Amnesty International's Updated Abortion Policy

[nepeta]

Amnesty International has updated their abortion policy in order to be more inclusive of those who are not 'cisgender women.'

www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/amnesty-updated-abortion-policy-faqs/

They write "Cisgender women and girls are not the only people who need access to safe abortion services. Intersex people, transgender men and boys, and people with other or no gender identities can also become pregnant. These individuals often face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination when trying to access health services."

All women don't face multiple layers of discrimination?.This quote implies it is easy to access health services if you're a woman who identifies as a woman.

I found the language you quote interesting as it is directly from the gender theory underlying the concept of gender identity. A woman is now just a feeling inside one's head and there is no word for biologically female people, the only kind who actually can get pregnant.

Amnesty International has updated their abortion policy in order to be more inclusive of those who are not 'cisgender women.'

That’s most women then. Because most women aren’t cisgender women. There just women. A tiny minority will identify as cisgender women but the rest of us not so much.

But someone's identity isn't relevant to their need for access to abortion, their sex is and it only applies to women and girls.

I don’t even bother with them anymore. They are a joke.

I wrote Amnesty International off a long time ago.

@testing987654321

But someone's identity isn't relevant to their need for access to abortion, their sex is and it only applies to women and girls.

'Women and girls' have been redefined so that the terms have nothing to do with biological sex. That's the capture of language which is taking place, and that's why we are told to call ourselves cisgender now.

There is now no name for female-bodied people that would be acceptable for the trans activists and that's why all those horrible articles which talk about menstruators and uterus-havers.

How many intersex people can become pregnant without the need for assisted reproduction services? One would think the number of intersex people requiring an abortion would be limited to the incredibly tiny number of people who are intersex, capable of achieving pregnancy with help, and then have a wanted pregnancy that must be aborted due to fetal abnormalities or the mother's health. Surely the vanishingly small number of abortions this would result in are much less important to focus on than the tremendously more common ways women end up needing abortions?

If you can achieve a pregnancy without the need for advanced assistance and invasive procedures, you're a female -- not "intersex."

These individuals often face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination when trying to access health services.

I have never seen any evidence to support this apart from anecdotal accounts of feeling 1) pain is being dismissed or trivialised (i.e. a very familiar female experience) or 2) 'invalidated' because of pronouns or other language used that is sex-specific.

Is this a bit like the thousands of trans deaths JKR caused? When does this merry-go-round of insanity end?!

I provided them some feedback at the site.

Notyourhandmaid, I once asked about the evidence at one of the reproductive rights site. I was told that it makes trans men extremely dysphoric to have to share the waiting-room with 'cisgender' women and that having to explain about one's presentation not matching one's sex is demeaning and painful.

Those can be valid points but the linguistic inclusiveness practised by Amnesty International and so many other sites does nothing about those problems. But it does turn the female body into a gender-neutral one.

Been watching the slow drift of Amnesty to policy positions I cannot agree with on this issue and also as regards prostitution with despair. I am involved with a group and the only reason I can still stomach it is because of the long running friendships and because I am able to ensure that the campaigns we are involved with do not stray anywhere near those areas. I do wonder how much longer I can take it.

This degradation of language where 'women' and 'girls' as terms are divorced from biology becomes an utter joke when you are discussing the biological reality of pregnancy.

They're in the paper today for other dodgy behaviour too. Glad I'm no longer a member. www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/amnestys-secret-800-000-payout-after-suicide-of-gaetan-mootoo-lqnq79c99

They're erasing the category of sex. That leaves female people without a recognised, defined category, which is essential to mount any sort of defence against sexism - in a world that remains acutely aware of which sex is which, when oppressing the female half. Nobody cares about gender identity when sex-selective abortion, or genital mutilation, or child marriage and other forms of rape are at issue. Nobody is confused when seeking a surrogate.

It's straightfowardly abusive and oppressive to erase sex, most especially when discussing reproductive and sexual vulnerabilities and harms. They underpin women's subjugation throuighout the world, and by erasing them, you remove women's capacity to defend themselves against that subjugation.

It bemuses me, that people who earnestly believe themselves to be human rights activist can collude in this destruction of one of women's most basic and fundamental right - the right to exist as a collective legal entity at all.

@nepeta

I provided them some feedback at the site.

