Weirdness Abounding: Recent Items in College Newspapers on Matters of Sexuality and Abortion

However one feels about abortion and transgenderism, it is striking how the debate about them illustrates the ever weirder contortions of language that woke college students have to resort to in their ever expanding campaign to erase the category of just plain womanhood. That erasure and the general bleakness of the transgenderist view of the world are the topics for today’s foray into recent student journalism.

Take this May 4, 2022 editorial in The Maneater, the student news source of the University of Missouri. Entitled, Overturning Roe v. Wade would have dire consequences for MU students the piece seems distinctly uncomfortable with using the word “women,” preferring instead weird, “inclusive” locutions like:

those of us living as women in the U.S.

(which, I gather, includes men dressing up as women)

or:

students with uteruses

The editorial also makes the odd argument that action by the state of Missouri to protect the unborn should be opposed because such protections would inconvenience those (the aforementioned “students with uteruses”) from other states:

For many out-of-state students, the current reproductive restrictions drastically depart from their hometown experiences. According to the fall 2021 MU Student Profile, a total of 5,245 out-of-state students come from Illinois, California, Colorado or Minnesota — all states where abortion access will remain legal even if this decision is finalized.  If this draft is in fact finalized, a large number of out-of-state students enrolled at MU would lose many reproductive freedoms simply because they moved to this campus. Choosing to study and reside at this university has implications beyond surface-level concerns like class size and campus aesthetics.

Let me get this straight. Missouri is supposed to engage in the immoral practice of abortion so as to make students from California happy? And universities should operate as abortion-friendly to all at all times?

Because of their reluctance to use the words “women” or “woman” unless they absolutely have to, the editorialists invent a new category of non-women women:

This potential Supreme Court ruling goes far deeper than a mere gender binary, extending into complex levels of intersectional suffering for a large swath of people. Many non-female-identifying individuals still have the ability to get pregnant and face gender-related trauma if forced to carry a child.

Okay, let me get this straight. Women who insist on denying that they are women are saying that it is traumatizing to carry a child and that killing the child is all part of the greater good of intersectionality?

Interestingly, when the editorialists do use the word “women” it is to argue for abortion as a women’s issue even though women have been reduced to bits of their anatomy in other parts of the article:

In Missouri and on campus, the effects of a Supreme Court overhaul of Roe v. Wade will be tangibly felt. The basic right to choice, regardless of an individual’s personal beliefs, is stripped. Along with it, decades of work and progress made toward women’s equality and legal liberation is lost.

They almost immediately revert to banishing the word “women” in order to sound woke:

If the Supreme Court does overturn the national enshrinements of our reproductive freedom, if this decision becomes more than a draft, it is up to us to demand codification of human rights for people with uteruses at a state level.

Okay, so that is the state of weirdness at the University of Missouri.

Let’s pop over now to the website of The Daily Californian, the student-run newspaper of the University of California, Berkeley. Here we have a June 9, 2022 editorial with the nonsensical title, Save abortions, save lives. Given that the entire point of an abortion is to kill a human being, equating it with saving lives does not make a good deal of sense.

The general tenor of the article is set by the illustration that accompanies it. The reader is shown a sinister black blob (that is to say, an unborn child) that is dwarfing the female figure below. The monsterization of the baby by the editorialists and illustrator could not be clearer and carries over into the article, in which the writers claim that University Health Services (which, this being a state school, are taxpayer-funded) do not make it sufficiently easy to get abortions—and note how late in a pregnancy one can be had in California and for any reason at all:

…once students finally get to the family planning and abortion page — after clicking through four pages of other information — they will find that UHS only offers abortions for those who are less than 10 weeks (70 days) pregnant. This is dramatically more restrictive than California requirements, which state that people are entitled to abortions for any reason until approximately six months after getting pregnant.

And notice that babies are regarded as impediments to personal fulfillment and professional advancement and that the university is somehow obligated to ensure that students be offered as many abortions as may be necessary to ensure a future free of worries over the unborn:

As an institution, UC Berkeley must be able to provide its students with the resources necessary in helping ensure that we have bright and safe futures ahead of us.

The resources necessary. That is chilling. No future at all for the baby, of course.

And note the pathologizing of motherhood—as if pregnancy is a disease:

As students and young people, we must also learn to rely on ourselves to stay informed and keep our bodies safe, especially if we cannot reliably depend on our schools or government to do so.

We will conclude our little tour of recent student writing on abortion and related issues with a May 31, 2022 op-ed in The Daily, the student-run publication of the University of Washington.

In this opinion piece, entitled, OPINION: Qualms with birth control in today’s America, we encounter once again the preference of left-leaning student journalists to avoid using the words “women” or woman. We read:

There is no way to know which birth control works for us uterus-havers until we try it out.

And

Once a uterus-haver has considered the implications of different types of hormonal birth control, the often exhausting process of dealing with side effects begins.

It is almost as though there is some unwritten rule now for the woke that uttering the word “woman” is a sort of hate speech or, at the least, not sufficiently inclusive.

That does seem to be the case given that women who are convinced that they are not women or women who prefer not to be referred to as women make their appearance towards the end of the piece:

This is in no way an issue solely for cisgender women. Transgender and gender non-conforming people still have to deal with menstruation and pregnancy prevention, but the medical system in this country is woefully behind when it comes to trans medical care.

That silly medical system, designed as it is to deal with the facts of biology and not to validate the make-believe world of troubled people.

Luckily, though, we are provided a quote from an associate professor emerita of psychology and gender, women & sexuality studies who says:

[Doctors] are being educated by the trans and [gender] non-conforming community

Oh, good—we definitely want to normalize grotesque practices like castrating little boys, lopping the breasts off of physically health young girls and subjecting children to understudied chemical regimens.

This is the sort of dystopian, women-erasing argumentation that one comes across by periodically perusing the pages of college student-produced publications. Scary.

Subscribe to Crazy Radicals

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.
jamie@example.com
Subscribe