I was really rude and possibly discriminatory to my boss. What should I do?

[Iottie]

NC.

I was in our Monday team zoom meeting. We somehow got onto the Roe v Wade ruling.

My boss is extremely right wing. He was saying how he supported the ruling, it should have never been made in the first place, life begins at conception, bla bla bla etc.

I am the only woman on the team and I was getting more and more irate. I blurted out something I probably shouldn’t have. I can’t remember exactly but it was something along the lines of:

“Well, what’s it to you? You’re a gay man so it has no bearing on you whatsoever but it is going to impact millions of often poor and vulnerable women. Men should have no say over women’s bodies.”

There was a really awkward silence before we moved onto another topic.

Right, so I could have been more polite and nuanced in my point, but now I am terrified I discriminated against him by referencing his sexuality.

I know I really shouldn’t have mentioned it - I could have said the same thing without bringing it up but I just got more and more wound up by a bunch of men agreeing with each other instigated by him.

As I mentioned my boss is really right wing so I don’t think he’d report me for being discriminatory as he calls diversity and inclusion bollocks anyway. But if he does I know I could be in big trouble.

What do I do? I don’t know if I should message him apologising but that might just bring more attention to it…?

It is not discriminatory/ ignorant to point out that as a gay man is unlikely to be negatively affected personally/ directly by laws that enforce birth. Your sentiment was valid.
The point was made in terms that were too absolute, but given that he
was willing to loudly share his views with you - a woman- that you should be forced into becoming a reproductive slave in a work meeting (not knowing whether you had personal experience of abortion etc), I’d say you can be forgiven for not expressing yourself in the most nuanced / sensitive fashion.

Unfairly or not, you're definitely on thin ice brining up his sexuality into it. If he is a Free Speech At All Costs guy then perhaps that'll work in your favour and he'll let it blow over.

It is not discriminatory/ ignorant to point out that as a gay man is unlikely to be negatively affected personally/ directly by laws that enforce birth.

Why does the fact that he's gay make a difference? Why not just say 'man'?

Because not only can he not get pregnant himself but he is not likely to be in an intimate or sexual relationship with a woman who might be/ might have been affected by an abortion. and if he does himself end up inpregnating a woman it is most likely to have been carefully planned , and provisions concerning abortion agreed in advance (eg in case of severe disability or health risk to the mother ). In general , as a gay man he is highly unlikely to end up being personally affected by abortion (perhaps via a sister, friend or mother, but that isn’t generally the same).

"Why does the fact that he's gay make a difference? Why not just say 'man'?"

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

A gay man, as opposed to a straight man, will never stick his penis into a woman and impregnate her. Therefore he is not going to have to be a father against his wishes and burdened financially for at least 18 years to support said unwanted baby.

Is the topic of this thread clearer to you now?

The point is, a guy man is never going to impregnate someone accidentally so abortion won't be a relevant issue.

Gay man, bloody autocorrect

And this is happening in the US so unless you live there not really an issue we should be involved in as we're not affected.

There are many reasons why abortion is needed, not just accidental or non consensual insemination.

I am as angry as the next person about the bill. But the OP had asked had she been discriminatory,. In that moment, yes she was. If you want to stand by the 'as a gay man he could never accidentally inseminate someone therefore isn't entitled to an opinion' line, then I refer to PP's comment - this is in America so by that logic, people living elsewhere aren't entitled to an opinion as it's not relevant to them. You can't pick and choose when to apply the rules of who is allowed to have an opinion on this topic.

"by that logic, people living elsewhere aren't entitled to an opinion as it's not relevant to them"

(1) People everywhere are worried that this might happen in their countries, as well. It is not a question of "Let's stick our noses into how people in other countries govern themselves" but more of "Shit! One of the world's most advanced, wealthy, supposedly freedom-loving countries fell to religious extremism and severely restricted women's rights. Who can say it won't happen here?"

(2) By YOUR logic, OP's boss should never have been voicing support for the restriction of women's rights over their own bodies in the first place, since he is not American and doesn't live in the US.

We can all argue about who we think should have a say in a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body.

We're all so busy deciding what percentage of a say you should have if you're a straight woman, gay woman, straight man, gay man, I think we're missing the most important point:

That these decisions should not be based on religious beliefs.

There should be a clear separation of church and state.

@NippyWoowoo
That these decisions should not be based on religious beliefs.

But they aren't though. I'm not Christian in any shape or form, but I can understand the argument that abortion equals terminating human life. Even if I don't necessarily accept it, as there is a counter argument too.

The point at which we decide to acknowledge the baby's humanity and give it human rights has nothing to do with religion.

Some will argue that as soon as there is distinct dna which left unmolested will develop into a full human, is when it acquires humanity. Others put the the starting point at heartbeat, viability, third trimester, birth, graduation or any other arbitrary point. But there is no definitive argument or way to prove one perspective over the other.

There are two streams of thought on the thread.

It doesn't affect him so he should keep his nose out and
We're all allowed to voice an opinion, however I'll founded.

Those saying he's a man so should keep quiet fall into the first category.

I'd fall in the second, I may not agree but accept he's allowed to voice his opinion.

In terms of the OP though it's not really relevant as having stirred the shit, like Elvis she appears to have left the building.

Yes, I think maybe we scared OP away! OP - I hope everything worked out ok for you.

Because the line when we decide what is considered a human being is arbitrary. There is no scientific or philosophical argument to 'prove' so to speak when life begins.

The LGBTQ community in America are affected by the ruling being overturned as the foundations of the case are the same foundations which protect the rights of the LGBTQ community, so if you were both in America, you would both be be foolish for saying what you did.

I don't know exact details off the top of my head same sex relationships and same sex marriage could be over overturned on the basis of this case.

So you were both being unreasonable.

HeadOnShoulders - re "Because the line when we decide what is considered a human being is arbitrary. There is no scientific or philosophical argument to 'prove' so to speak when life begins."

It doesn't matter when life begins. Even if fetus = human being, no other person can stay in your body against your will. Nobody can use your body, your organs, or even your blood against your wishes, even if they will otherwise die. You can't even be forced to donate blood to save someone's life.

So, the debate about whether a fetus is a person and has a right to life is pointless. Let's say it IS a person. A woman's rights over her own body STILL trump another person's wish to use her body to stay alive.

Presumably he has no issues with people knowing he's gay otherwise you wouldn't know about it. It is relevant as it's very unlikely a biological child of his would be aborted on the mother's say so. He stated his opinion and you stated yours. I don't think what you said was rude or discriminatory.

Most gay men come out now early and don't sleep with women. It's true that a few might try, for various reasons.