patriarchy–by attacking trans people. That is why you received a lot of pushback. What you have become is really sad.
Where did I paint this as an issue of my being harassed?
On your second claim, that’s a fair point. I overdid the tweet-commenting. I kept on because I was surprised by how very often she used “people” instead of “women,” and commenting on a tweet feels different from directly replying, so I overdid it.
*cough*
Where did I paint this as an issue of my being harassed?
The bigots don’t give a shit what people identify as, thus it is a women’s issue. For the purposes of women’s reproductive/health rights trans-men are women and trans-women are not to the powers that be.
Anyways, Ophelia you should just grab onto the TERF label as a badge of honour and stop engaging these trolls. I totally relate to where you’re at because I too am always tempted to fight with these kind of people, but down that road lies self-destruction.
Ms. Benson, Stephanie Zvan has posted an article addressing all this – like Jason Thibeault, she has not included a link to your blog. Unlike Jason Thibeault, she has chosen not to say your name. I referred to that on her blog as “a frightening act of dehumanization.” It may be inappropriate of me not to take a stand here, but I am still thinking about it all – what bothers me, though, are these acts being taken by your former “colleagues” to criticize you without addressing the specific points brought up here, by specific people, and even to refuse to grant you the respect of *naming* you (or Josh Spokes, or Lady Mondegreen, or Kevin Kirkpatrick, to name 3).
No, wait a minute, this is REALLY FREAKING INAPPROPRIATE, AND DAMNED RUDE!
I’ll be generous and say, instead, that you are painting this as a situation where you were unfairly attacked out of the blue for saying this instead of one where you did your level best to derail an abortion provider’s engagement with forced-birth advocates because you were bothered that she wasn’t excluding afab non-women from her terminology. She had to *block* you to stop it, and you made clear that even actual abortion providers are less important to you than your increasing hostility towards trans people.
It is easily possible both to recognize that misogyny is the motivating factor behind forced-birtherism and to stop letting them set the terms for what a woman is and isn’t.
Too be fair, they (mostly non-trans people at that) more or less started it at the beginning of the TERF wars… and the strangest thing is that they’d rather go after an easy target than the primary destroyers of trans people, namely men.
Half the posts in the Feminism section of FtB are dedicated to demonizing Ophelia, and it’s really sad, ‘cuz there’s much better topics out there for discussion.
Also to be fair, Ophelia hasn’t been the one to finish the TERF wars.
No, Gertrud, that’s not you being generous. Where did I paint this as a situation where I was unfairly attacked out of the blue?
It’s not “generous” to be accurate.
” For that reason, it’s a massive mistake to talk about abortion in terms of “people” instead of “women.”
I said that on Twitter and wheeeeeee the Twitter machine sprang into action.”
Devoid of context. Nowhere do you mention that this is the product of your harassing an abortion provider.
Ok. I didn’t give the context, that’s true. What’s not true is that I claimed I’d been harassed or attacked out of the blue. I’m glad we got that straight.
clamboy @ 35 – well yup that sounds pretty gross.
It’s relevant to know, I think, that Stephanie and Jason are close friends and that they and their spouses share a house. They work as a team.
Josh Spokes @25,
Ok thanks for clarifying. In terms of taking you at your word is that a courtesy you are prepared to extend to those with whom you disagree?
You wrote @16:
No doubt there is quite a bit of the “Ophelia is a TERF” kind of response but then there are certainly some more measured responses and plenty of substantial counter arguments and fair questions that are raised. Jason’s post does have quite a bit more actual content than merely “noises of stern disapproval” as do a number of the comments.
But you wave them all away with 3 short sentences and claim that “no one engages the content of what Ophelia and commenters are saying here.” <– That doesn't seem like much engagement with the actual content of Jason's post nor with any of the comments. And of course this is just the latest example in a string of recent examples where this kind of stuff happens (on both sides).
