“Women aren’t the only people who get abortions”

[AngeloMysterioso]

Huffington Post, showing that they can’t understand simple, basic biology

I felt very, very much alone,” Gutiérrez told HuffPost. “I didn’t have any frame of reference for what an abortion would be like, period. Not to mention what an abortion would be like as a nonbinary person.”

Although Gutiérrez went to Planned Parenthood, they were constantly misgendered and there was no option for preferred pronouns or name on the intake form.

“I got called ‘Miss’ and ‘Ma’am’ all the time,” they said. “And [the staff] was super sweet to me, but I was too terrified to really sit down and have a conversation and say, ‘Hey, my pronouns are this and my identity is this, could you stop doing that?’ I was too busy going, ‘Holy shit, I’m in a clinic and I don’t know what to expect.’” (Planned Parenthood now offers preferred pronouns and gender identity options on their intake forms.)

Cripes just Cripes these people lost the use of their brains

There is the basic reality of women being the only people who are are physically able to give birth to small humans. And also feed these small humans, via their breasts.

recognised as being of the only class that can concieve and the get pregnant after being impregnated by a man.

That is how mammal biology works.That's just facts. Same as gravity,.

All the attacks on reproductive rights and this is someone quibbling about women being mentioned in the name of the centre? Am supposing the push to rename it the 'uterus owner centre' not too far off. Just....just.....priorities all cocked to hell with this shit. The idiocy parade rolls on.

From the article:

“People expect a certain type of body to come in to get abortions and that’s just not the case. It’s never been the case.”

It’s always been the case.

That's a corker, isn't it? One person who looks like any other elfinly feminine woman in the world, and another who looks like a broad shouldered, strong butch woman. Both pregnant. So, whatever their fluttering inner essence may be, it clearly hasn't had the slightest effect on how female their bodies are.

...what? I honestly only read halfway through the article as my eyes can only take so much astonishment in a short space of time.

So deeply misogynist, isn't it.

Just as well abortion is still available to these women, however they choose to identify.
Why is so much time being wasted on this narcissism?!

If you needed any proof that whatever a woman may do to her body, she is not and will never become a man, this is it.

If men got pregnant, the right to access abortions would be a human right.

Not a single one of the new American laws prohibiting abortions makes an exemption for females who present masculine. Not because they are accepted as men (in which case they would be specifically mentioned as also being forbidden from having abortions) but because they are not.

And to the men making these laws, all of us in possession of a vagina and not a penis are lesser beings to be controlled. Non-men. Whether we accept being women or not.

I hope someone is tracking unplanned pregnancy rates among the woke. No one seems to know the basics of sexual reproach more.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7119867/NHS-safer-sex-guide-women-sleep-women-issues-mind-boggling-advice.html?ito=emailsharee_article-top

@kingslayer Your use of disablist language is disgusting and unnecessary to make your point. It’s possible to criticise people without using an offensive and outdated term for a genuninely marginalise/ vulnerable group of people as a point of comparison.

I actually welcome articles like this as the majority of people I know are so far oblivious to the trans issues. I’d you spend all your time here you’d think there was some kind of huge battle taking place with people citing bathroom bills., self ID, ponds in Hampstead but if you ever asked someone’s opinion most wouldn’t have a clue what you’re going on about.

Ridiculous headlines like this draw attention. Only a small minority are protesting against self ID laws as they aren’t aware of it at all but when ‘normal’ people or basically just the general public begin to get affected there will be outrage

Kingslayer yes "retard" and "retarded" is disablist.

Its use has lasted longer in the US than in Britain where it is no longer acceptable. I think it's heading that way in the US too.

I struggle to annunciate why I think this particular mumsnet board is tranaphobic, I often lurk on threads but rarely dive in as I can’t face the onslaught from a certain, particularly vocal group.
To read tonight the stories of two people, one of whom was raped, try to vocalise in an article why the fucking horrific procedure of abortion was made even worse by how they identify and then be denigrated by so called feminists with responses like

“ Oh ffs”
”this made even me eye roll”
”What very special people. Let's change all the words immediately to reflect their specialness”

is beyond the pale, and that’s before we get on to the posted who happily used ‘retards’ as an insult. Disgusting

What the Huffpost are really saying:
"It's OK for men to make laws about abortion, because men have abortions too".

This is why it's important that the word 'woman' keeps its integrity.

