14

OK. This is kind of a ramble, but I hope people can follow me.

I know the general consensus is that the Democratic Party is for abortion rights for women. However, I tend to think this will not be the case in the future. They are fully vested in the trans agenda, probably because they've received so much funding from TECH companies, wealthy TIMs and other vested interests in transhumanism.

My thought is this. Consider how trans activists want to eradicate the concept of women in terms of childbirth/pregnancy. They want to obscure the reality of pregnancy, the oppression of childbirth/motherhood via identifying us as "birthing bodies", erasing the term "woman" from healthcare organizations, from medical research, etc.. They are dismissing the reality of pregnancy for us. They don't believe it's a burden to us, as most men generally dismiss the hardships concerning pregnancy. Whether one can carry a pregnancy (or not) is an "irrelevant issue" in terms of gender identity, according to trans activists.

Trans activists also want to eradicate the concept of sex. They want men to be able to ID as women whenever they see fit-- there are no physical criterion needed for a man to ID as a woman according to them.

Well, if a woman is with a male partner, and becomes pregnant and decides she wants to terminate, what is there to stop him from IDing as a woman? If he IDs as a woman, what's to stop him from legally fighting his pregnant partner's attempt to obtain an abortion? If he is legally a woman (simply because he feels that he is and the law supports TRA ideology), he could argue that to abort the pregnancy would be "against his will" as a woman. The now identified TIM could claim this was a "forced abortion". Remember, they don't identify pregnancy as a real thing... they dismiss the hardships we experience during pregnancy. It would also be against the law to force a "woman" to have an abortion, regardless of whether the woman is a TIM, if what trans activists WANT comes to pass and the capacity to carry a pregnancy to term becomes irrelevant in terms of identity.

Conversely, one could argue that a TIM could fight a female partner carrying a pregnancy to term... as forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term isn't completely legal, either... if the TIM identifies as a "woman", the TIM could possibly argue that the pregnancy was against their will... this could lead to the actual pregnant woman either being compelled to abort, or to legally allow the TIM to dodge child support (as the TIM identifies as a "she", and "she" didn't really want the pregnancy in the first place).

How does one legally define the pregnant person if SEX is eradicated in law, and one can ID as any gender at any time? How does one identify a pregnant person legally if the concept of pregnancy is dismissed as "no big deal/not related to biological sex"? This opens up the Pandoras Box to allow the person who is NOT pregnant to decide the fate of the "birthing body".

This might sound like lunacy, but consider how men often transition when their partners are pregnant and/or have just given birth. Read some "trans widows" stories if you don't believe me. Some of these men are clearly emotionally abusive, and I could easily see one actually waging a legal battle in regards to this, if only to control his partner.

Edit: I should add, this would potentially be devastating in the near future as our Supreme Court is conservative. Conservatives will vote pro-life/ pro-men's rights regardless of whether its a TIM fighting for their "right" to bar a woman from terminating a pregnancy.

