“Reproductive justice is not just a “women’s issue” it’s an *everyone* issue” - Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

I wonder if there will be a backlash against a term like "menusturator" by trans men/non binary. If you're a trans men you presumably want to see yourself as different to women rather than still lumped together in a group with the sex you want to get away from.

No.

It's a women's issue.

These are all just euphemisms for words that are unmentionable / verboten. Which relate to one half of the population only.

People are not expected to think oho right yes menstruators and no more. They are expected to think oh right that means women and girls. No one thinks in terms of people with uteruses etc.

It's an extra step with a translation involved.
It is almost always biologically inept.. Dismissing the reality of female biology again. Well I never.
Plenty of people won't understand it.
And when things are internal unless there's a reason otherwise, you don't actually know that you have them. You assume because you know you're female.

It's such utter drivel.

And all because linking female biology to women and girls is unacceptable now.

Some women do carry on having what seems like periods when Pg. And when bf. Etc.

So this is an issue for some women breastfeeding but not others.

Eh?!

Oops harpy got there first!

Saying abortion rights is an issue for menstruating people means that women move in and out of the group it's an issue for.

So women who

Have had menopause
Girls who have not started periods yet. And move input into that group at different ages.
Others who are not impacted by abortion rights sometimes/ often
Those who exercise a lot
Pregnant
BF
On certain types of hormonal contraception
Etc etc

I mean in the end no one can say with certainty who is affected as it's an ever shifting ill defined group.
And if course if you haven't started yet or are over menopause then nothing to do with you.

Bloody idiots.

Not a half second thought to what they are saying. Ever.

“What this is about is controlling women's bodies and controlling people who are not gender men,”

That’s a quote from her from one of the articles. And maybe I’m just confused but this doesn’t even make sense within her own logic does it? People who are “not gender men” would presumably include transwomen and exclude transmen? When actually the abortion law has no effect on transwomen and does control the bodies of transmen.

Again with the utter uselessness of all these gynaecological terms for women/ girls. Most are either but going to be understood by many or completely ignore the actual biological processes they reference.

So

This is an issue for menstruating people.

The periods STOPPING is the most common thing that makes a woman think she might be pregnant you total utter plonker.

So it EXCLUDES the exact group that are the ones who might want to have an abortion.

What a load of old cock.

So utterly utterly thick.

Penis holders!

Lol

About right though

Wishing you growth indeed. Wishing you'd grow up.

The sheer idiocy of her tweet bemoaning the impact of abortion restrictions on "menstruating people". Pregnant women aren't in that category, are they therefore unaffected?

They would still get pushback, but it would look pretty lame. It would also start to beg the question as to what to call these people formally known as women, on the basis of their shared biology.

I think they know this, and that's why. I don't think Ocasio Cortez is a good faith actor, any more than say Laurie Penny.

They would still get pushback, but it would look pretty lame. It would also start to beg the question as to what to call these people formally known as women, on the basis of their shared biology.

PlanDeRaccordement

Sounds a lot like Mhari Black the working class Weegie girl from the chip shop. Or not.

I never liked AOC from the start when she was lying about being raised as a poor Brooklyn orphan. She actually grew up in a wealthy suburb outside NYC, with a mother and father. The father owned an architect business and his income never dropped below $500k per year. He paid for her university costs in full, although he passed when she was on her second year. But her mother is still alive. Her mother is portrayed as a hardworking cleaner, when in fact her mother owned a cleaning business and wasn’t actually scrubbing toilets herself.

(Apologies to anyone who was left out of my paragraph to refer to anyone who is female without using female or woman. I know that there is a great many who were.)

I think it's about balance. I'd have had no problem with her saying 'and to be clear I want to acknowledge that pregnancy also affects some trans and non binary people' but then talking about women. She was making a strong and clear point about the axis of female oppression in rape and abortion being connected but it got lost because she ended up giving so much emphasis to trans/non binary etc that they became the central focus of what she was saying. When in reality trans people are a tiny minority of those affected by unwanted pregnancy.

Unless the word woman was replaced with ‘uterus havers, vagina havers, vulva owners and all those who may have had them in the past’.

But this excludes females who were born without wombs. Biologically female in every way (no DSD), just missing a part of their anatomy.

I am also certain that is we switch wholescale to only being called menstruators, ovary havers, sperm ejectors (oops… producers), prostrate havers… and never again mention men or women, this would be entirely unsatisfactory for those identifying as another gender. Because they couldn’t ever claim the language.

I really don’t believe those pushing for this ‘inclusive’ language thought this through to it final outcome. Although, I am sure then that there would be many more uterus havers than there actually is in real life as those words would also be used for people who are denying biological reality. And those who are female without uteruses would be left completely ignored. Unless the word woman was replaced with ‘uterus havers, vagina havers, vulva owners and all those who may have had them in the past’. Hard to fit on a masthead but there we are.

The dehumanizing language has ceded the playing field to some parties because it's politicians such as AOC in no position to discuss these matters clearly.

As Jane Clare Jones says in her thread:

How long will these fools insist on trying to fight a massive assault on female ppl's reproductive rights while denying that female ppl exist and are the ones who get pregnant?? Liberal America…you are tying yourselves in knots to mount a defence from the edge of the pitch blindfolded with your hands tied behind your backs.
It's RISIBLE.
And what is doubly risible, is that confronted with this absolutely crystal clear demonstration of male power over female bodies, and why you need to be able to name material sex as an axis of power, while women are LOSING THEIR BASIC FREEDOMS, you still think it's more important to destroy the recognition of sex in public life in order to serve the interests of males who want to appropriate that class (oh, familiar) than it is to use the words to describe what is actually happening and to defend women.*

WOMEN.

The ones who get pregnant.

SAY IT.

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1436072234926415878?s=20

There aren't as many opportunities, given male physical limits, but surely in terms of pregnancy, abortion and fatherhood, then inseminator, ejaculator, etc, should become common place.

And if the word man is used, then a definition needs to be sought immediately. For clarification.

I would like to know what she considers to be a feminist issue.

Genuinely.