Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Amnesty International's Updated Abortion Policy

30 replies

nepeta · 28/09/2020 23:16

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/

OP posts:
PickleC · 29/09/2020 12:22

Felt like that was what happened. I joined up around the time there was a big Stop Violence Against Women campaign but can't imagine the linguistic knots that would now entail.

It feels like erasure. Language really does matter if it frames how you see the world and it should matter even more if you are looking at human rights.

Antibles · 29/09/2020 12:46

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.

Absolutely this.

Goosefoot · 29/09/2020 14:56

@raddledoldmisanthropist

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.

Yup. It undermined their whole basic premise in a real way.
CharlieParley · 29/09/2020 16:16

@BigFatLiar

Usually if transgender men become pregnant its through choice with the intention of having a baby to raise. (Physically they're still female)
Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. I read at least two studies into females who identify as trans and who fall pregnant. Fully a third to a half of each study's subjects said their pregnancy was unplanned. The main reason was that they thought they couldn't fall pregnant and so did not use contraceptives.

I don't think we should consider this as such a rare occasion that it doesn't really warrant any special effort being spent on these females being able to access abortions. All female people need to be able to do so, however they identify. And there's nothing wrong with specifically targeting a campaign at females who identify as trans. There's everything wrong though with erasing 99% of females who need to access an abortion for the sake of being inclusive to 1%. You don't alienate the vast majority in the name of a tiny majority. That's not exactly a winning strategy when you seek to increase acceptance for the latter.

But much much worse than alienating most women on this issue through "inclusive" language that erases women is that having to carry a child to term when you don't want to is a human rights issue that only ever affects women, regardless of what courtesy title is bestowed on or used by those of us who would rather be men. We are the only class of humans who can carry a baby. And this nonsense about pregnant men leaves us in a much weaker position when fighting for our reproductive rights.

WhereAreWeNow · 29/09/2020 22:59

They lost me over their stance on prostitution years ago.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page