Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Duderus, Brovaries, and the ERA
From Friday’s LifeNews, I learn that Democrats in the House of Representatives are taking steps to resurrect the Equal Rights Amendment, a move pushed by abortion activists on the grounds that the ERA would provide a sturdier constitutional peg upon which to hang the right to abortion. “According to an analysis from National Right to Life Committee, “Once a court adopts the understanding that a law limiting abortion is by definition a form of discrimination based on sex, and therefore impermissible under an ERA, the same doctrine would invalidate virtually any limitation on abortion,” including “restrictions on tax-funded abortions” and “any federal or state restrictions even on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions.”
Here’s the thing though…according to no less an authority than Planned Parenthood, “Some men have a uterus.” PP of Indiana and Kentucky sent out a message to that effect last year repeating, for reasons best known to themselves, this assertion 11 times in a single tweet.
The tweet received plenty of “likes” and “retweets” and whatnot, and of course a bit of pushback from the science bigotry-based community along the lines of “No, they don’t. No, they don’t. No, they don’t.” etc.
Planned Parenthood, always on the cutting edge when it comes to the facts of life, is proactive when it comes to offering respectful abortion care to men who get knocked up before they’re ready to be fathers. The number one abortion provider in the country is deliberately removing or reducing obstacles to care. (Side benefit for the aesthetics of protest — they’re going to be deploying a little less of that violent pink color, since it makes pregnant men feel, you know, misgendered. I’m looking forward to the soothing beige pussy hats, myself.)
“Obstacles like when you call the receptionist at the clinic for a follow-up appointment, and they won’t make one for you because your voice doesn’t sound like a ‘Jessica.’ Or when doctors question your gender during an examination. Or when your insurance provider covers abortion services for women, but not for men. [My italics.] Or when your insurer doesn’t cover abortion at all. Rollie’s didn’t, and he had to pay $1,200 out-of-pocket. ‘It decimated my savings,’ he says. Worse yet, his job let him go after he told them he couldn’t come in because he was having an abortion. His boss — who was a friend of his — told him that working through the pain was ‘just what you did,’ and that if he didn’t show up, he’d be fired.”
“Man up,” in other words.
Rollie “was never harassed for his gender during the abortion process,” which may have had something to do with the fact that “Rollie, like many other trans men, chose to go through the abortion process “undercover,” in what he calls his “female form.”
And so, “though he was mistreated in a variety of other ways by his gynecologist and a nurse who worked in his office — the former took him off his antipsychotic medication for no reason and the latter cornered him and begged him to keep the baby — his masculinity played less of a part in his overall experience than he expected.” (It would be interesting to know whether accessing vasectomies and prostate-care is similarly problematic for women?)
Meanwhile, The National Network of Abortion Funds has adjusted their language around the reality of pregnant men, referring instead to “people who have abortions”
Here’s the thing, though. If some women have penises and testicles…if Some men have a uterus…some men have a uterus…some men have a uterus....(etc.) and if these men can inadvertently (and yet, somehow, predictably?) become pregnant, then pregnancy is not a condition exclusive to women. Restricting or outlawing abortion could not constitute discrimination based on sex, and the ERA would make no difference whatever in determining the constitutionality of abortion or the lack thereof.
Published in Healthcare
I am still waiting for the new definition of man and woman.
Also, every college applicant should claim to be a black lesbian with a disability
Remember, they’re the party of science.
Eric Idle did a reflection on the characters that he’s played. I was disappointed that he didn’t say that the Stan/Loretta character was a joke and instead that it’s germane to today.
That’s the dumbest logic I’ve ever heard.
Regulation of a surgery that can only be had by one sex by definition can’t be discrimination based on sex.
It would be discrimination based on sex if women were prevented from getting a surgery that men are allowed – Lasiks, or kidney transplants, or something along those lines.
I don’t understand the argument either. This isn’t my area of expertise, though.
This is what I found on the National Organization for Women (it still exists! I feel nostalgic…) website:
“Reproductive Rights – Although opinion is divided on the question, an ERA –properly interpreted – could negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion care and contraception. Denial of legal and appropriate medical care for women – and only women – is sex discrimination and a powerful ERA should recognize and prohibit that most harmful of discriminatory actions.” (My emphasis).