Can you point us to where you or Ophelia (or anyone else here) actually engage with the actual content from Jason or any of Jason's commenters? Have we missed the comments and posts wherein someone here even attempted to recognize that Jason or any of Jason's commenters "have an actual argument, which you may disagree with, but an argument nonetheless?"
Admittedly we have not read all of the posts and comments here so perhaps we missed all that?
Fair enough. How about as noted by PatrickG (@26) and Deepak Sheety (@28) just using “women and other pregnant people” or something similar? That seems like a good answer, no?
Fair point. But then it’s also not enough for you and others to assert and repeat that “it does political damage” or that “it erases women.” Those are not explanations either, those are merely assertions of opinions as well (although clearly you are not suggesting that your opinion is an established fact).
Can you paint the picture as to how this erasure happens and in what tangible ways does it manifest? Specifically what damage do you think will be done and what are the mechanisms or machinations through which that happens? Can you be specific?
From your comment @7 you mentioned (asserted but not really explained) the following specific effects:
Specifically how does it shut down women? In what way? How does it make women invisible? Invisible to whom? Is using the word “women” instead of “pregnant people” the only way women can avoid being made invisible or might there be alternative ways? These are just a few among many questions.
Obscures it from whom? How so? How does use of the word “women” equate to notrhetorically obscuring the dire misogyny? What does it really mean to rhetorically obscure something are what tangible effects will that have? Aren’t there multiple factors that animate oppression? Again just a few among others.
How is it avoiding talking about women when women are a subset of “pregnant people?” Do you mean it’s avoiding talking exclusively about women? In what way does changing this word prevent people from continuing to talk about women? Etc.
PatrickG @26,
Thank you for clarifying that.
Not sure we agree that “women are dizzy broads who need a man to make decisions for them” is the idea upon which all of these measures are based. For example isn’t religious faith (typically the Christian fundamentalist variety) a far more significant driver here? Isn’t that where most these attacks on reproductive rights come from?
We’d contend that the people pushing this kind of legislation are doing so as a means of making it more difficult to access these reproductive health care options and ultimately they are trying to do away with them entirely. These measures are merely attempts to make it as difficult as possible and to slowly erode reproductive rights entirely. It’s not that they want to give men the decision power because women can’t handle it, it’s that they want to close the door on these decisions entirely. Those aims are primarily religiously based, no?
Of course there is quite a lot of overlap between the fundamentalists and the people who suscribe to “women are dizzy broads who need a man to make decisions for them” but the religious fundamentalism seems very much more foundational and more significant.
Count us on board with this. “Women and others” or “women and other pregnant people” (as Deepak Shetty’s comment @28) sounds reasonable. Seems like a fair compromise.
To clarify, we disagree with the assertion that [using “pregnant people” instead of “women” amounts to erasure of women (as people, not just the word)]. Not convinced of that at all in fact. Just trying to point out that folks who do think that should also be prepared to accept the inverse [that using “women” erases people who are not women]. Just trying to highlight the slip side of that coin is all.
That’s still disingenuous, unless you want us to believe that you are saying that the Twitter machine sprung into action to, I dunno, give you hugs and kisses. Your post is incoherent without the presumption that you were under attack for voicing your opinion. It’s constructed as though you voiced that opinion in a vacuum and then your legions of haters jumped all over you for it. Mind, I believe that you are actually catastrophically wrong on this particular issue (and I would love to see if you would be willing to address the compromise offered–“women and others”), but even when you leave that aside it’s still dishonest on the whole because of the framing that you have used.
Ms. Benson – Jason Thibeault, Stephanie Zvan, and I have shared numerous posts back and forth. I remain quite bothered by Ms. Zvan’s refusal to name you, though she has posted her (quite personal) reasons, and I take them as they are. It is not up to me to comment on the relationships between bloggers. Shit, I am coming across as uber-unemotional skeptic, which I ain’t!
Gertrud @ 45 –
No, the post isn’t incoherent without the presumption that I was under attack for voicing my opinion. The post doesn’t depend on that. I could delete the sentence about Twitter and it wouldn’t change the post substantively.
