raptortooth asked: It's not exactly unheard of for trans men to have vaginal sex. I don't personally see the need to change every single advertisement to be 100% inclusive of everybody, so long as the other groups still get acknowledged somewhere, but I think you underestimate the number of trans* people who are connected to the issue. And, unless you're suggesting that non-binaries get to join in the debate but trans men don't, it's not just an issue of including trans men.
I’m not unaware of the issue—but that’s not really the point of the matter, is it? I would assume that most of those trans* men having PIV sex are aware of the risks and consequently taking more steps to avoid any unwanted pregnancies?
Likewise, I fully support inclusive health care for gynecological issues (including awareness of trans* and genderqueer-specific health concerns). What I am questioning is the need to centre trans* men in a debate about what is, essentially, an issue that predominantly affects cis women (abortion).
Switching the terminology to “uterus-bearers” is only going to complicate matters on the front-lines, and the political reality of the matter is: that’s the sort of complication that we as a society can ill-afford. I mean, if you look at the stuff that’s going on in Virginia, the entire US is sort of backsliding into a really Roe v Wade-negative point of view. The GOP is fielding candidates who are incredibly hostile to abortion, and who see it as a “Woman’s issue”. Switching the terminology to ‘uterus-bearers’ seems to me to be a predominantly semantic issue, which accomplishes very little on the ground.
And well, I’m arguing that trans* men are men, and as such their voices should be listened to on account of their medical history—but not necessarily centered? If that makes sense (I’m sorry, I’m a bit muzzy on cold meds.)
-
chickiedear liked this
-
appropriately-inappropriate posted this
