all 31 comments

[–]meisthebigdumbTransracial BlackX Rockgender Bispecies[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (1 child)

Full article because paywall:

Perhaps it makes sense that women — those supposedly compliant and agreeable, self-sacrificing and everything-nice creatures — were the ones to finally bring our polarized country together.

Because the far right and the far left have found the one thing they can agree on: Women don’t count.

The right’s position here is the better known, the movement having aggressively dedicated itself to stripping women of fundamental rights for decades. Thanks in part to two Supreme Court justices who have been credibly accused of abusive behavior toward women, Roe v. Wade, nearly 50 years a target, has been ruthlessly overturned.

Far more bewildering has been the fringe left jumping in with its own perhaps unintentionally but effectively misogynist agenda. There was a time when campus groups and activist organizations advocated strenuously on behalf of women. Women’s rights were human rights and something to fight for. Though the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified, legal scholars and advocacy groups spent years working to otherwise establish women as a protected class.

But today, a number of academics, uber-progressives, transgender activists, civil liberties organizations and medical organizations are working toward an opposite end: to deny women their humanity, reducing them to a mix of body parts and gender stereotypes.

As reported by my colleague Michael Powell, even the word “women” has become verboten. Previously a commonly understood term for half the world’s population, the word had a specific meaning tied to genetics, biology, history, politics and culture. No longer. In its place are unwieldy terms like “pregnant people,” “menstruators” and “bodies with vaginas.”

Planned Parenthood, once a stalwart defender of women’s rights, omits the word “women” from its home page. NARAL Pro-Choice America has used “birthing people” in lieu of “women.” The American Civil Liberties Union, a longtime defender of women’s rights, last month tweeted its outrage over the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade as a threat to several groups: “Black, Indigenous and other people of color, the L.G.B.T.Q. community, immigrants, young people.”

It left out those threatened most of all: women. Talk about a bitter way to mark the 50th anniversary of Title IX.

Editors’ Picks

How Louis Theroux Became a ‘Jiggle Jiggle’ Sensation at Age 52

A Chinese Telescope Did Not Find an Alien Signal. The Search Continues.

The Existential Crossroads of Bathing Suit Shopping Continue reading the main story The noble intent behind omitting the word “women” is to make room for the relatively tiny number of transgender men and people identifying as nonbinary who retain aspects of female biological function and can conceive, give birth or breastfeed. But despite a spirit of inclusion, the result has been to shove women to the side.

Women, of course, have been accommodating. They’ve welcomed transgender women into their organizations. They’ve learned that to propose any space just for biological women in situations where the presence of males can be threatening or unfair — rape crisis centers, domestic abuse shelters, competitive sports — is currently viewed by some as exclusionary. If there are other marginalized people to fight for, it’s assumed women will be the ones to serve other people’s agendas rather than promote their own.

But, but, but. Can you blame the sisterhood for feeling a little nervous? For wincing at the presumption of acquiescence? For worrying about the broader implications? For wondering what kind of message we are sending to young girls about feeling good in their bodies, pride in their sex and the prospects of womanhood? For essentially ceding to another backlash?

Women didn’t fight this long and this hard only to be told we couldn’t call ourselves women anymore. This isn’t just a semantic issue; it’s also a question of moral harm, an affront to our very sense of ourselves.

It wasn’t so long ago — and in some places the belief persists — that women were considered a mere rib to Adam’s whole. Seeing women as their own complete entities, not just a collection of derivative parts, was an important part of the struggle for sexual equality.

But here we go again, parsing women into organs. Last year the British medical journal The Lancet patted itself on the back for a cover article on menstruation. Yet instead of mentioning the human beings who get to enjoy this monthly biological activity, the cover referred to “bodies with vaginas.” It’s almost as if the other bits and bobs — uteruses, ovaries or even something relatively gender-neutral like brains — were inconsequential. That such things tend to be wrapped together in a human package with two X sex chromosomes is apparently unmentionable.

“What are we, chopped liver?” a woman might be tempted to joke, but in this organ-centric and largely humorless atmosphere, perhaps she would be wiser not to.

Those women who do publicly express mixed emotions or opposing views are often brutally denounced for asserting themselves. (Google the word “transgender” combined with the name Martina Navratilova, J.K. Rowling or Kathleen Stock to get a withering sense.) They risk their jobs and their personal safety. They are maligned as somehow transphobic or labeled TERFs, a pejorative that may be unfamiliar to those who don’t step onto this particular Twitter battlefield. Ostensibly shorthand for “trans-exclusionary radical feminist,” which originally referred to a subgroup of the British feminist movement, “TERF” has come to denote any woman, feminist or not, who persists in believing that while transgender women should be free to live their lives with dignity and respect, they are not identical to those who were born female and who have lived their entire lives as such, with all the biological trappings, societal and cultural expectations, economic realities and safety issues that involves.