And no, it is not constructed as though “and then my legions of haters jumped all over me for it.” You keep reading in extra language that I didn’t use.
And no, it’s not dishonest on the whole.
Why, then, mention Twitter and its machine at all? And what are we to presume the Twitter machine did?
@ We Are Plethora
Quick responses. Apologies for stream-of-consciousness (meeting upcoming):
1) Yeah, the dizzy broad thing was really intended to be a shorthand for the vast, vast array of reasons men (and others) find to oppress women (and others).
2) I’m becoming less and less convinced that religious reasons are the primary culprit in misogyny. Sure, religious fundamentalism provides a quick and easy authoritarian structure, and certainly plays a significant role in perpetuating misogyny, but if the worldwide atheist movement has taught me anything, it’s that gods are not necessary to hate on women, and they’re certainly not necessary to either dismiss reproductive rights as unimportant or actively work against them, especially when class or race issues are involved.
3) Related to #2, I see a clear distinction between “hating women as women” and “hating reproductive rights”. When we extend “women” here to include other groups, I see some bifurcations.
Perhaps a parallel example will help clarify. Consider the MRA. The MRA hates women (QED) and typically hates women’s reproductive rights because, oh say, they should be punished for not having sex with HIM, some woman in his life refused to host his golden seed, etc. (excuse me while I go throw up)
Now the same MRA will almost certainly hate trans people, but while they’re going to hate trans people’s reproductive rights accordingly, it’s going to be a different set of “reasons”, which I’m not even going to try and list because I got nauseous enough above. I’m sure anyone passingly familiar with the genre can fill in the blanks.
Thus, it’s important to focus on both groups, and I feel that combining them under a vague term “people”, even “people who X”, does disservice to both groups.
The same distinction can be extended to religious fundamentalists, sexual reactionaries who can’t get over the fact someone out there is having good sex, white supremacists wanting to sterilize brown and black people, and on and on. There are a fuckload of reasons for wanting to deny reproductive agency to cis women, but a lot of those reasons are very specifically targeted at cis women. Moreover, those reasons are the ones that are actively used to justify intrusive regulations, TRAP laws, harassment at clinics, and so forth. When people are screaming to the heavens that they’re targeting women, I’m going to listen to that.
Again, all those groups also want to deny reproductive agency to trans people, but many of those reasons are different. Not that those reasons should be ignored, or that denial of agency is any less important, but it’s not the same thing, and it doesn’t play out in the same way.
Basically, the more general a term becomes, the less useful it is in specific situation. That’s why I think referring to reproductive health services without being able to reference “women” is harmful, and why I think only using “people who are pregnant” erases women.**
In short: there’s such a thing as being too general, if it obscures specific problems and challenges.
* I should note that as trans people become more visible, and more accepted, I have no doubt the hardcore bigots will manage to be more, um, inclusive in their hatreds.
** For that matter, I think it theoretically could erase trans people, too, though I can’t seriously argue that in the current environment, where any visibility is an improvement. If (hopefully when) trans reproductive rights becomes more mainstream, then yeah, at that point the overly general term will obscure the specific challenges facing trans people. Obviously not there now, but wanted to flip the situation for explanatory power.
Utter bullshit. Sheer confabulation.
The post isn’t about Ophelia being “attacked.” As a matter of fact, Ophelia doesn’t say she was “attacked” at all. Even if you choose to read “the Twitter machine sprang into action” as “I was attacked!”–which would be reading into it–you can cut that sentence out of the post and the post loses nothing.
And there goes your claim.
Try it.
Of course, then we have the other dynamics here.
@ Ophelia Benson: Just crawl on your knees and cry out your lamentations and apologies. I think it’s supposed to go “I have sinned, I can do no right, and anybody who wants to can demand my contrition”. I have a cat o’ nine tails if you need help with your public self-denigration — I’ve heard you need to do these things to a very high standard, after all.