OK. This is kind of a ramble, but I hope people can follow me. I know the general consensus is that the Democratic Party is for abortion rights for women. However, I tend to think this will not be the case in the future. They are fully vested in the trans agenda, probably because they've received so much funding from TECH companies, wealthy TIMs and other vested interests in transhumanism. My thought is this. Consider how trans activists want to eradicate the concept of women in terms of childbirth/pregnancy. They want to obscure the reality of pregnancy, the oppression of childbirth/motherhood via identifying us as "birthing bodies", erasing the term "woman" from healthcare organizations, from medical research, etc.. They are dismissing the reality of pregnancy for us. They don't believe it's a burden to us, as most men generally dismiss the hardships concerning pregnancy. Whether one can carry a pregnancy (or not) is an "irrelevant issue" in terms of gender identity, according to trans activists. Trans activists also want to eradicate the concept of sex. They want men to be able to ID as women whenever they see fit-- there are no physical criterion needed for a man to ID as a woman according to them. Well, if a woman is with a male partner, and becomes pregnant and decides she wants to terminate, what is there to stop him from IDing as a woman? If he IDs as a woman, what's to stop him from legally fighting his pregnant partner's attempt to obtain an abortion? If he is legally a woman (simply because he feels that he is and the law supports TRA ideology), he could argue that to abort the pregnancy would be "against his will" as a woman. The now identified TIM could claim this was a "forced abortion". Remember, they don't identify pregnancy as a real thing... they dismiss the hardships we experience during pregnancy. It would also be against the law to force a "woman" to have an abortion, regardless of whether the woman is a TIM, if what trans activists WANT comes to pass and the capacity to carry a pregnancy to term becomes irrelevant in terms of identity. Conversely, one could argue that a TIM could fight a female partner carrying a pregnancy to term... as forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term isn't completely legal, either... if the TIM identifies as a "woman", the TIM could possibly argue that the pregnancy was against their will... this could lead to the actual pregnant woman either being compelled to abort, or to legally allow the TIM to dodge child support (as the TIM identifies as a "she", and "she" didn't really want the pregnancy in the first place). How does one legally define the pregnant person if SEX is eradicated in law, and one can ID as any gender at any time? How does one identify a pregnant person legally if the concept of pregnancy is dismissed as "no big deal/not related to biological sex"? This opens up the Pandoras Box to allow the person who is NOT pregnant to decide the fate of the "birthing body". This might sound like lunacy, but consider how men often transition when their partners are pregnant and/or have just given birth. Read some "trans widows" stories if you don't believe me. Some of these men are clearly emotionally abusive, and I could easily see one actually waging a legal battle in regards to this, if only to control his partner. Edit: I should add, this would potentially be devastating in the near future as our Supreme Court is conservative. Conservatives will vote pro-life/ pro-men's rights regardless of whether its a TIM fighting for their "right" to bar a woman from terminating a pregnancy.

16 comments

[–] zuubat 16 points (+16|-0) Edited

I appreciate your thinking through dystopic possibilities -- it's always good to keep our eyes open -- but I think these scenarios are unlikely. If anything, right-wing misogyny, the wellspring of the "pro-life" movement, would honor a man's control over his wife, rather than a man-who-says-he's-a-woman's such control.

That said, Roe v Wade is surely on its last leg, for two reasons:

  1. Despite all the bellyaching, Republicans were happy to keep Roe in place because without that boogeyman they would be hard pressed to win any elections. With Trumpism, however, they have a different boogeyman: the "elite." So they may not need Roe anymore and will greenlight its demise.

  2. With their 6-3 SC said demise is more likely than ever.

Women in the 18-34-year-old demographic are most at risk when Roe is shitcanned, yet for the nearly 50 years since Roe, voting rates among that age group have remained below 40%. This tells me that the people most affected by Roe don't seem to care all that much.

Oh, they'll care when it's gone.

[–] HelgeNacht [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

Yes, I know I am almost dystopian in my perception of things, but in my experience I HAVE to anticipate the worst case scenario, or I get burned. LOL. I often prove myself to be right in the end. I remember in the 1990s during the "Republican Revolution", wondering if someone who advocated and/or refused to denounce Neo-Nazi ideologies would ever get elected into the presidency. Lo and behold, that very thing happened two decades later.

Regardless, I agree that Roe v Wade is likely to be rescinded. As a life-long left leaning person who recoils at most politically conservative viewpoints, I don't think the left really cares about women at this point at all. They're not discussing domestic violence, they are pushing "sex work is work" and they are fully supporting the TRA agenda. Women's right to abortion is low on their list of priorities, regardless of what they claim. They don't even list women as a group that is oppressed in many of their statements, unless they're speaking about particular races of women. Even planned parenthood has become overtaken by TRA obsession. What's the point of abortion being legal if no one wants to be involved in that industry anyway because there are more lucrative and less controversial ways to make money in medicine?

