Well, it’s happened... the trans activists have waded into the 8th amendment issue in Ireland

[AngeloMysterioso]

And are apparently pushing for the language in the repeal legislation to be “gender neutral”.

Quote from the article-

“Despite what some may believe, men can become pregnant too. There are tens of thousands of transgender men and non-binary people in Ireland who can conceive, and when speaking about reproductive healthcare, we must always be mindful of that.

“It’s imperative that newly written legislation uses inclusive language. By including this, trans men and non binary people will not hit legal barriers should they need to receive an abortion. By using the term pregnant people in new legislation, as well as protecting women, we are also protecting and respecting all gender identities should a crisis pregnancy occur.”

So. That’s nice. Thousands upon thousands of women have suffered, many have died, because of bullshit like the 8th amendment. And after fighting so hard for so fucking long and finally winning the right to bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, if the TAs get their way, we get to be referred to as pregnant people

I’m a bit of a TERF at the best of times but this is beyond fucking insulting. Savita Halappanavar wasn’t a pregnant person. Michelle Harte wasn’t a pregnant person. Sheila Hodges wasn’t a pregnant person.

If the TDs capitulate and let this happen I will be really pissed off.

It is not the same.

Gender neutral language was supposed be used to stop the presumption of being male, where the person could be interchangably a male or female, eg a male or female doctor, and sex is of no consequence/ relevance; where referring only to men was part of excluding women from certain aspects of society.

You cannot extend this argument to situations where sex differences do have consequences/ relevance eg medical, sports etc... and er, being pregant.

Am I the only one here old enough to remember the fight to have all the he/hims in documents made gender neutral? We weren't trying to stop men from being men, only allow for women to be included. This is the same.

Another in support of this statement.

Damn new pages.

I was referring to the post by Stompy and agreed with Lweji that said Am I the only one here old enough to remember the fight to have all the he/hims in documents made gender neutral? We weren't trying to stop men from being men, only allow for women to be included. This is the same.

My argument that is not the same is as above.

maybe it should say pregnant women or gestators and see how they like that

So women can also suffer from prostate, testicular and penile cancer

Good to know I shall check my testicles I can’t seem to find them but shall need to now having been informed it’s also an issue for me

hope they are fighting with such passions to get literature changed for these cancers that I thought until now only men could get

Am I the only one here old enough to remember the fight to have all the he/hims in documents made gender neutral? We weren't trying to stop men from being men, only allow for women to be included. This is the same

Really? Like REEEEEAALLLY? Certainly not the same there at all... that was to ensure men and women were treated equal where there sex was of no difference.

That was based on equality

Whatnis being proposed now is based on a very few people’s personal experience of feeling that they were born the wrong sex. It’s an untruth to claim men can have babies or become pregnant

When is this utter nonsense going to end

"So women can also suffer from prostate, testicular and penile cancer"

No, Men, Transwomen and non-binary people can suffer from prostate, testicular and penile cancer.

There are tens of thousands of transgender men and non-binary people in Ireland who can conceive

In their arses there is! More like ten, the stupid fuckers.

What is the harm of using gender inclusive language? It would mean there is no risk of silly arguments being raised if a transgender person seeks an abortion. It does not take away from the rights of women. I don’t understand the outrage

Because you can't include men in womens health care. Anyone seeking an abortion is a woman, and we don't need to pretend that men get pregnant to accomodate peoples feelings. Men don't get pregnant, women do. Thats biology.

Well... if a woman changes her gender legally to be male, then seeks an abortion, an idiotic argument could be raised that this person isn’t allowed to have one under the legislation. That ridiculous (but possible) scenario could be cured by using inclusive language. From a legal perspective it seems right to head that off and say ‘person’, just to be sure any post-transition person is not denied access.

maybe it should say pregnant women or gestators and see how they like that

Didn’t want this to go unnoticed. I wonder how well that would go down?

How many trans men (under the current legal definition) does this affect? How many natal women are out there living as men who have got pregnant (as a trans man) and needed a termination in Ireland? I would hazard a guess you could count them on the fingers of one hand.

All the vocal trans activists I'm aware of are trans women. I just googled famous trans people and of a list of about 100 people, 3 were FTM. Why are all the trans women jumping on this bandwagon when it doesn't affect them?

And before all the TERF accusations start flying about, I am absolutely fine with anyone living the life and as the person they choose to be. What I am not fine with is the constant boundary pushing and the changing of legal terms to the detriment of women. Natal women, who do not need the highly offensive CIS to determine their sex. We're just women. End of.

we’re just women end of

Amen to that

Thanks for that ScrubTheDecks

I shall call off the search for my lost/hidden testicles 😅 relieved that I don’t have to worry about that on top of smear tests

If there is one thing that leads to issues, it's unclear legislation and documents. The words the TAs want to use will just cause confusion in their efforts to... well, their efforts to who knows what.

Surely the point is not how many people will be affected but that the legislation needs to be drafted so that every woman can have access to an abortion. I have no idea how many women have legally changed their gender to male or how many will in the future. The trend for this is increasing. I would not want a single transgender person to be denied an abortion based on semantics. It seems prudent to get the wording right and future proof it now.

This does not harm women. It makes the legislation more robust which is a good thing. It will head off silly attempts to narrow the scope of the legislation. There is no possible way use of the word ‘person’ will add confusion.

@MiggeldyHiggins lol. You're spot on, no way there's 'tens of thousands' of transmen.
Love your name btw, I wonder if the child who mispelled Michael D realises how famous their mistake is

This is all becoming too ridiculous

🙄

I would not want a single transgender person to be denied an abortion based on semantics

Nobody is going to be. As if someone is going to rock up at their GP for an abortion pill, show GP their vagina and uterus with a foetus in it, and be told, sorry, not prescribing to you, you said your name is Mr Higgins, not Ms! Away with ye!

FFS. It's all such bullshit.

It isn’t about wording! If you are pregnant then medically you are a woman, then will be allowed an abortion. No medical professional would say, you can’t have one because you want to be a man.

There is no possible way use of the word ‘person’ will add confusion

The confusion is there already as only women can get pregnant. As a PP stated diluting the term "pregnant woman" could open up potential for the man who impregnated the woman to lay claim over that pregnancy. Another PP also stated that that pregnant woman can be kept with potential additional side notes to include transmen or non-binaries or etc.

This is exactly why I stated earlier that the term "woman" should always be seen as a term for "female adult" to prevent this confusion; especially in law and medicine.

There are already terms out there for transpeople to identify with - "transwomen" and "transmen". There is nothing wrong with being trans. TAs need to stop trying to eradicate transpeople by pushing them solely into "women" and "men" categories rather than recognising differences between sex and gender. One can be identified as a woman through sex or as a transman through gender?

Miggeldy

Maybe, or maybe anti-abortion activists could get wind of it and mount a legal challenge, or a doctor who does not want to perform an abortion uses this as an excuse to cause problems. I don’t know, but why leave it open? This is why so much work goes into getting the wording in legislation precisely correct. There is literally no downside to using the word ‘person’.

I understand the concerns women have about losing rights due to trans-activism. But this is nothing like that.

Because there is literally no downside for women I can only assume the objections here are either based on bigotry or that some of the posters aren’t intelligent enough to understand the reason for the proposed change. Sorry if that sounds unkind.

I would not want a single transgender person to be denied an abortion based on semantics

That simply wouldn't happen. Only women get pregnant - there are no semantics involved.