Thank you, thank you, thank you. The two largest contributions I give each year for as long as I can remember are to my undergraduate institution and Planned Parenthood. At a fundraiser this past weekend I raised the same issue with Alex McGill Johnson, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of American, having already discussed …
Thank you, thank you, thank you. The two largest contributions I give each year for as long as I can remember are to my undergraduate institution and Planned Parenthood. At a fundraiser this past weekend I raised the same issue with Alex McGill Johnson, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of American, having already discussed it with the Executive Director of our local chapter. I found Alex charming, knowledgeable and articulate and I agreed with virtually everything she said, but she did go to the inclusiveness talking points. I told her my feeling that in doing so we let the tail wag the dog. People who don't identify as women or are transitioning are a small percentage of those affected by reproductive rights. By using the word people we put them front and center. This immediately gives talking points to deceitful idiots like Tucker Carlson who has commented that Democrats want men to have babies and probably turns off a lot of centrists who as James Carville has noted are alienated by what he calls "faculty lounge" expressions. More importantly, it clouds the issue that the abortion debate is fundamentally about equal rights for WOMEN. Without reproductive freedom, the gains woman have made in my lifetime will likely vanish. I have a daughter and three granddaughters - I'll do everything in my power not to allow that to happen.
Are women somehow not people? Why wouldn't gender neutral language just include all of us impacted by the limiting of access to abortions?
Lastly, why would I give any power to people like Tucker Carlson?! He is never going to be on the right side of history and making him happy isn't going to restore our rights to abortions. That is letting the tail wag the dog by letting him dictate how we battle for our medical rights. We shouldn't aim to please the lowest denominator but instead treat everyone with kindness who is impacted and work towards everyone's access.
With all due respect, this issue is too important to be dismissed with the now often repeated and, I'm sorry, trite reply "Aren't women people?" The answer is obvious but it must also be noted that pre-Roe they were second class people, forced to stand behind the men in their lives. So at this existential moment women should not be allowing a superficial fight over nomenclature to push us into a back seat in order to recognize women who no longer wish to be identified as such. All people deserve our respect and assistance but that does not mean we forget what is central in this fight. Tucker Carlson only gets to laugh all the way to the bank when political correctness gets priority over achieving political and policy goals.
Women are people, sure, but using "people" instead of "women" obfuscates the politics. 99.99999% of "people" who need abortions identify as women, and 100% of "people" who need abortions are female. Abortion isn't a people's issue, it's a women's issue. If abortion were a people's issue, abortion would be legal everywhere because lots of "people" are men. This isn't about "kindness," it's about WOMEN's bodily autonomy.
As I've explained in multiple comments - it's not just women that may need an abortion. It's also transmen, intersexuals, and non-binary individuals that may need treatment. It's also a family planning issue.
You completely failed to address my point about the politics. I don’t care how someone identifies. Identity is not how we arrived at the problem of women having difficulty obtaining abortions.
But that is politics in today's environment - legislation is being passed based on identity so they are linked. As I mentioned, this also impacts men who are with their partners trying to plan their family. Do you think there was no impact to my husband when we lost both pregnancies? Yes, it is not an equal impact but the way you build empathy and a coalition is by hitting multiple messages on how it affects multiple identities/individuals and society. That's modern politics.
No. This is wrong. Muddying the waters by suggesting that every issue affects everyone is confusing and ineffective. Pregnancy affects women and that's how we should talk about it.
There is nothing confusing about saying a clinic saying we help anyone that is pregnant. Are you pregnant? Then we help you. That's pretty clear.
When we are discussing parental rights no one is confused that there might be one or multiple parents and those parents might be of various genders, marriage states, or different religions. We are more than capable of understanding some nuance.
I agree. I’m puzzled why a marginalized group, like the trans community, would welcome a new public battle that is so obviously unpopular, and not relevant to their quality of life - but almost guaranteed to threaten their quality of life via backlash to over-reach. It’s akin to shooting down your own cause.
