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

[needatalk]

I've been reading various discussions and articles on this topic for some time and the conclusion that keeps popping up in my mind is the worry that my female rights will be as much eroded as LGBT rights in law.

I've seen a push in America especially Florida from activists and lawmakers, combining female and LGBT rights in the same grouping. In the UK, politicians are taking American policies. They are calling for diversity and equality to be dismantled in law. It's like time is going backwards in just on LGBT rights but on female sex based rights. Where less rights will exist for us females in the future to do subjects such as STEM or be Astronaut because of the stereotyping happening from suppose feminists who's concepts are the old typical stay at home leave the male to do the dangerous or go to work mentally.

My daughter is 8 years old and and I worry for her, to not able to have the right to do express herself as bisexual or lesbian because of erosion of LGBT rights. We all know homosexuality a long time ago was illegal and that can happen again for all LGBT rights. I worry that my daughter who loves space won't able to follow Rosemary Coogan become an astronaut which is something she dreams of because in the future people will say the radiation of space is too dangerous for females as they will get deformities in that area to prevent them for having babies or healthy babies. Science has disprove this but people are dismissing science now.

As much as I care and support about sex based rights, I can't forget the thought in my mind that my and my daughter's female rights are in as much danger of being taken away not by activists but by lawmakers who enforce sex based past stereotyping and us females lose equality which has been hard to fight for in the first place.

I'm so worried for the future for us females.

It's funny how it only ever works one way, isn't it?

LGBTQ+ "allies" are never responsible for the crimes of Karen White and Katie Dolatowski, or Lia Thomas and Laurel Hubbard's trashing of women's sporting categories, or the behaviour of the trans activists who assault women at women's rights events and send death threats to JK Rowling, are they?

And what does 'cosying up' even mean?

Lampy

Except the advance search function is pretty easy on here but thanks for agreeing that there are thousands of such posts!

All you've done is post reams of unsubstantiated shite, with no examples. You just expect people to take your word for your claims.

I'm sure you know that I meant that there are thousands of posts to trawl through, to find the ones you have pretended exist.

https://eachother.org.uk/why-is-the-uk-witnessing-a-rise-of-trials-surrounding-abortion/

There are now numerous, traumatised women who have been the subject of legal precedent attempts

I can't be arsed to scroll but has lampy given any examples of JKR anti-trans tweets?

No because she is not our maid..

And she has no examples to give

but mainly the maid bit

You say that like the baby is of any consideration and not just a lucky tool in the play that is the amazing display of their 'non birth mummy'.....

Why aren't transmen signing up to compete with the men? There are transwomen cheating competing in many sports so what's stopping the transmen?

A tweet from JKR can easily be retweeted by 10k people, and quoted or linked by many more. Is she supposed to go through every one of those retweets in order to make sure that none of them was by some halfwit politician in another continent?

Twitter. 140 characters (as was) leaves no room for nuance.

AccidentallyWesAnderson · Yesterday 21:20

I can't be arsed to scroll but has lampy given any examples of JKR anti-trans tweets?

No, nor a link to an MN poster saying that transm shouldn't be allowed to get pregnant. Lots of assertions of fact, but nothing to back it up. I've drawn my inferences from that.

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?

Oh it's always the same with these types.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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....

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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