How the erosion of LGBT rights effects female sex based rights.

So I'm asking you if the issues close to their heart is women's rights why does the prominent global right wing attacks on women's rights not factor into it for them? I told you why I think it is. Why do you think?

Yes but the medical guidelines are based on peer reviewed medical evidence and shouldn't be swayed by political opinion or "democracy".

''Housing men in women’s prisons is California’s progressive patriarchy.''
CDCR Confirms Pregnancies After Women Housed with Male Rapists
(California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)

https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-california-womens-prison-cdcr-confirms-pregnancy/

I think you are talking about semantics here. Women are obviously not prosecuted for seeking an abortion before 24 weeks. If they want one, they can get one.

You seem very sure that you are right about the thoughts and motivations of some public figures: 'It's so simply obvious', 'Unless you have a better reason' etc etc. Have you ever considered that they have got their own fish to fry? That they are not primarily concerned with the internal life of people who quote them? That they are concentrating on the issue closest to their hearts, and not on making inventories of the views of people who agree with them on one issue?

As I said, purity spiral.

Neglect (insufficient feeding) is already grounds for social services intervention.

There is no evidence that whatever it is that men produce is of equivalent nutritional value to mothers’ milk, or to formula, and plenty of evidence of risks.

Domperidone is used off label, to increase milk supply when all other options have been exhausted, for a short period only. It is also associated with an increased risk of cardiac events when taken for its licensed indication.

Longer term use in men (as would be needed to continue the supply) increases the risk to the men themselves (his choice) and to the baby of a) side effects (it is excreted in small quantities in breast milk) and b) inadequate nutrition because of less than optimal composition and quantity.

I think it would be unethical to prescribe it anyway, and more so if the man is intending to attempt to breastfeed a child.

And don’t be cherrypicking studies that suggest the composition may be OK. They are poor quality studies and the bar should be pretty fucking high where the sole source of nutrition for a small human is concerned, don’t you think?

Being able to find a doctor who will perform a procedure or prescribe a medicine should never be the only criteria for whether that treatment is allowed though. Most medics act ethically but there will always be some who don't, including for ideological or financial reasons.

We have laws and standards governing medical practice, and in a democracy we get to voice an opinion on what those rules should be.

I'm sure that sounded like a uniquely clever quip in your head.

Ok so we agree that people have the bodily autonomy and they may do things during pregnancy in particular that we.dont agree with but it is between them.and their doctor. Regarding your last question though,what do you actually think should happen? I feel uncomfortable with lots of things people do or expose their children to but I accept that the state can't be taking away children from people unless they're causing significant harm for example.

I believe in bodily autonomy for women (and, indeed, men), absolutely.

Women can take testosterone in pregnancy if they can find a doctor to prescribe them. I think they are stupid and selfish and possibly delusional, assuming there is no genuine medical need for testosterone, but their body, their choice.

Men can take wrong sex hormones and lactation inducing medicines if they can find a doctor to prescribe them, but I do not believe that they should be allowed to then force another human being to drink whatever their breasts produce. What about the rights of the child?

As someone who claims to support women's sex based rights I'm surprised it's not obvious to you that we live in a patriarchal society that wants to control women's bodies and that's why historically abortion was completely banned. The legal limits are not enough progress. Why not decriminalise abortion up to 24 weeks? Because then all women would have the freedom to simply seek an early abortion if they needed or wanted one, and then we couldn't punish the ones who can't jump through the hoops. It's not easy to access an abortion provider to get permission from two doctors when you're being controlled by your abusive partner who won't let you leave your home. It's not reasonable that a woman who has discovered she is pregnant at the same time as learning she has cancer in her uterus needs "permission" from two doctors to have an abortion. Whether she can easily obtain that is irrelevant - it's incredibly patronising and that women cannot simply seek healthcare for their bodies without getting the opinion of two Doctors that it's in her interests.

I'm going to stop engaging with you now as I'm not personally interested in the opinions on women's sex based rights who don't support the full bodily autonomy of women in their healthcare.

What is the point in having a legal limit if there are no consequences for breaching it?