On a more serious note, Gertrud, given that you think ” what [OB has] become is really sad”, you’re trying either to (1) save her from herself, or (2) hyper-vigilantly hound her until you get satisfaction. Neither is a good look.
@ 48 –
Mostly as a shorthand for “the currently orthodox view is.” And to hint that dissenting from that view tends to draw heat – which is not the same thing as claiming to have been harassed or attacked. Also to let readers know they could see what I’d said by looking on Twitter, because I was in a hurry and didn’t want to summarize it.
Ophelia Benson @47,
Pardon the confusion but are you saying that this:
would not be substantively different from this:
Patrick @ 51 – heh. That’s why I left Purethought blogs: because I wasn’t going to do the crawl thing.
OB @ 52:
I have to say, it always makes me cringe when you use PTB. Just seems unnecessary, in my opinion, particularly because well, it is a loose network, and there are a number of people there who aren’t involved in this (at least so it appears from the front end. Can’t speak to the back channel).
Anyways, your blog, your words. Only intended as a very minor, and hopefully constructive, criticism. By which I mean…
APOLOGIZE RIGHT NOW! DANCE BLOGGER DANCE! *grin*
Oh, sure, it’s unnecessary, but I don’t do it because it’s necessary. I also don’t do it very often…but when the Purists are thrust on my attention, well, there they are.
But the religious objections are part and parcel of a worldview in which women don’t get to make decisions for themselves. If you haven’t read anything about Quiverfull or the Christian Patriarchy Movement, I encourage you to do so. This is the mindset of the Duggars, and many on the Christian right. It is explicitly about limiting female agency, especially in sexual matters. But it isn’t just religious conservatives–you’ll find similar ideas promoted by MRAs, some of whom are atheists.
And make no mistake: when it comes to denying people sexual and reproductive rights, religious conservatives do not and never have done that on an equal opportunity basis. The Double Standard is alive and well for them, same as it ever was. The men will cheat and be forgiven; their wives will put up with it and stay in stifling, demeaning, even abusive marriages, and, like Anna Duggar, hold themselves responsible for their problems. Because they’ve been taught from the cradle that man leads and boys will be boys, while woman’s destiny is to be a submissive helpmeet, one with no power but tremendous responsibility.
As someone who avoids Twitter, my presumption was that many voices clamored to disagree with what Ophelia Benson said. I could be wrong; I have only this post to go by, not having checked out Twitter for myself (and with no intention of doing so).
And I made that presumption while even while familiar with many harrassments that Ophelia Benson has weathered over the years including her being harassed off of FtB.
I don’t like the idea of OB harassing an abortion provider, and the post only did mention one tweet. But, then again, I have already judged your interpretation of OB’s post as incorrect. Thus, I’m more inclined to accept OB’s description of over-tweeting (#32) than yours of harrassment. Based on what you and she have said about what she actually did, it sounds more like being obnoxious than harassing, and the easy fix for that, as the good doctor seems to have known, is to block the annoyance.
It was maybe on the border between obnoxious and harassment.
Lady Mondegreen @57,
Yes agreed. Though it’s not exclusively about limiting only female agency is it? Don’t these same MRAs and religious conservatives try to limit trans, gender queer, non binary agency as well? You mentioned the Duggars, have you ever heard what they had to say about trans people for instance?
That’s true enough but “other pregnant people (who are not women)” will not be beneficiaries of this double standard, will they? Won’t they will also be targeted and affected by these attempts at denying sexual and reproductive rights? In which case we just do not understand why is there a need to subdivide folks into so many camps (or put them into so many boxes, or substitute your own metaphor). United we stand (against a common threat) divided we fall.
Gender is a purely social construct and it’s a construct that we are normally quite critical of. So why should we insist on gendered language? Doesn’t that just serve to prop and perpetuate this purely social construct?
