Anyone fancy co-parenting with LOJ?

[AdHominemNonSequitur]

Owen Jones wants a baby, and would like a lesbian couple to impregnate. Any takers on mumsnet? He could be quite a catch for someone looking for a sperm donor and a co-parent to raise a well balanced child.
He got a bit of flack, so is doubling down on the the "anti-trans cult" and calling everyone homophobic.

Why a lesbian couple?

Insecure about a presence of another man if heterosexual couple?
Some ideas about how single women are somehow inferior as parents?
Doesn't want a single person because future partners can't be vetted? (is he in a long-term relationship?)
Idea that lesbians can't survive without men to 'provide for their needs'?
Cos its trendier to say LGBT and he is playing to the audience?
To create the illusion that its altruistic as a gay man to 'give' children to lesbians?

Dunno.

@Quaagars

Has he ever said he thinks trans women can have babies? Or is this another one of them straw man arguments? I'm a straight, married woman with kids. I can accept that people who are gay are lesbian might want to have children of their own, it might not necessarily mean they are in their everyday lives. It's called seeing outside of your box

This is a man who makes money off click shite sensationalism and being 'controversial'.

Framing sexism as progressive isnt seeing things outside the box. Its very much within the box but with trendy labels.

HTH.

I can accept that people who are gay are lesbian might want to have children of their own, it might not necessarily mean they are in their everyday lives.
What does this mean?

Quaagars he has said an awful lot that

Twaw
Lesbians can have penises
That sort of thing

So if he's thinking about a baby then surely he should be using language like, fertile uterus owner or similar

How can people with penises be lesbians on the one hand, but also assumed to have uteruses on the other?

Can you genuinely not see the contradiction there?

Quaagars he has said an awful lot that

Twaw Lesbians can have penises That sort of thing

OK
but why does that automatically mean because he can accept trans women are women etc he doesn't know that only biological women bear babies?

A lot of people on his Twitter seem to think he's talking about surrogacy rather than co-parenting.

My guess would be that he would like to have a child but not be a full time parent.

@Quaagars

Has he ever said he thinks trans women can have babies? Or is this another one of them straw man arguments? I'm a straight, married woman with kids. I can accept that people who are gay are lesbian might want to have children of their own, it might not necessarily mean they are in their everyday lives. It's called seeing outside of your box

You are spectacularly missing the point. No one is saying gay and lesbians don't want to have children.

It's about Jones' choice of words. People who can become pregnant are cis women, whether gay or straight, or trans men, whether gay or straight.

I know some of you object to the word "cis" but it's necessary in this context to show that Jones' go to choice of "lesbians" is transphobic by his own measure.

@Quaagars

Quaagars he has said an awful lot that

Twaw Lesbians can have penises That sort of thing

OK
but why does that automatically mean because he can accept trans women are women etc he doesn't know that only biological women bear babies?

Again you are missing the point. Of course he knows only biological or as he would say "cis" women can have babies. But trans men can have babies- why is he excluding a trans man as a possible co- parent?

Why is he not qualifying his preferred choice of a lesbian co- parent by adding "cis"?

Indeed why is the sexual persuasion of the potential co- parent, whether cis woman or trans man relevant? He can co- parent with another single person.

Or in old parlance, women.

(Cis women and trans men misses out non binary females and other genders)

We have been told repeatedly that

When it comes to having babies, the word woman must not be used because it excludes trans men and other identities, and also it is exclusionary to female people who are infertile etc.

Organisations that focus on pregnancy birth etc must not use women for this reason. Many orgs including public health orgs and charities have changed the words they use for this reason. Pregnant people, people who are gestating, body feeding etc have come into use. Because it's wrong to connect the words woman and pregnant etc.

So when he says he is'hunting' broody lesbians so he can be a father, he connects the word lesbian to female biology. Something women have been told we must not do, and this has resulted in changes to information provision etc etc

Can you genuinely not see why this is a problem? He isn't practicing what he preaches. And he is very vocal on trans inclusive language.

but why does that automatically mean because he can accept trans women are women etc he doesn't know that only biological women bear babies?

If trans women are women same as all other women and women have babies ... then trans women can have babies. If trans women can't have babies because only bio women have babies ... then they're not women are they?

That's why there has been a move to call women 'uterus havers' and 'cervix owners' to attempt to dodge the logic of immutable difference between trans and bio women. (because if they are different then they have different needs and if they have different needs then they might need different spaces and services and that is transphobic.)

The whole point is to refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between trans women and bio women - that's terf talk that is. And it's certainly not anything that LOJ would admit to.

What you have said is spectacularly transphobic.