But in a world of chosen gender identities, women as a biological category don’t exist. Some might even call this kind of thing erasure.

When not defining women by body parts, misogynists on both ideological poles seem determined to reduce women to rigid gender stereotypes. The formula on the right we know well: Women are maternal and domestic — the feelers and the givers and the “Don’t mind mes.” The unanticipated newcomers to such retrograde typecasting are the supposed progressives on the fringe left. In accordance with a newly embraced gender theory, they now propose that girls — gay or straight — who do not self-identify as feminine are somehow not fully girls. Gender identity workbooks created by transgender advocacy groups for use in schools offer children helpful diagrams suggesting that certain styles or behaviors are “masculine” and others “feminine.”

Didn’t we ditch those straitened categories in the ’70s?

The women’s movement and the gay rights movement, after all, tried to free the sexes from the construct of gender, with its antiquated notions of masculinity and femininity, to accept all women for who they are, whether tomboy, girly girl or butch dyke. To undo all this is to lose hard-won ground for women — and for men, too.

Those on the right who are threatened by women’s equality have always fought fiercely to put women back in their place. What has been disheartening is that some on the fringe left have been equally dismissive, resorting to bullying, threats of violence, public shaming and other scare tactics when women try to reassert that right. The effect is to curtail discussion of women’s issues in the public sphere.

But women are not the enemy here. Consider that in the real world, most violence against trans men and women is committed by men but, in the online world and in the academy, most of the ire at those who balk at this new gender ideology seems to be directed at women.

It’s heartbreaking. And it’s counterproductive.

Tolerance for one group need not mean intolerance for another. We can respect transgender women without castigating females who point out that biological women still constitute a category of their own — with their own specific needs and prerogatives.

If only women’s voices were routinely welcomed and respected on these issues. But whether Trumpist or traditionalist, fringe left activist or academic ideologue, misogynists from both extremes of the political spectrum relish equally the power to shut women up.

[–]xoenix[S] 19 insightful - 12 fun19 insightful - 11 fun20 insightful - 12 fun -  (3 children)

Meltdown on Reddit.

Choice comment:

On brand for a pro-Hitler “news source.” Article just oozes FART propaganda and red herrings. From a biologist, fuck them, fuck them all, go back to high school and relearn anatomy/endocrinology/genetics properly.

[–]Haylstorm 22 insightful - 9 fun22 insightful - 8 fun23 insightful - 9 fun -  (0 children)

Real reddit moment lol.

"This doesn't agree with me therefore it's wrong and evil." Committing the grave sin of...having a different opinion. You know they're not even a real biologist either, just saying that for fake clout.

[–][deleted] 19 insightful - 6 fun19 insightful - 5 fun20 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Why does every TERF article read with exactly the same talking points and cadence? I swear there’s a bot farm spitting these out.

Probably because we are all trying to make the same basic point: that male and female are actual, real, immutable categories despite your gender feefees.

[–]Objecting_Sphere 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My high school taught "anatomy/endocrinology/genetics properly". My degree in biochemistry and minor in neurology also covered these topics extensively. Guess what? The science supports biological sex in the conventional sense.

This idea that "the science says" there's no such thing as biological sex is political bullshit. Sure, it's possible to have an intersex condition. It's possible to have opposite sex characteristics. But biology has extensively documented the sexual dimorphism of our species.

I think things would have gone better if biologists manned up and referred to developmental defects properly - as defects. Not that the afflicted people should feel shame or anything, but intersex conditions are fundamentally developmental or genetic defects. Not a part of the healthy variation in our species.

Similarly, all forms of body dysphoria are mental illnesses. Understand that dysphoric people often present with comorbid depression and/or autism. We need to treat dysphoria similarly to depression, not like the sufferers "were born in the wrong body" whatever that means.

[–]IMissPorn 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It was a bit weird to lead in with abortion, at least in the way she did it; as if the two issues were similar. Still, it's good to see a mainstream (i.e. leftist) publication dared to share this.

[–]xoenix[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I assume she's a typical (of 10+ years ago) liberal who just doesn't buy into gender theory. If it's any consolation, the comparison is seriously triggering the TRAs.