Ophelia,
Not that you owe anyone any answers but if you’d be willing to say we’d be very curious if you find “women and other pregnant people” (or some close variation thereof) to be agreeable. Would you have objections to that phrasing?
You’d think if Zvan were so concerned about being absolutely gender neutral in our communications about reproduction that she would join those of us who speak out for the abolition of gender. Because that would solve the problem, no?
Well, the actual record should make clear what actually happened on Twitter.
@Ophelia:
I don’t think Leah Torres has been obscuring the fact that women are the main targets of contempt though – I’ve looked through her activism and publications online, and she’s made it pretty clear. You’ve drawn an analogy to All Lives Matter vs Black Lives Matter, but that feels off the mark for the reason that people like Torres fully acknowledge the misogyny at the heart of anti-abortion movements, and don’t try to deny it (whereas the All Lives Matter crowd are intentionally trying to downplay racism and are frequently doing so with racist motivations).
If Torres had instead said “women as well as trans men and non-gender binary people” instead of “people”, would that be better? It strikes me that opting for the latter rather than the former probably had more to do with the character limitations of Twitter than anything else.
@ Ophelia
I see Melby’s utility in this matter is not at an end. ;-)
(joke)
@We Are Plethora
I was responding to the specific comments of yours I blockquoted.
On the larger question, I’m still thinking.
No, they won’t. But they’ll be counted as either “women” or “men”–the double standard is by definition binary.
I can even imagine a scenario in which trans men are accepted as men and allowed abortions, and abortion is illegal for women.
Feminist paranoia, probably. But I think it is important that feminists (of all genders and none) not forget that throughout history, women have always been sidelined, subject to special, extra restrictive rules, and had our sexuality policed.
On the other hand it is worthwhile to signal to trans men and other genderqueer folk that they are welcome and will be treated with respect at a given clinic (hopefully all of them.)
Still thinking.
Lady Mondegreen @66,
Hope you don’t mind if we start with the end first.
Fair enough and thanks for being willing to consider what we have to say. How do you feel about “women and other pregnant people” or some variant thereof? Is there still anything to think about even with that option in consideration or does that solve the dilemma (as you see it)?
Yes understood. But those specific comments were not made in a vacuum so we were just tying our response back to the larger context about being more inclusive of all pregnant people as regards reproductive rights.
Hypothetical scenarios are not a good reason to justify treating it as an open question, in our opinion. At least not when there are real people who are impacted in the meantime.
Which feminists are at risk of forgetting this? Why would they forget? How would using “people” instead of “women” (as regards reproductive rights) cause that to happen? We’ve never met any feminist who was in any danger of forgetting this, have you? Nor have we met any who are reliant on the continued use of the word “women” instead of “people” in order to understand and to remember that women have always been treated as second class citizens.
Do you really think this risk is serious enough (i.e., has a high enough probability of occurring, and a significant enough impact if it does occur) to justify using less inclusive language?
More importantly the fact that women know what it’s like to have “always been sidelined, subject to special, extra restrictive rules, and had our sexuality policed” is all the more reason to be unequivocally against these things in any form and to any degree when imposed on another marginalized group.
Regarding this:
That’s simply not true, and the reason it’s not true is crucial. Please people, be willing to think about this.
I have tons of mostly Hispanic family and friends that often post Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter statements, and it is NOT because they deny that racism is at the heart of murderous police actions. It’s because they fear that centering black people and anti-black racism will somehow undermine the fight for other non-white victims of police brutality. They fail to realize that even if their concerns are valid, by promoting the Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter slogans they are only helping to further the racist agenda without actually furthering their own anti-racist goals.
It is not enough for them to acknowledge, on the side, that racism is the heart of the problem or that Black people are by far the biggest proportion of victims. The harm is done through the slogan and the political framing. Black people AND brown people are lumped in with everyone and therefore rendered — not exactly invisible, but anonymous and beige along with everyone else. And in terms of symbolism, white racists are let off the hook.
