End of roe versus wade

[drwitch]

There is a thread on feminism/chat about this but I think it's relevant for here too. Judith Green on twitter explains it very well twitter.com/TybilAlper/status/1521392355126906880?t=SiQmWheJgCyBrmO6LPFyEA&s=19

You're still in feminism section.

There's already a thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4542161-breaking-claims-that-the-american-supreme-court-will-strike-down-roe-v-wade

The question is whether the removal of the ability to talk about sex based oppression has led to this judgement in the States.

Well it stands to reason if you refer to women and gestators, menstruators amd birthing bodies that you would not give a shit if they had to have babies they didn't want or didnt consent to the sex that created them.

Having erased the language to define who is affected by things you have on paper solved all the problems 🙄

I'm gonna hazard a guess that any overall ban wouldn't come alongside improved maternity benefits, healthcare for the uninsured, Foster care/adoption system and welfare provisions?

No. In a word.

The striking down of Roe v Wade is a very longstanding project in the US and has been achieved, if it goes ahead, by packing of the Supreme Court by Republican manoeuvring. First by Republicans stonewalling the appointment of a new judge (Merrick Garland) during Obama's presidency and forcing the seat to remain vacant. Then by Trump taking advantage of this to appoint, by the end, three out of the nine justices.

There's a reason the evangelicals supported Trump, and this is it.

Mitch McConnell played a large part in blocking/expediting the appointments to make this happen.

None of these people are lacking an ability to talk about sex-based oppression; what they're lacking is the belief that sex-based oppression is bad. They either don't care, or they embrace it.

Someone on these boards nailed it early on, when they said that regardless of language, people know what a woman is when they're oppressing us.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/us-abortions-travel-wave-of-restrictions?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

Article here in the Guardian - naturally there's one word missing from their coverage. Can you guess what it is?

The question is whether the removal of the ability to talk about sex based oppression has led to this judgement in the States.

The TRA control of language didn't cause this directly because it hasn't affected the right at all, apart from granting them valuable mockery material, but it completely fucked the left and made them incapable of organising to oppose this. Perhaps that's what you meant?

The first Women's March was a huge grassroots success born out of women's anger. The second one got taken down by rows about "pussy hats" and financially co-opted by woke grifters, and it's been downhill ever since. All the professional feminist and pro-choice organisations are co-opted and can't even talk about the issue never mind campaign on it, and any grassroots organising gets taken down by TRAs.

Exactly absurdle

There are misogynists on the right and misogynists on the left. Both powerful in different ways. Currently the misogynists on the left are intent upon driving a wedge between women. This is extremely useful to misogynists on the right as it means there is so much less resistance for them to encounter.

Both left wing and right wing misogynists think they own our bodies and our ability to reproduce one way or another. A left wing misogynist might let us have an abortion. But they will want some of us to be surrogates and sex workers and they don't believe we should have any space where a male can't potentially enter, however vulnerable we may be.

I agree that adhering to TRA ideals has completely hobbled the American left in working against this. It all plays into dehumanising women, referring to us as “birthing bodies” - particularly egregious seeing this is impacting women who don’t want to give birth

If/when RvW falls, my feeling is it’s incredibly unlikely to happen here though. We just don’t have this deeply conservative, religious element as a significant portion of our society. Or am I woefully naïve?

I agree that adhering to TRA ideals has completely hobbled the American left in working against this. It all plays into dehumanising women, referring to us as “birthing bodies” - particularly egregious seeing this is impacting women who don’t want to give birth

Its a complete own goal isn't it. I mean you can't suddenly claim you care about access to abortion when you didnt even care enough about women to fight to keep your name. Of course that woyod one day work.against you.

The TRA control of language didn't cause this directly because it hasn't affected the right at all, apart from granting them valuable mockery material, but it completely fucked the left and made them incapable of organising to oppose this.

Indeed. And I don't believe this is accidental.

I've posted several times about the Twitter material I spotted around 2016 of obvious trolls pretending to be far-left TRAs pushing absurd TRA material. I screenshotted because it was so ridiculous. (Can't find my posts now, thanks new MN search. )

IIRC, the trolls got outed by their location and an investigation, and they were a pair of far-right Americans (with a possible Russian connection just to make it more fun).

Whilst people have to take responsibility for how much they themselves have bought into and thrown their energy into this particular McGuffin, the introduction and meteoric, Twitter-fuelled rise of this as a distraction has been... nudged.

Cwenthryth, for years I've been reading posters on MN saying that Roe v Wade could never fall.

Often it's been to dismiss to other posters' concern about salami-slicing steps towards removing abortion rights.

BTW, re Twitter and other influence campaigns.

On the Russian invasion threads we've been talking about the sheer spread of Russian information campaigns; the way they poke their sticky fingers into every useful-looking issue to promote division.

The Russians are ubiquitous, but they're not the only ones to do this. The technique of appearing to back one or both sides of any contentious issue, in order to heat the issue to extremes and division, is common to many interest groups.

The upshot is, any of us who have ever campaigned sincerely for any issue we hold dear, will probably at some point have had some lovely troll chiming in pretending to support us. Even attempting to lead the way.

Our natural reaction when this is discovered may be to feel defensive, and to deny that our "friend" in the cause is not in good faith. But the effect of this is to cover for the troll-master, who definitely doesn't have our interests at heart.

We need to get used to acknowledging that whatever we're doing, it's likely some "supporters" will be in bad faith. And then get on with the campaigning anyway.