You are missing the point. There are no rights exclusive to men that vary by state. The only rights that vary by state for one gender are women’s rights.
Things like parental rights don’t apply here because those impact both genders (they are zero-sum; a decrease in men’s paternal rights implies an increase in women’s rights).
Only women have specific rights that ONLY impact women and vary from state to state
While you are technically correct, this is very obviously a discussion about reproductive rights, and the historical oppression of women as those who are most commonly impacted by reproductive rights issues. Your point is factual and valid but it is a distraction from the very important conversation being had here.
If this discussion leads to improved protection of reproductive rights, by pointing to the imbalance between traditionally male and traditionally female rights under US law, then trans men will also benefit. As such, the distraction of pointing out that trans men are also impacted therefore it’s “not just women” and the implication that we shouldn’t be talking about the ongoing oppression of women but rather “uterus havers”, works against your own interests.
The people who need to be convinced that reproductive rights need protection, and for whom the “it’s imbalanced” argument will be effective, are often even more vehemently opposed to trans issues. Bringing your point up here only serves to further entrench people who might otherwise be swayed to make changes that would benefit trans men. This is called “breaking into jail”.
There is a time and a place to have the “trans men are impacted by reproductive rights issues” discussion and this isn’t it.
Maybe make the point in a more direct and less confusing manner then? People are just critiquing the message because its written poorly. Its not even apparent its about reproductive rights until someone else clarifies that.
I knew immediately that it was about reproductive rights, but that’s just because that’s been the latest and most consistent snub against women lately.
If this were 40 years ago it would probably be about their ability to get a bank account or credit card without a man.
My omission of your point was intentional because as I said, in this context it’s not pedantic but rather self-defeating.
If we were in a different context I’d be right there with you championing the fact that trans men are effected by reproductive rights issues.
But for all the reasons I’ve already explained I chose not to bring transgender matters into this conversation because it only serves to make it harder to get the things you actually want, which is reproductive healthcare equality for trans men (and women).
It was a deliberate choice to meet my target audience where they are, knowing that a victory in that context would benefit trans men too.
Do you not think that access to abortion affects cis men too? Of course it’s far more important to the woman whose body is at risk, just not solely important to her. This is the kind of stupid divisiveness that doesn’t help.
Transphobia flourishes when it’s dismissed, minimized, and forgiven.
The only differences between “men’s rights” and “women’s rights” comes down to unequal treatment by police and the courts. When we talk about abortion and rape, the group in question can be described a bunch of ways (“female”, “xx”, “uterus-having”) but not accurately simply as “women”.
Because trans-men are men, not women, and treating them as such is every bit as bigoted as treating trans women as men.
No, I’m saying that women are SUPPOSED to have the same rights as everyone (e.g. complete bodily autonomy) but have their rights restricted in varying ways from state to state.
This really isn’t that hard to understand. Women have had their rights restricted in ways that men didn’t for a long, long time. It’s so normal that you aren’t even aware of it.
They got the right to vote later than men.
They got federal protection for their right to have their own bank account without a man’s approval in 1974 for fuck’s sake.
Is it so hard to recognize that women’s rights are controlled in ways that men’s aren’t?
Female genital mutilation is illegal in the United States. Male genital mutilation is common practice. The discrepancies certainly aren’t equal, but they aren’t exclusively one-sided.
Let’s not forget that women have never had compulsory military service in the US either. I hear some things can happen to your body in war. I mean aside from it being mandatorily shipped away for months and years.
Yes, anyone pushing for that last inch of total exclusivity here has another think coming.
Name a state - or a country - where men have “(e.g. complete bodily autonomy)”. All the examples I can think you might think are false, so either I’m missing something or I’m gonna challenge you so badly I van taste the endorphins (or I’ll learn something, so win win for me)
They got the right to vote later than men
Yes. For example in UK, women got universal voting rights whole decade later than men.
The comical thing is that women don’t have the right to vote in the U.S., neither do men, they have the right to not be discriminated against when voting takes place.
e.g. If Florida says they will hold a vote by the population for representatives, they can’t say women exclusively can’t vote. But Florida could in theory state they won’t be holding a vote for the representatives, and the currently sitting members of their congress will pick their representatives instead. Sign that into law and poof, they just legally removed 23 million people’s right to vote
Well yes. In addition to the body parts we all have, women have some that are exclusive to them; and as they’re a bit special they require extra rights.
Well, no. Both sexes have body parts which are exclusive to them. And before you say “yeah but there’s nothing controversial or invasive happening to any male body parts” consider circumcision.
You are missing the point. There are no rights exclusive to men that vary by state. The only rights that vary by state for one gender are women’s rights.
Things like parental rights don’t apply here because those impact both genders (they are zero-sum; a decrease in men’s paternal rights implies an increase in women’s rights).
