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.
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.