Something I said yesterday. (via garlandgrey)

Yeah, speaking of hate following. Do you ever quote anyone? It was something that transphobic radfems used to do a whole lot—blog posts, essays, and entire websites against trans people that didn’t include a single direct quote from a single trans person.

It’s not that trans people take focus away from the plight of cis people. (PEOPLE. Yeah, no erasure of women there! Has anybody complained that supposedly trans-inclusive terminology erases cis men? No? Didn’t think so.) It’s that losing the misogyny in misogynistic laws by making them laws against “pregnant people” and “people with uteruses” takes focus away from the plight of everyone affected by those laws. Inclusion is a good thing, but this isn’t inclusion. It’s denaturing. Pro-life activists aren’t attacking anatomy; they’re not trying to control anatomy. They’re attacking a gender. And they have actually tried to lose that distinction by creating spurious categories like “pregnant person” to argue that laws controlling “pregnant people” aren’t sexist. You’re using terminology that originates in the Roberts court.

“People with uteruses” isn’t even an inclusive frame. Would a trans woman not be affected by a fishing expedition like the one attempted in Kansas a few years ago? Wouldn’t she also be affected by nonprofit defunding? Wouldn’t she suffer if birth control became basically illegal, or if we all ended up in a society where women no longer had medical privacy?

I get the impulse behind all of this, but the solutions offered are misogynistic, and do cede ground to the pro-life camp, and don’t even solve the problem.

(via pastimperfection)

why the fuck is garlandgrey even part of this discussion

why

(via saltmarshhag)