Only women have specific rights that ONLY impact women and vary from state to state
There are no rights exclusive to men or women. Abortion also affects trans men.
While you are technically correct, this is very obviously a discussion about reproductive rights, and the historical oppression of women as those who are most commonly impacted by reproductive rights issues. Your point is factual and valid but it is a distraction from the very important conversation being had here.
If this discussion leads to improved protection of reproductive rights, by pointing to the imbalance between traditionally male and traditionally female rights under US law, then trans men will also benefit. As such, the distraction of pointing out that trans men are also impacted therefore it’s “not just women” and the implication that we shouldn’t be talking about the ongoing oppression of women but rather “uterus havers”, works against your own interests.
The people who need to be convinced that reproductive rights need protection, and for whom the “it’s imbalanced” argument will be effective, are often even more vehemently opposed to trans issues. Bringing your point up here only serves to further entrench people who might otherwise be swayed to make changes that would benefit trans men. This is called “breaking into jail”.
There is a time and a place to have the “trans men are impacted by reproductive rights issues” discussion and this isn’t it.
Maybe make the point in a more direct and less confusing manner then? People are just critiquing the message because its written poorly. Its not even apparent its about reproductive rights until someone else clarifies that.
I knew immediately that it was about reproductive rights, but that’s just because that’s been the latest and most consistent snub against women lately.
If this were 40 years ago it would probably be about their ability to get a bank account or credit card without a man.
Or vote
I know it seems pedantic and normally I wouldnt interject but clearly based on your responses throughout this thread it needs to be brought up.
My omission of your point was intentional because as I said, in this context it’s not pedantic but rather self-defeating.
If we were in a different context I’d be right there with you championing the fact that trans men are effected by reproductive rights issues.
But for all the reasons I’ve already explained I chose not to bring transgender matters into this conversation because it only serves to make it harder to get the things you actually want, which is reproductive healthcare equality for trans men (and women).
It was a deliberate choice to meet my target audience where they are, knowing that a victory in that context would benefit trans men too.
Oh hush. The post clearly means the sexes not the genders.
Do you not think that access to abortion affects cis men too? Of course it’s far more important to the woman whose body is at risk, just not solely important to her. This is the kind of stupid divisiveness that doesn’t help.
Transphobia flourishes when it’s dismissed, minimized, and forgiven.
The only differences between “men’s rights” and “women’s rights” comes down to unequal treatment by police and the courts. When we talk about abortion and rape, the group in question can be described a bunch of ways (“female”, “xx”, “uterus-having”) but not accurately simply as “women”.
Because trans-men are men, not women, and treating them as such is every bit as bigoted as treating trans women as men.
No it doesnt. They state gender multiple times.
Hush? Like how women have been historically told to hush? Trans rights are every bit as important as women’s rights.
So you’re saying that in addition to the rights we all have, women have additional exclusive rights.
No, I’m saying that women are SUPPOSED to have the same rights as everyone (e.g. complete bodily autonomy) but have their rights restricted in varying ways from state to state.
This really isn’t that hard to understand. Women have had their rights restricted in ways that men didn’t for a long, long time. It’s so normal that you aren’t even aware of it.
They got the right to vote later than men.
They got federal protection for their right to have their own bank account without a man’s approval in 1974 for fuck’s sake.
Is it so hard to recognize that women’s rights are controlled in ways that men’s aren’t?
Female genital mutilation is illegal in the United States. Male genital mutilation is common practice. The discrepancies certainly aren’t equal, but they aren’t exclusively one-sided.
Let’s not forget that women have never had compulsory military service in the US either. I hear some things can happen to your body in war. I mean aside from it being mandatorily shipped away for months and years.
Yes, anyone pushing for that last inch of total exclusivity here has another think coming.
Name a state - or a country - where men have “(e.g. complete bodily autonomy)”. All the examples I can think you might think are false, so either I’m missing something or I’m gonna challenge you so badly I van taste the endorphins (or I’ll learn something, so win win for me)
Yes. For example in UK, women got universal voting rights whole decade later than men.
The comical thing is that women don’t have the right to vote in the U.S., neither do men, they have the right to not be discriminated against when voting takes place.
e.g. If Florida says they will hold a vote by the population for representatives, they can’t say women exclusively can’t vote. But Florida could in theory state they won’t be holding a vote for the representatives, and the currently sitting members of their congress will pick their representatives instead. Sign that into law and poof, they just legally removed 23 million people’s right to vote
It’s not that hard to understand. Neither is “Men’s rights very much do differ by state but not anywhere near as significant.”
If you had just been reasonable and settled for that, I woudln’t be deliberately winding you up like this.
Well yes. In addition to the body parts we all have, women have some that are exclusive to them; and as they’re a bit special they require extra rights.
Well, no. Both sexes have body parts which are exclusive to them. And before you say “yeah but there’s nothing controversial or invasive happening to any male body parts” consider circumcision.