So pointing out that they have a uterus is dehumanizing in the context of reproductive rights? Also, chill on the hostility. It's not helping.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Boiling down women purely down to their ability to breed is pretty dehumanizing, yes.
Also, you're the one who started off being hostile, so own it.
I was being facetious, not overtly hostile. You're the one who chose to start name-calling.
And I think in context pointing out that people with uteruses have a bigger stake in this than those of us who don't makes a degree of sense. Not everything is black and white.
You're the one who misframed it, and used exclamation marks to boot.
And another misframing.
Yes, women have a bigger stake in it. Where did I claim otherwise?
Well it is from news.com.au, which is just the worst fucking news website in Australia for anything but the barest of fluff news. But all the moderately respectable ones have gone all paywall and these jokers are still free.
Which is my way of saying if the article is shit its because whomever wrote is A) shit themselves, or B) so very green to journalistic writing.
I don't really have that much of an issue with news.com.au. It's not perfect, but it does give some barebones stuff. I don't think the article is "shit" per se, just it's incredibly ironic that in an effort to be 'woke,' it chooses the most dehumanizing language possible (well, maybe not "most," Verso holds the record with "womb carriers"...ugh).
As for paywall stuff, true, stuff like the Sydney Morning Herald (which I'm subscribed to) is behind a paywall, but I often go to ABC Just In and the same for SBS. Those two usually give good stuff, and it's paywall free.
What exactly is more dehumanizing about 'people with uteruses' than 'women' within the context of protesting anti-abortion laws? Women are people, but people is dehumanizing? Other than 'this is a descriptor that is not used often in conversation' I don't see what's so dehumanizing about this. Not all women can reproduce or even have a uterus, so 'people with a uterus' within this context is very apt.
Not to mention that trans men happen to exist, which shouldn't really be that surprising.
So you don't think it's a little bit creepy (at best) to regard women as existing solely for their ability to bear offspring? You don't think it's weird when the same language used by misogenists is used to describe women is suddenly "woke" because it's used in a supposedly benign context?
I mean, I can flip this, imagine if I started calling men "sperm incubators" or "insemination agents." You don't think that's a wee bit creepy (at best)? I mean, I can start calling all women baby carriers, and all men fertilization operatives, but I wouldn't be surprised if I got some raised eyebrows (at best).
That's not what's happening though, and you know that. I don't know if you've ever seen or read a news item on sperm banks, but in it men are generally refered to as sperm donors. And guess what, that's totally normal within the context of that news item. And this is a news item about prostesting abortional laws, not a marathon or traffic collision. Is a news item about a murder or deadly incident refering to someone as a 'victim' also dehumanizing? I mean, I don't go around calling people caucasian in my day to day life either, yet I've seen a lot of news items refering to a suspect as such.
The article isn't regarding women as existing soley to bear chlidren, it's regarding the protest of laws primarily effecting 'people with a uterus'. The only reason it sounds "creepy" to you is because the default in this context has always been 'women', but with consensus slowly coming around that women don't automatically have a uterus or can carry a child the language around it has changed. Again, this is not an article about the next Taylor Swift album, so I this whole 'well, I guess I'll just start calling all women baby carriers' is a really, really silly counter.
It's not doing that. It's merely focusing on the characteristic that's relevant to the topic, and which is not 100% exclusive to women.
Labeling anybody who can get pregnant as a woman leads to the "if there's grass on the field, play ball" attitude toward girls, I'm sure of it.
I usually use the site as a gathering source of articles from around the world to them go find better articles
Chalk me up as someone who takes exception to treating women and trans men interchangeably when it comes to discussing pregnancy. Not because of the gender thing, but because trans men experience greater side effects, complications, and risks, and that's before we start talking about mental health risks due to gender dysphoria and having to discontinue HRT during the pregnancy. If anything, trans men need -- and deserve -- greater recognition and consideration than cis women in this particular subject.
One more area in which TERF's, trans rights activists, and the radical right alike do trans people injustice from my own perspective. Same shit as when I go in circles with trans women who think that because they're on HRT, they can't get prostate cancer or even really thought of it.
Why are random actors and actresses being allowed to join such calls despite being elected by nobody? I thought Trump adding his kids to his government was supposed to be bad. Is being in Will and Grace somehow more qualifying for the task of political strategist?
More qualifying than being a Trump kid?... well yes, but only because the bar is so low that there is no bar
We had an actor talking to a chair. Hollywood (or whatever you call TV) is always going to think it has great ideas. Actor is just another name for saleperson
Opinion | If Tucker Runs in 2024, Here’s Who the Democrats Need
Jon Stewart is a better fit than most politicians for what modern politics has become.
www.politico.com
Hard-disagree.