“As a bisexual transgender non-binary person, I can become pregnant. I am not a woman — and yet, I could need access to abortion care.”
This lunatic statement is not an excerpt from a blog of a troubled person on the fringes of society. It is not even from an op-ed piece in a student-run college newspaper. It is contained in a statement by the social media manager of a major institutional player of the left, the storied American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The June 29, 2022 piece, Why We Use Inclusive Language to Talk About Abortion perfectly encapsulates the civil war that is pitting the traditional feminist left, which is anchored in the reality that women as traditionally understood exist, against an increasingly aggressive transgenderist movement which is often led by men and wants to erase from public discourse words like “women,” “woman,” “mothers” and so on.
This battle is sapping the force out of the left’s time-honored slogans and arguments regarding abortion, which at least had some clarity. You know, “between a woman and her doctor.” That sort of thing.
But with the rise in the last five years or so of the transgenderist movement, the pro-abortion left is scrambling to retool its rhetoric. Part of the problem is that the word “woman” is being diluted, twisted or obliterated in favor of strings of words such as that phrase quoted above (“bisexual transgender non-binary person”). Quite a mouthful and very hard to squeeze onto a handmade sign to wave during pro-abortion demonstrations.
This aggressiveness by the transgenderist movement is rendering the default rhetorical devices of the old-line feminist left null.
For example, if the feminists revert to form and form and say, “Abortion is one of the most intimate decisions a woman can make…” they could be attacked for not being “inclusive” enough. Given the vast breadth of people that the transgenderist zealots insist need to be encompassed in any discussion of abortion these days even the ridiculous term “people with uteruses” would not satisfy them.
But if the old school feminists try to be “inclusive” they end up using phrases like “pregnant people” which sounds like something a human resource person at a woke corporation came up with and won’t do much to galvanize women who are, after all, the base of the pro-abortion movement.
And if they try to include all the categories that the transgenderists keep inventing, they will have to use terms like “trans men”—which means women who are convinced they are men and were wrongly “assigned” at birth to the female part of the human race (as if a doctor, seeing a baby girl enter the world, decided to “assign” her to girldom). So much for “a woman” and her doctor. That is, unless the “trans men” agree to be considered women when they want abortions instead of insisting that the rest of the world validates their delusions that they are men.
At this point, you can see how complicated the lot of the sexual left is getting. Not to mention the rest of us who have to do a lot of reading on icky websites to get a handle on all of these quite distasteful matters.
But getting back to the ACLU piece…
As one reads the article, the contradictions within it in highlight the dilemma facing the feminist left. The writer refers to the Dobbs decision as
this unprecedented assault on our fundamental rights
That would seem to be aimed at women, not all of whom are eager to jump onto the transgenderism train. But no—in this case “our” refers to this mishmash:
The more expansive and more accurate answer is anyone who can become pregnant needs to be able to get an abortion if they need or want one, including many cisgender women, some non-binary people, some intersex people, some Two Spirit people, and some trans men.
Again, if you are trying to mainstream abortion and normalize the killing of the unborn it is probably wise not to drag in every flavor of sexual practice.
The left is in a pickle in that here we have a once fairly nonpartisan (although that was some decades ago now) organization (the ACLU) that is being represented in its social media campaigns by a quite hysterical, clearly troubled person for whom the very idea of having children is enough to drive that person to consider suicide. How else to read this rather alarming passage in the piece under discussion today:
I also know that I never want to be pregnant. For me, access to abortion would be a matter of lifesaving health care.
Not exactly the way to appeal to normal women whom the ACLU, presumably, is still trying to win over to the supposedly family-friendly aspects of abortion and to whom the ideal of motherhood is not at all times repellent.
There is also the problem of trying to render clear who is meant in some of this verbiage.
For example, as noted above, there is the thorny issue of the matter of the trans men (who are women). But this passage expands the interested parties in the discussion of abortion even further:
lesbians, bisexuals, trans people, queer people and yes, some trans gay men, can experience pregnancy and deserve control over if, when, and how we become pregnant, and whether or not we stay pregnant
Does “trans people” include men who are actually men and is the ACLU contending that men can become pregnant? One doubts that even pro-abortion liberal women are willing to go so far as denying biology.
The pro-life side should be heartened by the conflation of “gender affirming” surgery (which even many feminists and others on the left oppose given that slicing off the breasts of little girls is not something most feminists would endorse) with abortion as here:
abortion and gender-affirming care are our right
The more that the two are combined into one fringey leftist package, the better for the right. And it is telling that the writer seems frustrated with feminists who would prefer not to be dragged into the dysfunctional world of the transgenderists:
It is, quite frankly, exhausting to repeatedly ask for acknowledgment of a shared experience, especially one that can be so medically life-altering.
At least this activist writer acknowledges that mutilating “gender affirming” surgery is life-altering. Too bad that the writer does not go on to say to say that abortion is life-ending for the baby.
It will be fascinating in coming years to see if pro-abortion activists are going to be able to secure to widespread public support as the transgenderists insist on “inclusion,” and blurring the pro-abortion message for non-wacky women who simply want the right to dispose of unborn children inconvenient to them.
For now, the ACLU is dancing to the transgenderists’ tune.