“Reproductive justice is not just a “women’s issue” it’s an *everyone* issue” - Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

[AngeloMysterioso]

This is after she gave an interview on CNN where she is just tripping over herself to avoid using the word women - opting for “a female or menstruating person”and “people who are not gender men”.

And now of course she’s doubling down and “wishes growth” to anyone who points out that it is, in fact, a women’s issue.

Independent link

Daily Mail link

I’m so pissed off. I liked her.

Well, if I were a male Republican lawmaker who wished to outlaw abortion completely, I'd go along with this school of thought.

Why shouldn't men make decisions about pregnancy, given that men can get pregnant too?

I didn't like her. She's an absolute dumbass and a liar. This from her doesn't surprise me at all.

She’s a fool. This is why it’s so important to be clear about biological reality.

They call these things luxury beliefs for a reason …

“Wishing you growth”?

Isn’t she just cringing with embarrassment at writing such twaddle?

She's merrily giving control of women's bodies to men. Because that's the consequence of refusing to name women in women's issues. I am so angry.

For gods sake. He thinks women have 6 weeks to organise an abortion and she doesn't realise that calling women menstruaters completely obscures the very sexism she's exercised about.

She’s a fool. This is why it’s so important to be clear about biological reality.

They call these things luxury beliefs for a reason …

Indeed.

I think this neatly highlights that you cannot have this both ways.

If you start to bring men into the words used to describe those who abortion directly affects, you have to give men the power to decide on female reproductive rights. You cannot then say only females who identify as men, it is futile to try.

If you continue to use words that don’t clearly ensure the power to choose is for women, because you use dehumanising words or just avoid the word woman, you lose the clarity needed to push for the rights to be strong and protect those who need it. If she used female and only female, that is better than ‘people who …’ and ‘birthing bodies’ or ‘birth hosts’.

But using these ambiguous terms reduces the clarity and that reduces any power her statement had.

What is the difference?

twitter.com/Leyanelle/status/1434254532507226115?s=20

@AngeloMysterioso I've never liked her - she's the one who back in 2019 used her big US online profile to boost the charmingly-named gamer 'Hbomberguy''s online fundraiser for Mermaids when the UK Government paused Lottery funding for it pending a review after concerns were raised (including here on Mumsnet). The fundraiser ended up raising millions, and kept Mermaids going. That feels like one of the big wrong-turn-at-the-crossroads moments in all this mess, and she was a big part of that.

Woah, I'm not sure AOC realises what she's doing through her use of such open terminology. Or maybe she does?

Wft is reproductive justice, for a start? Because it's a very wide term that covers more than just termination parameters. It ventures into debates over the rights of adults to legal dependent children and infants: fertility treatment, adoption, surrogacy.

Again, termination parameters are not an "everyone" issue, are they? They concern a particular set of individuals at a certain point in their lives. Eighteen-year-old Texan Angie's ability to terminate a pregnancy at 12 weeks does not affect the material reality of a fifty-five-year-old truck driver from Ohio.

AOC seems to be broadening the net so that everyone falls in. I wonder why?

Yes, we've seen how woke media used "black birthing bodies" in an article about maternal mortality, quite how would that be different from "host bodies" or with the similar element of racism, "black host bodies" I'm not sure.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Yes, we've seen how woke media used "black birthing bodies" in an article about maternal mortality, quite how would that be different from "host bodies" or with the similar element of racism, "black host bodies" I'm not sure.

Good lord.

Has a man, ever, been referred to as the inseminator? Even once?

Uts so easy isn't it. You can eliminate problems not ny doing something about them, merely removing the language to describe then.

Who wouldn't take the easy way out .

And how can anyone expect to change anything whilst simultaneously showing they don't even care enough to talk about it. Of you don't take it seriously how can you expect anyone else too.

Has she also supported ‘fertility equality’ too?

Which by its very nature demands access to women’s bodies, exploiting them to produce children for those who believe that having children is a right.

Labels such as Reproductive justice and fertility equality distances these labels from the women they directly affect. Who benefits from doing this? Who benefits from removing the very human aspect of these terms?

I really want to see the term ejaculator or sperm producer or penis holder to be used and then watch the reaction.

I would like to know what she considers to be a feminist issue.

Genuinely.

@Helleofabore

I really want to see the term ejaculator or sperm producer or penis holder to be used and then watch the reaction.

Me too. Publicly dropped into the conversation just as casually as menstruater and birthing body.

There aren't as many opportunities, given male physical limits, but surely in terms of pregnancy, abortion and fatherhood, then inseminator, ejaculator, etc, should become common place.

And if the word man is used, then a definition needs to be sought immediately. For clarification.

The dehumanizing language has ceded the playing field to some parties because it's politicians such as AOC in no position to discuss these matters clearly.

As Jane Clare Jones says in her thread:

How long will these fools insist on trying to fight a massive assault on female ppl's reproductive rights while denying that female ppl exist and are the ones who get pregnant?? Liberal America…you are tying yourselves in knots to mount a defence from the edge of the pitch blindfolded with your hands tied behind your backs.
It's RISIBLE.
And what is doubly risible, is that confronted with this absolutely crystal clear demonstration of male power over female bodies, and why you need to be able to name material sex as an axis of power, while women are LOSING THEIR BASIC FREEDOMS, you still think it's more important to destroy the recognition of sex in public life in order to serve the interests of males who want to appropriate that class (oh, familiar) than it is to use the words to describe what is actually happening and to defend women.*

WOMEN.

The ones who get pregnant.

SAY IT.

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1436072234926415878?s=20

I am also certain that is we switch wholescale to only being called menstruators, ovary havers, sperm ejectors (oops… producers), prostrate havers… and never again mention men or women, this would be entirely unsatisfactory for those identifying as another gender. Because they couldn’t ever claim the language.

I really don’t believe those pushing for this ‘inclusive’ language thought this through to it final outcome. Although, I am sure then that there would be many more uterus havers than there actually is in real life as those words would also be used for people who are denying biological reality. And those who are female without uteruses would be left completely ignored. Unless the word woman was replaced with ‘uterus havers, vagina havers, vulva owners and all those who may have had them in the past’. Hard to fit on a masthead but there we are.

Unless the word woman was replaced with ‘uterus havers, vagina havers, vulva owners and all those who may have had them in the past’.

But this excludes females who were born without wombs. Biologically female in every way (no DSD), just missing a part of their anatomy.

@EdgeOfACoin

Well, if I were a male Republican lawmaker who wished to outlaw abortion completely, I'd go along with this school of thought.

Why shouldn't men make decisions about pregnancy, given that men can get pregnant too?

Exactly. We've been saying for years on this board what a gift this is to men who seek to govern women's bodies. These idiots are handing them an ideological and legal framework to make it not only easier but more justifiable.

I think it's about balance. I'd have had no problem with her saying 'and to be clear I want to acknowledge that pregnancy also affects some trans and non binary people' but then talking about women. She was making a strong and clear point about the axis of female oppression in rape and abortion being connected but it got lost because she ended up giving so much emphasis to trans/non binary etc that they became the central focus of what she was saying. When in reality trans people are a tiny minority of those affected by unwanted pregnancy.

@EdgeOfACoin

Unless the word woman was replaced with ‘uterus havers, vagina havers, vulva owners and all those who may have had them in the past’.

But this excludes females who were born without wombs. Biologically female in every way (no DSD), just missing a part of their anatomy.

I know. Crazy isn’t it. I had to draw the line somewhere and I had to exclude them because I couldn’t fit them in.

(Apologies to anyone who was left out of my paragraph to refer to anyone who is female without using female or woman. I know that there is a great many who were.)