112

I dunno, this sort of language just bugs me. I don't 'own' my uterus, I have it. I was born with it. It is a part of me. I don't 'own' my eyeballs either. I was born with them, they are a part of me. I didn't go to the store and pick them out. I didn't pay for them. They belong to me.

I dunno, this sort of language just bugs me. I don't 'own' my uterus, I have it. I was born with it. It is a part of me. I don't 'own' my eyeballs either. I was born with them, they are a part of me. I didn't go to the store and pick them out. I didn't pay for them. They belong to me.

54 comments

it's the result of a culture in which the human body is just a commodity to sell and purchase under capitalism instead of an actual person. if one can exploit a woman for sex or reproduction, it stands to reason the woman is not her body, but parts attached to a nebulous concept of self.

Great point. It doesn’t sit right with me for many reasons but also this one— something just feels off about “own” as well, and I think your post made me realize that the men in this discourse think about it as owning one and desperately want to “own” a female reproductive system. Seeing the body this way is truly gonna be a disaster for society if people keep mindlessly boarding ship.

Exactly. I recently saw a post about "uterus owners" or "owner of a vagina" on a women's subreddit and called it out with the exact same words.

And what do you know, I was upvoted, the other person was downvoted (and immediately hurled insults, for which he, it was a trans"woman" unsurprisingly, was downvoted even more). Basically, it was a bunch of women coming together and telling the TRAs they thought the language was sexist and uncomfortable. No accusations of terfery toward me, even.

Which is why I suspect this phrasing will be the next target for what TRAs will try to get socially outlawed, because it honestly peaks libfems so hard. I wonder what they will try to argue is wrong with "I don't own my uterus, it is just a part of me".

Perhaps part of the reason language like this, including "uterus owner", has caught on so rapidly is because many women already feel so detached from our bodies due to the trauma of living in a misogynistic society that objectifies and sexualizes us at every opportunity. We grow up in this culture, breathe it in until it feels as inescapable as air. We cannot stop the sexism of men, so we turn our rage towards our own bodies: our breasts, our vaginas, our hips and other traits that signify being female. We cannot stop the leering and disgusting comments, so we hate the parts of our bodies they're directed toward. Better that these are parts we own rather than are. Because when you own something, you can give it away or get rid of it. And surely when we get rid of those parts, eskew the biological features of a woman, men will treat us with respect. Because the problem is the female body and not men. Right?

To my knowledge, even transplant recipients don't go around calling themselves "[transplanted organ] owners", although if anyone can legitimately claim a transactional relationship to any of their organs, they come the closest.

I suspect any movement to get them to do so would not be met with approval, as well it should not be.

[–] bellatrixbells BoobatrixRex 3 points

Imagine if there started to be campaigns for "eyeball owners" or "people with eyeballs" so as not to offend people who were born without eyes or lost them.

However though if your eyeballs belong to you, you technically own them 😁

This type of language essentially stems from their belief that women are not complete people but rather a collection of body parts of which ownership exists and can be transferred. after all if you are the owner of your uterus, that means that it could potentially be owned by somebody else, no?

I don’t like the “assignment” and “owner” language used by so many gender lovers for this reason: labels can be transferred, as can ownership. The implication seems to be that womanhood and women’s body parts are commodities that are theoretically free for other people to use—and what’s that but a continuation of the same old patriarchal mindset, that women are resources?

Someone who’s actually progressive would recognize that women are a specific class of people sovereign over their own bodies, not a label of “femininity” or collections of spare parts that other people might use one day, but I guess the brand name is more appealing than the real thing.

Same. It makes our bodies sound like a car where parts can be swapped in or out when needed. But that is probably the point.

Has anyone else seen Repo: The Genetic Opera?

YES and I mentioned it elsewhere in this thread. I LOVE that movie. Love it. love it!

Me too, I became completely obsessed with it one summar in collage.
It's so apt, isn't it? The surgery addiction, altering one's body as a religious experience, the dependence on highly questionable "medications," the shady corporation pulling the strings...

The TRAs present this tranhumanist fantasy of total liberation from one's body as a utopia, but we all know we're headed straight for the crapsack GeneCo® future unless we can do something about it.

Huh, I just realized the male character Pavi literally has a female face transplant at the end. Truly a GC classic.

I really think Repo is a pretty good movie in terms of not being so horrifically sexist I lose interest in it 30 minutes in. It passes the bechdel test with flying colors through an awesome song, features lots of awesome female characters, and shows what porn and an obsession with sex appeal does to a society. As well as late-stage capitalism obviously. Blind Mag is truly a hero every little girl needs.

Also, badass blue-lipstick bodyguards carrying assault rifles! YES

Well if I do "own" my uterus, I want to take it back to the shop for a refund. Might trade the ovaries in for something else too.

I think mine need at least need some routine scheduled maintenance under warranty.

Load more (7 comments)