Notyourhandmaid, I once asked about the evidence at one of the reproductive rights site. I was told that it makes trans men extremely dysphoric to have to share the waiting-room with 'cisgender' women and that having to explain about one's presentation not matching one's sex is demeaning and painful.

Those can be valid points but the linguistic inclusiveness practised by Amnesty International and so many other sites does nothing about those problems. But it does turn the female body into a gender-neutral one.

Thanks for that, @nepeta. That is a fair point, although 'having to explain' does not quite ring true - who's asking? Particularly when it comes to abortion provision, where there are often men in the waiting room (versus, say, smear tests). And as you say, changing the language isn't going to affect who's in the waiting room.

I lost any respect for Amnesty International when they started campaigning for transwomen to be held in women's prisons. And on their website they refer people to Mermaids, Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence to learn how to be allies to transgender people.

Frankly I now distrust what they say about political prisoners because they've so blatantly misrepresented transgender issues. How could I have any faith in what they are saying on any other topic?

@PickleC

Been watching the slow drift of Amnesty to policy positions I cannot agree with on this issue and also as regards prostitution with despair. I am involved with a group and the only reason I can still stomach it is because of the long running friendships and because I am able to ensure that the campaigns we are involved with do not stray anywhere near those areas. I do wonder how much longer I can take it.

This degradation of language where 'women' and 'girls' as terms are divorced from biology becomes an utter joke when you are discussing the biological reality of pregnancy.

I thought Amnesty was very unwise to begin moving away from widely help, fairly pan-cultural positions to advocate for politically. As it stands now they basically seem like an organisation that stands for liberal western values being imposed upon people everywhere.

I used to be very involved with Amnesty but can no longer support them for all the reasons above.

An aside: I thought that one of the challenges of living with a DSD is loss of fertility. Are intersex people likely to need access to abortion or is this another example of co-opting DSD issues without consent?

Usually if transgender men become pregnant its through choice with the intention of having a baby to raise. (Physically they're still female)

@BigFatLiar

Usually if transgender men become pregnant its through choice with the intention of having a baby to raise. (Physically they're still female)

There is absolutely no arguing with this one. Has the charity sector suddenly lost it's core intelligence and not seen this argument

The only exception would be rape

I'm assuming and I shouldn't have done that

@wellbehavedwomen

They're erasing the category of sex. That leaves female people without a recognised, defined category, which is essential to mount any sort of defence against sexism - in a world that remains acutely aware of which sex is which, when oppressing the female half. Nobody cares about gender identity when sex-selective abortion, or genital mutilation, or child marriage and other forms of rape are at issue. Nobody is confused when seeking a surrogate.

It's straightfowardly abusive and oppressive to erase sex, most especially when discussing reproductive and sexual vulnerabilities and harms. They underpin women's subjugation throuighout the world, and by erasing them, you remove women's capacity to defend themselves against that subjugation.

It bemuses me, that people who earnestly believe themselves to be human rights activist can collude in this destruction of one of women's most basic and fundamental right - the right to exist as a collective legal entity at all.

Yes. This is exactly it.

Whatever female erasure anyone is engaged in in the name of inclusivity, I now believe this is the most damaging result of this ideology. If women and girls no longer exist as a sex class, we cannot fight any of the many disadvantages we suffer because we are female. I have not seen a single coherent categorisation in lieu of sex that provides us with the same power to fight the oppression of women and girls worldwide that organising as as a political class on the basis of our sex does. None of these genderists ever even suggest one. Which all makes sense when you understand that this is an ideology in aid of men's (sexual) rights.

Amnesty International has updated their abortion policy in order to be more inclusive of those who are not 'cisgender women.'

Amnesty International has updated their abortion policy in order to more inclusive by denying the existence of the sexed based group who need abortions - women and girls

So - who needs abortions? I’m confused...

I was a very active member for a long time.

With hindsight I think the start of the rot was campaigning for abortion. I realise that seems a perfectly reasonable thing to support but it marked the start of a move from a politically neutral dedication to human rights (we didn't even campaign for Mandela's release because he'd used violence) to simply pushing views the members supported.

It made it easier for right wing governments to ignore us, put off a lot of older members who didn't agree and (at the time) meant opposing democratically chosen policies in some countries.

Did young idealists take over?