Hey trans bros, the reproductive fight is not about you

appropriately-inappropriate:

clatterandclank:

appropriately-inappropriate:

thewonderfulbuttnugget:

clatterandclank:

appropriately-inappropriate:

unknowablewoman:

thewonderfulbuttnugget:

I don’t give a fuck if you’re a guy like me or anything. I don’t give a fuck that you have parts that can carry a baby to term just like a cis woman can. You have upward mobility in this society because you’re a guy, and if you’re not being perceived as a guy you’re still a guy and should be nice to women instead of WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ? every time someone is a feminist or for women’s rights.

Yeah, bringing up “TRANS GUYS GET PREGNANT TOO! TRANS GUYS HAVE VAGINAS TOO! YOU ARE OPPRESSING MEEEE!” is what about the menz. So shut the fuck up.

I feel like the cis SJWs are going to implode at the idea of an actual trans person disagreeing with them on this issue. They won’t know what to do so they’re just going to type nonsense and repeat the same syllables over and over again like horribly programmed robots.

ERASURE ERASURE ERASUREEEEE

Not to put too fine a point on it, but specifically regarding abortion:
Is there even that high a percentage of trans* men needing them? Not the POTENTIAL for them (which yes, anybody with a working uterus has the potential to conceive), but the actual need?
Is this something I’ve been missing?

Are there really that many trans* men who require abortions?

(I can see the necessity of having easily accessible gynecologists (and/or whatever the term is for doctors whose specialty is specifically the ‘female’ reproductive system [and oh hell, here comes the hate mail]). That’s important. But specifically regarding abortion, that seems to be a very specific area of concern, and not really one that a lot of trans* men will be needing access to?
The Beaties of the world do seem to be something of a statistical outlier, and even then, that pregnancy was planned, so abortion services obviously weren’t even an issue.

TW: DISCUSSION OF RAPE

Wait…are you saying because there are statistically fewer trans* and non-binary people who need abortions that their experiences and rights don’t matter?

Also, are you aware of the massive amount of sexual violence perpetrated towards trans* and gender nonconforming people? A lot of cases where trans* and non-binary folk need to have an abortion happen because they were raped - specifically as a way to ‘correct’ their gender identity and expression. Because they are disproportionately victims of sexual violence, that also means this is a group of people - PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, WHO HAVE RIGHTS - who are also at greater risk from pregnancy because of forced unprotected sex.

I’m aware of the disproportionately large percentage of violence perpetrated against trans* people, most of them against women.

I do believe you’re conflating the argument though. This is about reproductive rights and/or trans* people, mostly men, going into women’s spaces and claiming how their experience is more important than women’s in this regard. This does not mean I’m against trans men, or transphobic. I just don’t think it’s right, in a society that can’t even manage to treat cis women correctly, to undermine the fact that cis women aren’t treated with respect by going out of your way to put their experience down and say that your experience matters more because you’re a man

Oh my.
I hadn’t even thought of it like that. But now that you mention it… you have a point.

It just seems, to me, that we’re stuck in this sort of quagmire.
Trans* men are men. Unequivocally so.

However, having said that, is it really appropriate for men to be trying to determine how women’s reproductive justice activism should be conducted? I mean, they’re men. I mean, when cis men try to butt in to conversations like this, it’s really rude. Why should it be any more acceptable for a trans man to do it?

Having a uterus becomes relevant in certain cases (issues of sexual violence/uterine health/etc), but is it really relevant when regarding abortion?
While the uterus implies potential, it doesn’t necessarily mean need, and I think that it’s disingenious for a man to say that he should have a voice in a conversation about women’s reproductive health just because he happens to have a specific organ.

This is just not making any sense to me whatsoever.

Trans men have a different relationship to this issue than cis men because of differences in their biological sex.

Anyone who has the biological equipment to get pregnant should have a say in their own reproductive health. They should be able to participate in these conversations even if they aren’t women.

