Life ain’t easy for pro-abortion activists these days. The poor things keep getting into wokeness-related muddles. After all, one can’t really make the case that laws restricting abortion are crimes against women if one keeps using words other than oh, say, “woman” and “women” or “female.” Such words are not inclusive enough for the woke. They are deplorably gynocentric and make uncomfortable those who hold loony beliefs such as that men can become pregnant. None of this “women” stuff, therefore.
Take this September 7, 2021 editorial from The Daily Tar Heel, the student newspaper at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It is entitled, “Reproductive autonomy needs more protection.” In the old days (like until, well, five minutes ago), it was perfectly acceptable to frame the issue of abortion around the right of a women to control her own body (and if that meant condemning her unborn child to a grisly end at the sharp end of the abortionist’s knife, so be it). But now that it is not acceptable to refer to women, you have the not exactly compelling argument that it is not so much women that need protection from those awful pro-life fanatics who believe in the sanctity of human life but a concept—that being, “reproductive autonomy.” Not the most stirring of battle cries.
The student editorialists are so determined to avoid the word “woman” that they don’t express clearly who the “someone” is here:
As someone is considered four weeks pregnant at the time of their first missed period
Someone? Their? Given that only females can have periods or become pregnant, why not just use the words “female” and “her?” Oh, I forgot. The rule seems to be that one can use the word “women” but only if it is followed immediately thereafter by the preferred term, as here:
young women and female-identifying individuals
That is the new “us” for actual women—we are now lumped in with “female-identifying individuals.” So much for decades of feminist thought. The feminists are caving to the woke.
The editorial goes on to broaden the scope of those who are being oppressed to no longer just “women and female-identifying individuals” but people in general as here:
people lack the inherent reproductive protection they need to live happy and healthy lives, with the freedom to make choices about their own bodies
before narrowing the parameters of whom they seem to be talking about to a bit of their anatomy (which is precisely what the woke accuse conservatives of doing—treating women as mere engines of reproduction):
unjust treatment of people with uteruses in the U.S.
This is not even coherent given the fact that “female-identifying individuals” include, I believe, men who think they are women but who do not possess uteruses. All this talk of uteruses is exclusionary and being exclusionary is a cardinal sin for the woke. Oops—they don’t believe in such a thing as sin. What I meant was that referring to uteruses is a big no-no—unless the plan is to expand healthcare benefits to provide uteruses to female-identifying individuals because not having one means you are not being discriminated against and that is exclusionary. Everyone should have the right to be discriminated against in the quest to secure bodily and reproductive autonomy in order to be able to abort the children that only women can actually bear. Or something like that.
Anyway, I am a woman. An actual woman.