Well, if they have a uterus’, it kind of follows that they have vaginas, right?
But because they identify as men, if I tapped that, it’d be gay, right?
But not gay-gay. Maybe?
It confused me too. Rollie—the man who had an abortion—had a boyfriend. He still has a boyfriend, albeit a different one (apparently). So yeah. Is his boyfriend gay?
I’ve mentioned before that I’ve got a young friend who wants to be a woman (he’s a man. She, I mean). She has a girlfriend. She’s fathered a child. ( Not the girlfriend, my friend. )The girlfriend isn’t a lesbian. So…?
But they’re getting married.
Which is good, I guess.
As for question #2: We’ve discussed this before. No tappy-tappy.
Glad you explained that, for a bit thought you had been drinking.
That scene in Life of Brian always immediately comes to mind whenever this stuff comes up. Crazy that we are living it now.
Oh, man … that wedding registry is gonna be a nightmare.
I rewatched Meaning of Life a couple of years ago. The birth section ends with the mom asking the sex of the baby. The doctor says it’s a little early to be assigning sex. Another joke that is becoming too real. The thought must have been around for them to make the joke but too many take it seriously now.
Those poor future genealogists.
As I stated at the Law Talk podcast, “At this point the Equal Rights Amendment might do more to protect men during child custody and alimony situations, prison sentences, social security and retirement payments due to shorter life expectancy, job injury rates, and things like that. I thought I would just throw that out there.”
Actually, those crocheting those hats are going to have to come up with much more inclusive designs. After all, some women have a scroturus and labia penora.
But Graaaannny…
Helpful! And let’s look at the pay structures for some jobs dominated by men. Roofers, for instance. Septic tank servicers. Garbage guys.
My garbage guy looks like a cross between Shrek and King Kong Bundy. I [heart] him. I think he’s the only man in my life that my husband is jealous of…
I wondered about this too…being a knitter, I tried to imagine knitting a hat with a recognizably female penis.
I think Boss Mongo need to walk around in a t-shirt that says “How DARE you assume I’m male?”
While I know you can’t out gay an infantry officer I am quite certain that TLATMM would be displeased.
Thank God the ERA has to start all the way over.
Nah. I proudly showed the comment to TLATMM and said, “Am I right or am I right?”
She just rolled her eyes and said, “How did you grow old without growing up?”
Dunno. Just lucky that way, I guess.
But still, how gay would that be?
Okay, but tell her that I said: Boss-Man, no Tappy-Tappy. We’ve got her back, here.
It’s a gift.
Done and done.
Actually, I’d do that. As long as I don’t have to get anything waxed or do any mani-pedi silliness.
And, here in the 305, I think it would be a popular statement, and folk would realize it for the ironic statement it was.
Post Script: Couldn’t find any tees that said “How DARE you assume I’m male?” That would be cool and I’d wear it around (you’ve got to include how much it would irritate my kids into the calculation).
Closest thing I could find on-line though, were shirts that said “How DARE you assume I’m straight.”
Yeah. No. Way too much for misinterpretation and conflict, there.
Plus, lookit me. I hate breaking gay hearts.
That has the ring of experience… Story?
You absolutely cannot out gay an infantry officer.
At the airport:
“Oooo, Stefan, Check. Out. That. Bear!”
“Omagod, Chad, Omagod!”
‘He’s waiting for someone. He’s got a sign. What does it say?”
“Uh, ‘TLATMM’. What does that mean?”
“I dunno. Shall we chat him up?….”
bear – “A term used by gay men to describe a husky, large man with a lot of body hair”
Urban Dictionary
How about “This is what Trans looks like?”
Also—and extremely confusing for TLATMM to wear while standing beside you—“Proud to be with Her” with the word “Her” striped in the lavender/pink/pale blue combo that apparently is a thing.
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Transman-Trans-Pride-Shirt/dp/B07PKW12ZD/ref=sr_1_32?dchild=1&keywords=trans+male&qid=1574807402&s=apparel&sr=1-32