Decriminalising abortion means it's a matter of healthcare and women cannot be prosecuted for seeking healthcare. The current legal limit has requirements that may not be possible if you are a vulnerable abused woman who may have to resort to ordering abortion pills on line for example which could mean she faces prosecution and in fact this does happen to women. That you're jumping to extreme examples of late term abortions of healthy pregnancies is a typical right wing antichoice talking point that completely ignores the data. The vast majority of abortions happen extremely early on and later term abortions are very rare and usually taking place in tragic circumstances in a very much wanted pregnancy so no I don't think any woman facing that devastating experience should have the threat of "legal repercussions" hanging over her. We don't have any data showing that late term abortions of healthy pregnancies are happening or would be happening willy nilly and using it as a reason to not decriminalise abortion and deny women bodily autonomy is fear mongering and also risking women's lives in the process.

If I'm honest, whilst I wouldn't start messing with the current limits, if I were creating abortion laws for a brand new country I wouldn't put the limit as late as 24 weeks.

But the point is, I think that people who like to imply that politicians such as Miriam Cates are trying to restrict women's abortion rights are being highly disingenuous.

Yes and it's a dangerous game to start messing with the current limits as there may well be backlash.
I imagine more people would be in agreement with leaving limits as they are, or even lowering them, than would be OK with abortions on demand at any point during a healthy pregnancy.

What we have is fine, leave it alone.

Abortion is, de facto, legal up until 24 weeks in a healthy pregnancy. That is the most generous time limit in Europe.

What does decriminalising abortion mean, in practice?

Because if it means that someone can procure the abortion of a healthy 35 week foetus and suffer no legal consequences, I don't think many people support that.

Oh please, you're comparing apples to oranges. There is a huge difference between you and someone else both believe in X. When that other person is also a threat to women's rights that you claim to be a public campaigner for you and you don't also address that person as being a danger to women, that's bullshit. Why aren't they doing that? It's so simply obvious that it's because they enjoy the support of a lot of them same followers and they don't want to lose them by publicly calling out right wing anti choice politicians and groups and no longer having the same fanatics retweeting their GC views. Unless you have a better reason why they aren't? I mean the attacks on abortion rights has been major news and is a huge issue facing women. JK for example hasn't used her platform to focus on highlighting this -why? She's a defender of women's rights. Why isn't she using her huge platform to fact check these awful right wing politicians passing real laws which endanger womens lives?

I said she doesn't support decriminalising abortion and you responded to confirm she doesn't support decriminalising abortion and somehow that means I'm disingenuous? Ok....

I have just responded to the quote I got?
The fact that you rest of you wanna discuss amongst yourselves without quoting me while still ignoring the issue at hand, suit yourselves. No one has provided any defense to the OPs point that eroding LGBT rights in hand harms women's rights. No one has has disproven my point that there are prominent GC campaigners associating, being quiet about, or out right supporting people who want to attack women's rights while they agree with eachother on the trans issue. All I asked is why? Why can't they fight for sex based rights without the support of people who endanger womens rights? Why can't they also call out those people and their threat to women's rights? And instead you wanna try and detract and zone in on me providing you with a particular tweet of JK Rowling for example attacking trans people because you know that whatever I post you will say you don't think that it's anti trans. All because you don't want to discuss her supporting abusive men or being very quiet about the support she receives from right wing anti choice religious people. I said I think it's dangerous and that's really upset some of you for some reason but no one has actually responded with anything to counter the point that there are sections of politics and society that absolutely do not support women's rights particularly bodily autonomy and we should not be associating with them AT ALL if we believe in creating a better world for women.

Well now you're back, I believe there's eleventy billion questions that you haven't addressed

I'm sorry that some of us had plans on a lovely summer's evening 😂

He quoted her while blocking the passing of the Equality Act. It was on the news. She can't get off twitter so don't pretend she didn't see it. This isn't some random retweet this is a republican anti choice senator using her words publicly to push for religious exemptions, the same religious exemptions these politicians want to use fight against women's rights.

Oh it's always the same with these types.

Anyway, they've gone awfully quiet now ...

You are worried about LGTB rights because you think American misogynists might try to protect your daughter's reproductive capability by telling her not to go to space?