I've also considered the possibility that transhumanist lobby would just LOVE to be able to collect "unwanted fetuses" for experimental research-- so I could see some kind of "non-abortive" abortion being developed for revolting human experimentation purposes. This would technically NOT be abortion as the fetus wouldn't be destroyed.

I definitely agree with your assessment that many younger women are not aware of the dangers they face, or they're brainwashed not to recognize it. It's easy to dismiss the realities of sexism when you're young, fresh, and men bend over backwards to kiss your ass. It's harder to see the debilitating nature of motherhood until you've gone through that whole circumstance. It's hard to believe sexism in employment until you experience it first hand. When you're older and wiser, you realize how you were undermined the entire time.

[–] mistmillitia 7 points (+7|-0)

I've noticed alot of rhetoric from TIMs surrounding abortion that unnerves me as they become an increasingly large part of the Democratic party. Outrage at women who have abortions and calling it cis privilege...is another flavor of "she had sex! She has to go through with the consequences, because reasons!" As more TIMs take D positions (and women's positions in civil rights NGOs), abortion rights will be less and less talked about.

[–] bumpyjerboa 4 points (+4|-0)

I agree, I think this is more likely. The ACLU is in the iron grip of trans, I can imagine they would barely muster up a tired amicus brief if a case went before the supreme court. Chase Strangio can spare tweets upon tweets over her distaste for protecting kids from dangerous drugs in the UK -- she clearly doesn't give a damn about her fellow females.

[–] NewMa 2 points (+2|-0)

I used to give them money/time/etc. They write me for more money, and I write back "You want to take women's sports away from women. No."

[–] bumpyjerboa 1 points (+1|-0)

Andrea Dworkin criticized them in the late 70s. Time is a flat circle.

[–] HelgeNacht [OP] 3 points (+3|-0)

Exactly. TIMs will displace women in political seats, just as they have in the UK and other countries. All of the TIMs I've seen online have been more supportive of men's rights than anything else.

I could see them advocating some compulsory "permission" from sperm-donors before women seek abortions. Many of them are also jealous of women's capacity to get pregnant, and also know women often avoid pregnancy for valid reasons (whether TIMs want to admit it or not) therefor I could see them supporting eradicating abortion rights in order to "keep women in their place".

They also often seem to perceive pregnancy as "no big deal", as men commonly dismiss the hardships of pregnancy.

[–] zuubat 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

But what happens when a poor, downtrodden TIM needs an abortion? Julian Castro proclaimed his support for abortion access for trans, but Biden got the nod instead. Will he, too, make sure TIMs have at least the same access to choice as (ewww) cis women?

Note 1: for those of you outside the U.S., this Castro fellow, one of the candidates in the Democratic primary, made just this claim on the teevee. Yeah. He did.

Note 2: When I searched "Julian Castro abortion transwomen" Google politely informed me, "Do you mean trans women?"

[–] worried19 0 points (+0|-0)

My Google Assistant asked me multiple times if I wanted to learn more about Transgender Awareness Week.

I have never looked up anything remotely trans related on my phone.

[–] Laurel 6 points (+6|-0)

I think abortion is still legal only because many right-wing politicians know opposing it is literally all they have to offer the USA. They don't really want to get rid of it. They just want to shame and vilify "bad women" for votes while the "good" (rich) women (their wives and mistresses, perhaps) go on getting the abortions they need.

[–] NewMa 3 points (+3|-0)

Have you read Planned Parenthood v. Casey or its prior precedents?

[–] HelgeNacht [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

No, I haven't. I really have limited legal knowledge. Like I said, this was just a ramble.

[–] NewMa 3 points (+4|-1)

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744 Read the "question presented" and then click over on the left where it says "view case."

Legal knowledge is very empowering, especially for non-lawyers. You'll ally your own fears when you get done reading.