I think this is what proponents of “pregnant people” are doing, and I wish they would invest the hard work needed to think this through and come up with something better. I know “women and other pregnant people” is unwieldy. Maybe a genius wordsmith can come up with something that is better and actually inclusive rather than drab and impersonal. But we absolutely need something better.
I want to follow up to say that I still think it is perfectly acceptable to focus on women in the framing of the abortion debate. I haven’t seen a single convincing argument for how gender-neutral language will help make abortion care more accessible and welcoming to GNC people, just fuzzy thinking about how it helps people feel more included. The problem seems to lie with medical professionals and facilities that are hostile or ignorant to gender nonconformers’ needs, and it seems wishful in the extreme to think that switching activist language to gender neutrality is going to make a bit of difference to that problem.
That’s all from “We Are Plethora” now. I don’t want We Are Plethora commenting here because commenting as “we” creates confusion, plus it’s affected. Also We Are Plethora is not commenting entirely in good faith.
(I hope it’s not bad etiquette to keep commenting here. I won’t take it personally if you delete.)
I just read Stephanie Zvan’s post and holy fuck I can barely contain the rage and frustration that shit triggers in me, not just her post but the comments. People are so sure of themselves, they stop thinking except to rationalize their preconception. They’re disingenuous as shit (Jason acting like the post is really just a response to Pollitt, give me a fucking break). Some, like the person who claims this is all really about wanting to exclude trans people even if it means harming the abortion fight, are cynical through and through. They seem allergic to nuance — e.g. their insistence that every use of All Lives Matter is in bad faith and it can’t possibly be that many people promoting ALM are tragically ignorant or sadly unaware of what they’re doing, No, acknowledging that would be too close to acknowledging that maybe they’re committing the same error. Stephanie herself missed the point entirely. It’s not about challenging the default assumption that “people” means “men.” It’s about affirmatively putting WOMEN (or at least female bodies) front and center and refusing to give ground on that because giving ground on that helps let misogyny off the hook. But hey, whatever. It’s only half the world’s population that will suffer if they’re wrong.
Ugh, I don’t know how you deal, Ophelia.
Jennifer, of course it’s not bad etiquette to keep commenting here!
I’m fine with it.
I meant to write “people” there, not “feminists.” I was thinking of the framing of the issue. I don’t want anyone to forget. (I accidentally destroyed my original comment and had to rewrite. Ugh.)
I do think many people forget or deny it.
@Jennifer Chavez
That’s it. Thank you. I’ve been trying to articulate my concern with “pregnant people” and couldn’t satisfactorily do it. You hit the nail on the head.
A petition to unban “We are Plethora”, anyone?
Oh, come on, that’s not the reason to ban anyone! And really, it’s so charming!
I’m disappointed. Does it mean…is it supposed to mean that…I wasn’t the only one tempted to ask “Godfrey Elfwick, is that you?”
[Seriously now: if I had my own blog, I would have no idea what to do. My thoughts on this end invariably in disaster. They go on like “on the one hand … on the other hand …”; but just after “on the fiftieth hand” I feel too much like the goddess Kali and I give up.]
I stopped allowing Plethora to comment long ago, because Plethora is just irritating. I got fed up with her him them those. Plethora didn’t contribute anything, and wasted time and attention with coat-trailing. I allowed P to comment for awhile yesterday and then I stopped.
It’s my blog. I get to curate the comments the way I want to. Also, Plethora is busy shitting on me in other places, so I don’t feel like welcoming Plethora here. It was the same with various commenters from Pharyngula – they would comment here and then shit on me there. Nope, not interested in that.
Speaking of curating comments, you might want to take a look at “Mancheeze,” from whom I get a strong whiff of troll, or more specifically, false-flag shit-stirrer.
Okay, thanks for this response. So if I’m understanding, “women as well as trans men and non-gender binary people” would be good because it’s centering women while still acknowledging the existence of others who are affected. ie.
[…] In other words, all together now: if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. […]