you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]aloris342 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The slicing apart of the plain, universal understanding of the word "women" into individualized bodily functions (menstruator, chestfeeder, vulva haver, birthing person) is precisely targeted at preventing us from engaging in political or social advocacy for our common interests. Not only does it (by separating us into disparate groups by biological minutiae) prevent us advocating for our common interests in the future, it also strips away the fruits of political advocacy that women have already achieved, hence nullifying legitimate political activity. It is a method of political disenfranchisement. That so many women fail to see this is strange to me. Why bother electing or petitioning to our elected representatives at all, when any law they write can simply be nullified in the future by redefining the basic meanings of words? The consequences of the legal erasure of women (by allowing males to define themselves into the legal category of women at will) go far beyond merely the consequences to ourselves. This is significant for our entire system of representation.

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks!

To Americans: In that vein, I'm worried about the US Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), but haven't researched what's happening with it yet. If the Equality Act passes, what happens to the intent (sorry, I don't know what the legal term is) of the ERA?