[–]Objecting_Sphere 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you're going to write about women's issues in the NYT these days, it is mandatory to lead with Roe vs Wade. That said, I actually appreciate what the author is trying to demonstrate here: People who care about traditional feminist issues, like abortion, should also be concerned about the way trans activists want to erase the idea of women, making everything gender-neutral at the expense of women.

[–]IkeConn 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

All it will take is one MSM outlet to take a stand and call this gay tranny fad what it is. A fad. The queers are enjoying their 15 minutes of flame but all fads die.

[–]Objecting_Sphere 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

On one hand, yes, it's a fad and the vast majority of the population feels in their guts that this stuff is weird.

On the other hand, colleges are cranking out activists, often actually majoring in gender studies. These people go straight into HR and journalism, entrenching themselves in the industry. They're in deep - before they stop pushing for this stuff, they first need to change their ideology, then change their career. No one does such an about-face.

I think we're going to live with this stuff for the foreseeable future. It's the new religion of the elite. It's where the power is. I only hope it goes the same way as other religious entrenchment. Maybe in a few generations we'll have a groundswell of truth seekers denouncing this stuff as the stuffy moralizing of their ancestors. Would be hilarious if something like the new atheism movement happened to gender ideology.

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

"The Far Right and Far Left Agree on One Thing: Women Don’t Count"

Yeah, that title doesn't fit the article. The article describes how the entire left (including its big, apathetic Kony 2012-style center) has fallen under the transvestites' spell.

[–]JasonCarswellSisyphus / Ouroboros 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

I know lots of women who can count.

[–]r2d2_21 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Isn't the far left in support of the transgender movement? Or amI missing something?

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's the basic thrust of the article- how the political left's embrace of transgenderism is bad for women. I wouldn't say it's just the far left. Transgenderism has leached into the bland, vague leftism that we've come to just assume is a prerequisite for employability in "developed" countries. Corporations don't just stop at "LGB" when they genuflect before the altar of Pride Month, anymore.

My larger point was that the part about the political right (brief mention of Roe v. Wade) seems tacked on, and insufficient to justify the article's title. It's kind of like, we're supposed to already know that the political right doesn't care about women, and NYT is careful to make sure that part's still mentioned in passing. I mean, they'd hate to be mistaken for Republicans.

I suspect an editor asked for that part to be added to the article (and the authors of news articles seldom have input into headlines anyway).

[–]Chipit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In support of woman erasure.

They can't even define the word "woman" any more. Because it exposes how incoherent their ideology is. Hence the frantic attempts to censor Matt Walsh's movie in which he asks a bunch of far left "What is a woman?" and lets them hang themselves with their own rope. It's very damaging and instead of realizing this and changing, they've got to censor.

[–]raven9 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

Id like to know What kind of sick mentality ever declared that killing babies is a womans right in the first place. That's the part I don't get. Have you ever searched google images for "aborted foetus"? Second trimester abortions are not a bunch of cells. They are brutally murdered tiny people with tiny hands and fingers and they feel pain while they are torn apart by the abortionists tools.

[–]cephyrious 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It's an extension of bodily autonomy rights. If a finger nail clipping of mine could save 100 lives, I am within my right to deny anyone who asks me to give it up. I have full and final rights to my body. So, if someone can decide to not give a nail clipping to save 100 people, why shouldn't a woman be allowed to not give a whole plethora of bodily resources to sustain a life for months in the womb? I think this is the logic it relies upon.

I am confused by the US divide here, though. Usually, the right is pro freedom, against rules and regulations, and abortion feels like a freedom that they advocate removed by rules and regulation. Also, the US right seems to be in favour of less immigration and naturalization, more gerrymandering etc to keep the voting populace favourable, but if there were no abortions that would potentially increase demographics that tend to lean left (planned parenthood was started by people wanting to curb the black population after all), so this seems somewhat counter-intuitive. Also, if the unborn child is so important, why is the right so unwilling to increase maternal care and welfare, like proper maternity leave. If the nuclear family is important, parental leave like practiced in for instance Scandinavia, is very healthy to establish strong family bonds.

[–]proc0 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have full and final rights to my body

I was not my mom's body at any point in time EVER. She doesn't own my life. At the literal second my dad's sperm entered that egg, she had a responsibility to take care of me until I can survive on my own. This is the reality of life. Women have a duty to take care of defenseless babies, not kill them. I never chose to be born, and I would not have consented to being aborted. I assume pro-choicers would not have wanted to be aborted... yet now they want to kick the ladder of life behind them and prevent others from being born. It's fucking psychotic.

This isn't about freedom, just like killing another human isn't about freedom. You are not free to kill, but you are free to abstain and prevent pregnancy, or to at least settle down in a stable relationship before doing an act that very clearly can result in a new life.