Again, framing this as women’s reproductive health is exclusionary and cissexist.

AND

My question is whether the advertising campaigns really need to focus exclusively on cis women? I don’t think they do. And I think the fact that they do is cissexist and oppressive.

I am also not really convinced this line you’re drawing between people with the potential to get pregnant vs those who are having abortions is a relevant thing to throw in here.

I’ve added both of your points to that one post, so I can address them in one reply:

Trans men have a different relationship to this issue than cis men because of differences in their biological sex.

That’s self-evident. However, the fact that trans* men as a general rule don’t use that particular set of reproductive organs means that their opinions, while relevant in a general sense, are not necessarily crucial to the matter at hand. Abortion, as a general rule, does not really affect trans* men, does it? It is, however, a very important issue to cis women.

Anyone who has the biological equipment to get pregnant should have a say in their own reproductive health. They should be able to participate in these conversations even if they aren’t women.

There is, however, a difference between reproductive health (the ability for accessible and affordable gynecological exams), and abortion services. While I wholeheartedly agree that trans* individuals should have a say in their reproductive health, I don’t agree that men (even trans* ones), should have much of a say specifically regarding abortion.

framing this as women’s reproductive health is exclusionary and cissexist

Calling something cissexist simply because it doesn’t agree with your opinion is pretty disingenuous as well. It’s also kind of ironic, since I’m basically arguing that trans* men, as men, don’t really have a say in issues of women’s reproductive help.
Either trans* men are men, or they’re not? Which is it?
In addition, excluding men from issues of women’s reproductive health is not necessarily a negative. (To use a similarly loaded example, I (a Latina lesbian), don’t generally get much voice in the conversations of Asian lesbians, which is as it should be, because despite our lesbianism, our cultural context is incredibly different. I’m being excluded, but not in a negative context.)

My question is whether the advertising campaigns really need to focus exclusively on cis women?

I think it does; the reality of the issue is that this is an issue affecting nearly exclusively cis women. Consequently, saying that the focus on (specifically) women’s reproductive health is oppressive could be construed as being misogynistic.
Not every campaign HAS to centre the issues of men (even trans men). On occasion, battles must be fought for cis women as well. Unless you disagree?

I am also not really convinced this line you’re drawing between people with the potential to get pregnant vs those who are having abortions is a relevant thing to throw in here.

I’d like you to tell me why it isn’t.
Abortion is a service. Consequently, as an elective medical procedure, not everyone with the potential of having it will. That covers trans* men, who have the potential (as anyone with a uterus does) of requiring an abortion—but since trans* men (for varying reasons) rarely require access to abortion, reframing the debate to centre their experiences would accomplish relatively little.
(Another inflammatory example: Some fish can fly, true, but the the vast majority of things that hit airplanes are birds. Should airports enact a protocol for a flying fish strike? It is possible, certainly, but statistically, pretty rare.)

I think it’s clear from this dialogue we’re having that we’re just not going to agree on this, which is totally fine. This is a really well thought out and articulate discussion, and I get what you’re saying, i do, but I just don’t agree.

One thing I would like to point out is that the way you’ve framed this is very binarist. It’s not just about trans* men - it’s also about people who do not fit into the gender binary. Like me. I want to have a stake in this, and for that stake to be acknowledged even though I am not a woman. But i’m not a man either. I’m not asking for this to be centered on men at all, actually.

Well, we can definitely agree to disagree. That’s the part of civil debate I like; when you don’t have to convert the other person to your argument. ;D
So, that works out alright. (And it was really fun to have this discussion with you— well-thought out and challenging arguments are always a joy to debate against!)

Ah, yes. I’ve sort of been relying on the male/female thing, I do acknowledge that. I didn’t want to bog up the discussion with tangents and gender issues any further than I really needed to—I’m cis, so I’m not as familiar with genderqueer abortion needs as I could be. I didn’t want to inadvertently say something false or wrong!

(Source: welfarepenis)