What the Huffpost are really saying:
"It's OK for men to make laws about abortion, because men have abortions too".

It's saying nothing of the kind.

Of course it is.

That's what the dedgrediation of language and the word woman is all about.

Its to allow the erosion of women's rights.

is beyond the pale, and that’s before we get on to the posted who happily used ‘retards’ as an insult. Disgusting

Lambasting me for using the phrase retatded which saying beyond the pale..... Equally disgusting non?

The title of the article was enough to make me feel very cross. Of course women are the only people to have abortions. Trans-men and women who call themselves non-binary are biological females. I only read half the article because of the title denying biological reality. Any woman presenting to a clinic for an abortion has all my sympathy however they identify. I will go back to the article and finish it but I also have a mind to e-mail Huffington Post over its use of a ridiculous, misleading title.

Retard means to hold back, so backwards thinking. But it’s associated with unpleasant notions about people with intellectual disabilities, so distasteful.

On the other hand, “beyond the pale” has nothing to do with skin colour. Pale in this context means fence.
“Pale in this idiom comes from Latin pālus 'stake'; it means a fencepost, and by ordinary extension it also means the fence itselt, and the area it contains or delimits. So beyond the pale just means "outside the boundaries".

Having satisfied my inner-pedant, for the record:

In the real world human biological sex is binary.

Only female humans can get pregnant. Only female humans can have abortions.

Human males do not get pregnant nor have abortions.

People’s beliefs and feelings do not deconstruct material reality. In the case of specific biological imperatives, such as human reproduction, recognition of reality must take precedence over delusions of gender.

That’s not out of prejudice or phobia, but because medical ethics must dictate recognition of the kind of body needing care, in order to deliver care.

If I had to choose between some amphormous coddling of ambiguous pronouns or proper consideration of the needs of my biology, I am rational enough to choose the latter.

If you think the former is more important, then it might be that your mental health needs some help.

Lambasting me for using the phrase retatded which saying beyond the pale..... Equally disgusting non?

"Beyond the pale" does not remotely compare with what you said.

Beyond the pale is outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour. And may I preempt you before you start claiming it is offensive to the Irish. There were many other pales. The derivation is frompale(“jurisdiction of an authority, territory under an authority's jurisdiction”), suggesting that anything outside the authority's jurisdiction was uncivilized. "Uncivilized" is an apt description of your posts.

That article is not saying it's OK for men to make laws about abortion, because men have abortions too. Quite the opposite.

God, all this arguing about "you said this" "well you said that" "this is worse" "no that is".

Meanwhile, there are women unable to access safe abortions. Maybe we should focus our energies on that instead of this meaningless shite.

Actually, women really are not the only people who get pregnant. Girls, of course, do so too.

I use women and girls in the way these words exist and are defined in most languages across the globe:

As adult human females and juvenile human females. (Female meaning of or belonging to the sex class capable of producing ova and bearing offspring.)

These two groups encompass every single human being who can get pregnant. Because pregnancy is a biological function of the female sex class. Identifying as non-binary or trans masculine does not change this simple fact. Only women and girls get pregnant (some of whom seek to identify out of being women and girls of course).

Because our desire does not have the power to change material reality, no amount of pronouns or wishing will change the fact that females, and only females, need access to abortions.

As for the actual people described here, one is unequivocally female, even at a second's glance, the other did not identify as anything other than a (queer) woman at the time of needing an abortion.

So, Planned Parenthood is being criticised for the entirely understandable way that staff addressed two women who were easily identifiable as female. At a time when no one paid any attention to pronouns.

Planned Parenthood, who reportedly have been making the adjustments demanded by either interviewee years ago, are therefore unjustly maligned in this piece. And this is an organisation that has been defunded and attacked by those wishing to destroy it for years. And because medical insurance is often too expensive, for many women and girls, Planned Parenthood is the only way to access female-related health care, including cancer screenings.

And yet, here they are derided for not having done something eight years ago that no one else did either. Before the world went mad. And not a word in the article about the stellar work the organisation does or the care the two received beyond being called by factually correct pronouns.

This rhetoric damages the campaign for reproductive rights, it damages Planned Parenthood and it damages the individuals caught up in it, from patients to health care providers.

And there's nothing transphobic in people not validating the inner essence of others, no matter how special or vulnerable they are.