Is this parody? I hope it is. (Reproductive rights for people with testicles. What?)

[VestalVirgin]

"I can’t have babies. And no one in the reproductive justice movement is talking about this."

This complaint is uttered by a transwoman. I.e. biological male.

everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/trans-women-reproductive-justice/

Has any actual woman ever demanded that treatment for her very real infertility of her real female body be placed above issues like contraception and abortion in the feminist movement? I cannot remember even one such instance.

But here this transwoman is, and demands that feminism prioritize sperm banking.

If this adolescent wasn't listening in biology class and the doctor did not explain the major side effect then the doctor is a bit shit.

Otherwise I agree with Lass about the point at which the writing should have stopped.

Apparently it is also cissexist to ascribe a sex identity to a child until it is old enough to decide for itself. Seriously. Referring to a fetus / baby / toddler as a boy or a girl is discriminatory.

So sad that many valid points on the real discrimination that transpeople face are hidden amongst this deluded whine-arsery.

And freezing eggs/Sperm/embryos:cord blood etcis expensive. There has to be fail safes.medical privacy. Guaranteed Safeguarding of sample identity etc clinically clean conditions.

Iirc if IVF produce more viable embryos than can be implanted, the couple must choose whether to pay for storage and periodically renew and pay if so.

It's not a surprise that a 17 year old didn't know this / what is a surprise is that no one brought these points up to give a full picture before agreeing to posting this about "centring"

They really do have an article about marginalising disabled asexual people

Which I have just read and will summarise as:-

"Some people with physical disabilities experience sexual desire and enjoy acting upon that desire- just as some fully abled people do.

Some people with physical disabilities aren't in the least bit interested in sex- just as some fully -abled people aren't.

All of which is fine and basically it's fine to want to have sex and it's fine to not want to have sex and , other than the person with whom one is having sex, it's really no-one else's business."

About 10th of the words and, even if I say so myself, infinitely more coherent.

I think I went over this with my son when he wa about 5, ds: " mummy, will I be able to grow a baby in my tummy when I grow up?"
Me: "No darling, only ladies can do that, but you can be a daddy"
Ds: "ok"

I went down a bit of a rabbit hole reading the gender critical version of that article but came across this fantastic term in the comments section:
Manomenon: An act of which a woman can say something, but it has no credibility until a male says or experiences it

Like that!

Sort of like this, you mean?

I was a bit confused about whether the author thought that having used the sperm of a man to become pregnant and gestate a baby I'm now a father, but apparently not. The Facebook discussion suggests they want uterine implants.

I don't think they get that a uterus won't just host a baby without a load of supporting biology.

But there again, they also seem to think that everyone should adopt to even the situation out between trans people and everyone else regarding having children in the manner that your biology dictates. Good old useful children. They don't speculate on where these children should come from.

When I read these young TW I am often left with the impression of very angry, unreasonable, deluded, narcissistic men (and they do sound like men) with a bucket load of mental health problems. I don't know whether the mental health issues are caused by feeling different at an early age and the attendant issues or whether gender dysphoria is more likely for people with delicate mental health?

But yes Luna comes across as completely bonkers and I can't help feeling a cold dose of reality would help her much more than "validating her womanhood "

They think that having kids is some kind of civic function to stock a kiddie supermarket, and anyone can then go pick one, regardless?

Well, that if everyone adopted regardless of their ability to have children then the biological link wouldn't exist and we'd all gave children on the same terms as people who want children but not in the way nature intended for them.

Freezing gametes is possible for those who are concerned that the medical procedure they are about to undergo will remove that bodily function.

In some cases, in UK, it is funded by NHS.

I thought OP was in US (references to insurance plans).

Unfortunately, not all plans cover all procedures.

So what are they campaigning for? Cheaper health insurance? Obamacare?

For fuck's sake.

Words mean things. Pregnancy MEANS a specific thing, and it's not "producing sperm".

According to google, around 4m babies are born in the us annually and around 140,000 adoptions.

How are they squaring this?

You know, when I first read this last night, I laughed at it, because it was all just so People's Front of Judea.

I re-read it this morning and actually, now it chills me. The cold misogyny. The blatant stupidity ("telescope images" of sperm? What, they're in space?). The co-opting of women's fight to be able to control their fertility (yeah, yeah, enough about your fight not to have babies for a minute, let's talk about my infinitely more important right to have them!). The complete obliteration of women from the picture, when part of the story clearly centres around surrogacy.

I want to shake the self-absorbed little twerp and tell them to grow up. The lack of empathy is terrifying, the whole article is a narcissistic howl of rage about how it's just not faaaaaaaaiiiiiiiirrrrrrrr!!

What is the "reproductive justice" movement anyway? I've never heard it called that. Is this a rebranding? As a feminist, I've always campaigned for reproductive rights, which "center", as is correct, around the seemingly laughably old-fashioned concept that the people who need those rights the most are the ones with the relevant biology.

Everyday feminism is just so weird.

I wonder if all the commenters are quite young and therefore don't realise that adoption is not an on demand service and a tiny number of "baby, not within family" adoptions occur

No, OneMore, I think they're selfish. And self absorbed. And colluding in the delusions of a seriously mentally ill person.

If you read the article I posted a bit upthread about the transgender "working mother of the year", that is what the logical conclusion is, get a woman to carry the baby as a surrogate and erase them from the picture completely. Because the real mother (the wife) isn't considered important enough to mention in that Salon article.

Agree with Plays.

Selfish, self absorbed and very young aren't mutually exclusive!

I just remember that when I was 17 I would have thought "oh, if people can't have a baby, they adopt" - a good friend was adopted - without knowing anything about numbers and process.

I do think Luna's doctor/parents/carers/counsellors should be telling Luna all these stats or referring Luna to a transgender youth information service or something.

It all just sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Assuming a TW manages to save their sperm and finds a woman to have a baby for them, aren't they going to spend the pregnancy racked with jealousy and pain because the baby's not inside them?