From the diaries…
In a Planet Fitness world where women are women and men are too, situations involving gender identity are on the rise. To question policies which state “whatever gender you feel you are, that’s the locker room you’re allowed to go in” receives backlash and claims of discrimination regardless of concerns over safety. Increasingly, preference is given to the shifting emotions of gender expression while setting aside biological fact. While a gym locker room is one thing, injecting a new dimension into the subject of pregnancy is another thing entirely.
The term “War On Women”, fueled by liberal claims that Republicans attack reproductive rights, is increasingly being considered an incorrect representation. According to some feminists, not including trans men and the non-gender conforming in such a term does harm. “War on People” might be the phrase activists would like to see, but this is just the next step in distancing ourselves from the horror that is ending a life through abortion. Watering down what it actually means when a female says she is pregnant by including self-identified “men” (with functioning female parts) does not grant rights to a new segment of the population, but instead, continues to strip the already minimal rights away from a growing one. The unborn.
As evidenced by a recent article in The Nation, whose feminist author is actually unsure of this suggested addition, the delusional thinking associated with this discussion is solely focused on the power of terminology:
Once you start talking about “people,” not “women,” you lose what abortion means historically, symbolically and socially. It becomes hard to understand why it isn’t simply about the right to life of the “unborn.”
Restricting abortion is all about keeping women under the male thumb: controlling women’s sexual and reproductive capacities is what patriarchy is all about.
To the rational, it simply is about the life of the unborn, not a power play by the patriarchy. To feminists and their allies, such as this author, limiting or ending abortion is seen as an attack on women. Because of that view, some reject currently allowing another description (male) to be included in the topic since women would be second best yet again. The entire focus of abortion is on the hardship(s) the pregnant female will have to go through, whether during the 9 months, or after with a child she does not want. To suggest the term “male” be included reveals much about the movement. To those who approve, they want to be seen as actual proponents of equality. To those who object, they feel a solemn duty to protect this female dominated area. However, none of the arguing over terminology matters when voices of the unborn are excluded all together, and not even identified for what they are. The pro-choice, gender inclusive crowd even paints a picture of tolerance by announcing regarding trans people : “I love even more the well-deserved recognition of marginalized minority groups who never get the visibility they need.” All the while, however, they are the picture of exclusion.
This new wave of supposed inclusivity again fails to recognize that the term most needed in discussions of pregnancy, reproductive rights, and abortion is the word responsibility. That a biological female might identify as the color purple the day she discovers she is pregnant does not change the fact that a new baby is on its way. Framing a discussion to be more about the said pregnant person’s choice of gender identity rather than the developing life – which did not choose to be there – is so very tragic. But this is the goal of the abortion industry. Normalize absolutely everything surrounding the decision to end an unborn life, and someday, none of us post-birth survivors will object.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member