Obviously exceptions exist, but just aborting because of financial reasons is ridiculous. By extension parents should kill their children if one day they can't take care of them anymore. A fetus/embryo deserves human rights!!

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

I hope you get to watch someone you love starve. Not trying to be mean, but you seem very naive and sheltered.

[–]raven9 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, if someone can decide to not give a nail clipping to save 100 people, why shouldn't a woman be allowed to not give a whole plethora of bodily resources to sustain a life for months in the womb? I think this is the logic it relies upon.

I dont think that is a valid analogy. Abortion is not to deprive the foetus of resources, abortion is a physical assault on the foetus that actively and deliberately kills it. Also there is the fact of criminal negligence which is to allow harm to happen to someone else either by action or inaction when a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others.

[–]UrethraFranklin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Usually, the right is pro freedom, against rules and regulations, and abortion feels like a freedom that they advocate removed by rules and regulation.

The right also tends to be largely religious, typically Christian, and they treat sex as only being permittable if one aims to have children, or are willing to accept that is the possible result. Abortion, to them, is an attempt to avoid the consequences of sex. Some don't even support the use of contraceptives like condoms.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What a ridiculous third-hand report. In the future please do not strawman enemy opinions. Instead steelman them, present the best possible version of your enemy's opinion. At least show that you understand them first.

[–]UrethraFranklin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't see how it's "strawmanning" to point out the rights position on sexual matters, unless you have evidence that I'm incorrect in my statement?

I'd really like to see you counter my claims, if they are apparently so incorrect, otherwise it seems like you're simply attacking me with baseless rhetoric.

[–]Objecting_Sphere 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You have to understand that in the US, the right is religious and the left isn't. This gives them different worldviews.

The religious perspective is generally that the fetus already has a soul and thus is a person - and killing a dependent is murder no matter how taxing their life is to your body. So while the right likes rights, they can't abide what they see as child murder.

The left doesn't believe in souls, generally. They take the more biological view that you aren't really a person until fairly late in development. The fetus is just a fetus, not a person until very late - and having a heartbeat or neurological activity makes the fetus a living animal, but still not developed enough to be a person. So it's acceptable to remove it if it's not very developed.

Personally I take the latter view, but if I was raised to believe that fetuses had souls I can imagine being pro-life instead.

[–]wylanderuk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Keep your knickers on, legs closed or use birth control...

Problem solved for majority of women.

[–]LyingSpirit472 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The answer- abortion rights became an all or nothing thing. Even saying "it's a medical procedure and the procedure should be legal, if only for the no doubt about it 'the mother will die in childbirth, and the fetus is dead. It's dead, it'll be born dead. There's no heartbeat, no brainwaves...if you believe in a soul, it has no soul. Oh, and by the same rules/Bible reading the religious people claim it's evil to have the procedure be legal, the second it gets born and is instantly pronounced dead, it won't have had a chance to accept Jesus Christ as its lord and savior during its technical millisecond 'life', meaning the fetus will be condemned to burn in Hell for all eternity if you force it to be carried to term' is somehow not enough for either side. On the pro-choice side you have to have "nope, anything, even if it's a whim, have random abortions to people at will no matter what", and the pro-life side would respond to that example as '...well, if the baby's born dead, it'll just become an angel and sit on a cloud and look at Jesus all day, while the worthless whore who should've kept their legs closed gets the punishment they deserve.'

[–]r2d2_21 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

nope, anything, even if it's a whim, have random abortions to people at will no matter what

The way I see it, if you allow one kind of abortion you have to allow all kinds of it. If you start to police who gets an abortion and who doesn't, eventually you'll have legitimate cases being denied the procedure and risking their lives, and in the end it would turn to the same as banning all abortions.

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. Ultimately, it is the issue- you have to allow it all or you have to allow none of it...and considering it's ultimately a medical procedure and needs to be legal on that alone, you have to defer to "allow it all."

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It is modern day child sacrifice

[–]proc0 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Women didn’t fight this long and this hard only to be told we couldn’t call ourselves women anymore. This isn’t just a semantic issue; it’s also a question of moral harm, an affront to our very sense of ourselves.

Holy shit, the irony. This is literally all women's fault. They pushed hard because of their empathetic nature. They wanted to be the protecting mother to the poor, oppressed gays and trans people. You reap what you fucking sow. Of course I won't hold my breath for them to admit this.

Leftist women: you wanted freedom, so now you are on your own. "Toxic" males can no longer help you against the other "women".

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Hoes mad