But we only call it “over-reach because no one has brought it to general attention that vulnerable people are being excluded by our exclusive verbal normality. I remember the still-existing issue over masculine-exclusive language like “chairman”. Back in the 70s when I was the first and only woman in a newsroom, I was doing a live hit into a newscast and the announcer introed me as “newsman so-and-so”. I waited for a beat and then ignored the issue and did the report. But afterward I tried to have a non-confrontational conversation about alternative words that mean the same thing but were, actually, more accurate such as “reporter” or “journalist”. But that announcer carried a grudge against me to the day he retired and probably beyond.
I think we need to be aware that the world is moving forward into new situations and we need to be open to change or we will become irrelevant.
While I would agree in general, gender theory is being used to beat up the language. For example, "Cis male" - it become like a catechism. And truth to tell is folks have or are transitioning, i suggest the they still don't become women or men, only trans-women or trans-men. I say this more or less as someone discussing the natural history of the trans people. Trans women did not ever have late periods, nor did they have to talk to their partner about being pregnant. Trans men did not ever have to worry about their partner becoming pregnant is the rubber broke ... Again we are having a catechism forced down our throats.
I really can’t see the harm in what boils down to good manners. Or is your point of view the same as demanding that Ketanji Brown Jackman define the word “woman”?
Nothing at all against good manners. But I am really bothered by the utter denial of women - re pregnancy for example. And, since I really do understand the biology, sorry skin grafts and hormone treatments do not really produce a women. I read medical records for my day job - and can not the difference between and LDL of 70 and 110. The second is adverse. How do we simple pretend that the new creation is exactly the same as a woman. I am fine with them living a decent life but I refuse to use "cis male" or "pregnant person" - I went to Catholic school and after that I am suspicious of catechisms.
Re judge Brown - she was poorly treated by a group of assholes.
I agree. It feels like there’s a constant tension though, in the speed at which we pursue needed change, so it doesn’t backfire.
It’s kind of like the historical experience of third party or independent candidates, who might match one’s ideology but in the reality of our political system result in a Trump presidency - the polar opposite of the intent of the vote cast. It’s a moral dilemma.
I wish it wasn’t . But with decades of progress for women looking like it will go up in smoke, I’m not sure what else to call it. Taking away rights can’t just be a changing norm. If you’re talking just about the change in words we use (I was not) it becomes a fight if the new words are counterproductive to the goal of preserving those rights
Thank you, thank you, thank you. The two largest contributions I give each year for as long as I can remember are to my undergraduate institution and Planned Parenthood. At a fundraiser this past weekend I raised the same issue with Alex McGill Johnson, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of American, having already discussed it with the Executive Director of our local chapter. I found Alex charming, knowledgeable and articulate and I agreed with virtually everything she said, but she did go to the inclusiveness talking points. I told her my feeling that in doing so we let the tail wag the dog. People who don't identify as women or are transitioning are a small percentage of those affected by reproductive rights. By using the word people we put them front and center. This immediately gives talking points to deceitful idiots like Tucker Carlson who has commented that Democrats want men to have babies and probably turns off a lot of centrists who as James Carville has noted are alienated by what he calls "faculty lounge" expressions. More importantly, it clouds the issue that the abortion debate is fundamentally about equal rights for WOMEN. Without reproductive freedom, the gains woman have made in my lifetime will likely vanish. I have a daughter and three granddaughters - I'll do everything in my power not to allow that to happen.
Are women somehow not people? Why wouldn't gender neutral language just include all of us impacted by the limiting of access to abortions?
Lastly, why would I give any power to people like Tucker Carlson?! He is never going to be on the right side of history and making him happy isn't going to restore our rights to abortions. That is letting the tail wag the dog by letting him dictate how we battle for our medical rights. We shouldn't aim to please the lowest denominator but instead treat everyone with kindness who is impacted and work towards everyone's access.
With all due respect, this issue is too important to be dismissed with the now often repeated and, I'm sorry, trite reply "Aren't women people?" The answer is obvious but it must also be noted that pre-Roe they were second class people, forced to stand behind the men in their lives. So at this existential moment women should not be allowing a superficial fight over nomenclature to push us into a back seat in order to recognize women who no longer wish to be identified as such. All people deserve our respect and assistance but that does not mean we forget what is central in this fight. Tucker Carlson only gets to laugh all the way to the bank when political correctness gets priority over achieving political and policy goals.