You cannot acknowledge that twaw and that only bio women have babies and that there is no difference between tw and bio women without contradicting yourself somewhere.
You cannot acknowledge that there are differences between bio women and trans women and then refuse to acknowledge bio women as a discrete group, who require their own space and services, without acknowledging that your demand that women waive those spaces and services and allow the admittedly different tw to gain access to them is rooted in misogyny.

Either we're the same or we are different. If we're different let bio women have our words and our prisons and our hospital wards and changing rooms. That's all we ask. And if we're the same, let the trans women have the babies.

Maybe he could ask his Baroness mate.

The thing is Quaagars OJ says TWAW/TMAM. When asked if he would date a trans man, he kicked off because as a gay man he is same sex attracted and called people homophobic for even asking.
Yet same man calls lesbians bigots and phobes for asserting THEIR same sex attraction. The legally protected characteristic of sexual orientation.

Surely if is it homophobic to suggest a gay man dates a female is must also be homophobic to suggest a lesbian dates a male?

It is also transphobic to exclude trans men from the pool of potential mothers.

Great post Pretzels
I silently cheered at the end (so as not to wake the kids up )

As a married lesbian with two kids conceived by sperm donation I can give a bit of insight into why OJ May struggle to find a lesbian couple to co-parent with.

1. Lesbian couples have access to sperm banks full of donations from handsome, intelligent Vikings

1. Lesbian couples who conceive via sperm donation are both legally able to be on a child's birth certificate as parents. A co-parenting agreement with a gay man would mean the lesbian partner who doesn't carry the baby would have no legal parental rights.

1. Owen Jones is a twit.

Quaagers
why does that automatically mean because he can accept trans women are women etc he doesn't know that only biological women bear babies?

That's exactly the point. OJ has previously said that it is transphobic to say that "only biological women have uteruses" or "only biological women menstruate" so we need to use terms like "uterus havers" and "people who menstruate".

But when it suits his needs, he's happy to assume that everyone knows he's talking about biological women who have uteruses and can bear children.

The hypocrisy is off the scale.

This thread is a hoot...

"That's number wang!"

twitter.com/mocent0/status/1378416810383511557?s=21

Oh Warrior that's brilliant!

"Nothing for a pair, not in this game!"

made my day thanks warrior

I can't wait for LOJ to arrive on Mumsnet for parenting advice

@SapphosRock

As a married lesbian with two kids conceived by sperm donation I can give a bit of insight into why OJ May struggle to find a lesbian couple to co-parent with.

1. Lesbian couples have access to sperm banks full of donations from handsome, intelligent Vikings

1. Lesbian couples who conceive via sperm donation are both legally able to be on a child's birth certificate as parents. A co-parenting agreement with a gay man would mean the lesbian partner who doesn't carry the baby would have no legal parental rights.

1. Owen Jones is a twit.

What?

You don't think Owen Jones is an intelligent viking like specimen who has superior genes? How rude.

Don't worry, a reality tv series beckons. No doubt he will find some suitable fame hungry candidates.

I can't get past the plain bloody misogyny of 'hunting for broody lesbian couples' far enough to get into the transphobia tbh. Ugh.

Actually I wondered if he was looking for a couple so he could not be on the birth certificate. Can't imagine him forking out maintenance

That twitter thread 😂

'Nice to seed you, to seed you nice!'

I agree that OJ might have done this deliberately so that he can do his usual thing of bleating on about homophobia/transphobia. Either that or he literally just doesn't realise that he has been offensive to women because he doesn't see women as real people with feelings, existing outside of his own needs. Could be either to be fair.

Technically a transman would suit Owen's 'requirements' perfectly. A man who could bear a child for Owen, what's not to like?!

Broody lesbian couples, by his own philosophy, would include one person capable of producing an egg, and one person capable of producing a sperm. So that request in itself is trans-exclusionary, because it assumes all lesbian couples are incapable of conceiving without external sperm.

Seriously, he is being trans-exclusionary on so many levels here. Against transmen capable of bearing children, against lesbians who don't need his help because they are mixed sex, against non binaries, because he excludes them completely, and against trans women, who find gynaecological discussion triggering and excluding of their womanhood.

If it was anyone other than OJ, they would have been ripped to shreds. What if a woman had posted the same tweet seeking "broody gay men". It would have been twitter carnage.

Setting aside the git gift that keeps on giving that is OJ, it's the naked and maddening misogynist based hypocrisy that makes this completely unfunny, gas lighting and damaging to the mental health of all those people who are constantly treading on egg shells trying not to offend. Why does he get away with it time and time again?

My hatred for the Guardian and all who sail in her has reached new levels today.

Excellent points here but SaphosRock's logic is impeccable and succinct

I would object to the tweeter who told him to get a dog

not fair on the poor pooch