raptortooth asked: Being trans* doesn't give people superior knowledge of contraception. It doesn't even give them more incentive to use it. Generally, if people don't want to be pregnant, they DO NOT want to be pregnant. The only difference between cis women and everyone else who can become pregnant is that there are more cis women. I don't actually fully agree with the "uterus-bearer" argument. But that doesn't mean trans* people have no place in the discussion.
I’m not arguing that it does. I have never said that being trans* gives someone a contraceptive super power. It might, however, give people a better awareness of their body, and its processes.
I’d also argue that generally, trans* men are less likely to engage in risky sex (for example, unprotected sex) that could compromise their passing, and/or their transition.
Pregnancy is a pretty large compromising factor. Consequently, it would only be common sense that trans* men would take the necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy, thus rendering the issue of abortion somewhat moot, don’t you think?
Regardless: I think we agree on the uterus-bearers poster. I don’t mind offering some recognition—I think it’s appropriate to remind people that not just women have gynecologically based reproductive organs. However, my problem comes when you get individuals saying that if you frame women as the primary users of abortion services, you’re being somehow cissexist.
If you’ve been following the comments, I’m sure you’ll have seen those sorts of claims, and I don’t think they’re particularly correct. Saying that something predominantly affects women (not exclusively, because nothing EXCLUSIVELY affects anyone), but predominantly in 99.5% of cases isn’t cissexist, it’s stating a fact. So, in any case, it seems like we’re agreeing on that last point.