Women are people, sure, but using "people" instead of "women" obfuscates the politics. 99.99999% of "people" who need abortions identify as women, and 100% of "people" who need abortions are female. Abortion isn't a people's issue, it's a women's issue. If abortion were a people's issue, abortion would be legal everywhere because lots of "people" are men. This isn't about "kindness," it's about WOMEN's bodily autonomy.
As I've explained in multiple comments - it's not just women that may need an abortion. It's also transmen, intersexuals, and non-binary individuals that may need treatment. It's also a family planning issue.
You completely failed to address my point about the politics. I don’t care how someone identifies. Identity is not how we arrived at the problem of women having difficulty obtaining abortions.
But that is politics in today's environment - legislation is being passed based on identity so they are linked. As I mentioned, this also impacts men who are with their partners trying to plan their family. Do you think there was no impact to my husband when we lost both pregnancies? Yes, it is not an equal impact but the way you build empathy and a coalition is by hitting multiple messages on how it affects multiple identities/individuals and society. That's modern politics.
No. This is wrong. Muddying the waters by suggesting that every issue affects everyone is confusing and ineffective. Pregnancy affects women and that's how we should talk about it.
There is nothing confusing about saying a clinic saying we help anyone that is pregnant. Are you pregnant? Then we help you. That's pretty clear.
When we are discussing parental rights no one is confused that there might be one or multiple parents and those parents might be of various genders, marriage states, or different religions. We are more than capable of understanding some nuance.
I agree. I’m puzzled why a marginalized group, like the trans community, would welcome a new public battle that is so obviously unpopular, and not relevant to their quality of life - but almost guaranteed to threaten their quality of life via backlash to over-reach. It’s akin to shooting down your own cause.
But we only call it “over-reach because no one has brought it to general attention that vulnerable people are being excluded by our exclusive verbal normality. I remember the still-existing issue over masculine-exclusive language like “chairman”. Back in the 70s when I was the first and only woman in a newsroom, I was doing a live hit into a newscast and the announcer introed me as “newsman so-and-so”. I waited for a beat and then ignored the issue and did the report. But afterward I tried to have a non-confrontational conversation about alternative words that mean the same thing but were, actually, more accurate such as “reporter” or “journalist”. But that announcer carried a grudge against me to the day he retired and probably beyond.
I think we need to be aware that the world is moving forward into new situations and we need to be open to change or we will become irrelevant.
While I would agree in general, gender theory is being used to beat up the language. For example, "Cis male" - it become like a catechism. And truth to tell is folks have or are transitioning, i suggest the they still don't become women or men, only trans-women or trans-men. I say this more or less as someone discussing the natural history of the trans people. Trans women did not ever have late periods, nor did they have to talk to their partner about being pregnant. Trans men did not ever have to worry about their partner becoming pregnant is the rubber broke ... Again we are having a catechism forced down our throats.
I really can’t see the harm in what boils down to good manners. Or is your point of view the same as demanding that Ketanji Brown Jackman define the word “woman”?
Nothing at all against good manners. But I am really bothered by the utter denial of women - re pregnancy for example. And, since I really do understand the biology, sorry skin grafts and hormone treatments do not really produce a women. I read medical records for my day job - and can not the difference between and LDL of 70 and 110. The second is adverse. How do we simple pretend that the new creation is exactly the same as a woman. I am fine with them living a decent life but I refuse to use "cis male" or "pregnant person" - I went to Catholic school and after that I am suspicious of catechisms.
Re judge Brown - she was poorly treated by a group of assholes.
I agree. It feels like there’s a constant tension though, in the speed at which we pursue needed change, so it doesn’t backfire.
It’s kind of like the historical experience of third party or independent candidates, who might match one’s ideology but in the reality of our political system result in a Trump presidency - the polar opposite of the intent of the vote cast. It’s a moral dilemma.
You could not have made the case more articulately or powerfully. Thank you!
Thanks. I said I'd do eveything in my power in this fight. Writing is what I can do best.
Why is it a “fight”? Why can’t it be a changing norm?
I wish it wasn’t . But with decades of progress for women looking like it will go up in smoke, I’m not sure what else to call it. Taking away rights can’t just be a changing norm. If you’re talking just about the change in words we use (I was not) it becomes a fight if the new words are counterproductive to the goal of preserving those rights