Woman Who Says She is a Man Says Her Abortion Was “Gender-Affirming”

The upside of the transgenderist movement’s capture of the corporate media is that it provides normal people with a few minutes of, “Is this for real?” diversion during the course of otherwise humdrum days.

The latest example of such “They have got to be kidding” moments of weirdness on the frontiers of pro-transgenderist advocacy journalism is an August 27, 2022 CNN article entitled, 'We're a part of this movement, too.' Transgender and nonbinary people say they feel excluded from the abortion fight.

As we examine the article, there are a few things to keep in mind.

·       It takes as a given that abortion is a positive good and something everyone is entitled to for any reason whatever and that having a baby is bad for one’s mental health and career prospects.

·       It buys into the idea that women who have renounced womanhood and prefer to parade around as men are entitled to dictate how women who are not in the grip of gender dysphoria (i.e. normal women) are to be treated in medical settings.

·       When referring to a single individual, the author refers to that person as “they” or “he” even though this person is demanding an abortion—which, to any sane person, would indicate that the person under discussion is a woman and, therefore, a she and not a “they” or a “he.”

·       The author treats these demanding, disturbed people as worthy of our sympathy and even admiration for trying to force the rest of the world to cater to their gender-renouncing choices and that anyone who opposes their agenda is cruel for “marginalizing” women who hate the very idea of womanhood.

So, here we go into the bizarro world of pro-transgenderist news reporting.

Let’s dissect the title of the article, for starters. As noted above, it is:

'We're a part of this movement, too.' Transgender and nonbinary people say they feel excluded from the abortion fight

There are several things to note here:

·       The abortion “fight” is taken to mean the campaign for abortion—never against it.

·       It endorses the charge of women who call themselves “transgender and nonbinary” that they are being “excluded” from the pro-abortion movement—a movement that for feminists at least, focuses on women (the right also thinks about the baby), which the “transgender and nonbinary people” have expressly said that they do not consider themselves to be.

·       It equates status as “transgender and nonbinary” with the advocacy of pro-abortion views, which equates one’s gender “identity” with one’s political positions, which is a very reductionist view of transgenderism--which claims to be a diverse movement and “inclusive.”

Given that the point of the article is to make the case that women (for they are women, whatever they call themselves—if they want abortions that means that they are pregnant, which means that they are women) who prefer to be thought of as men should have the opportunity to get abortions, it would help if the person involved were not called "he," as here:

…the tough decisions he was forced to make after multiple pregnancy scares.

When Roe v. Wade was overturned in June, it was a sad and heavy moment for the 29-year-old transgender man.

This designation as a “transgender man” is important given that later in the article, several such people complain about medical providers not knowing how to treat such people. Those silly medical providers with their archaic ideas about only females being able to become pregnant.

Also, note the wording “pregnancy scare” as if being pregnant is a blight on one’s very existence.

Note how this same person is eerily disengaged from the fact that another life is involved (to wit, it is not about a baby—it is about control) and the strangely distancing, jargonish language she uses to describe a perfectly normal part of female life:

I had that same feeling of not having control over this very momentous and personal thing that myself and other people who have reproductive abilities are going to go through in the coming months and years

The wording “myself and other people who have reproductive abilities” means this woman and other women. But she has chosen not to be considered a woman and yet cannot let go of her desire to be able to dictate how things are done in the abortion sphere:

…and other transgender and nonbinary advocates say their communities are often excluded from conversations about abortion care and other forms of reproductive healthcare

Note that the reporter says “abortion care and other forms of reproductive healthcare” is if abortion has anything to do with reproduction. Hello—abortion is, by its very nature, destruction. It is right there in the word.

And if you renounce your womanhood, why should other women include you in “conversations” about abortion? After all, pro-abortion women who are not transgender make a huge point of trying to exclude pro-life men from such conversations. Why then should pro-abortion women bend over background to include “trans men” in them? I mean, if you are a man, as you claim trans man, you have opted out of women’s affairs—except when convenient for you, I gather.

Meanwhile, the “nonbinary” fulminate without making clear what they hell they are and how can the pro-abortion zealots figure out what people of this “gender identity” want—except abortions and some say in the “conversation?”

The sense of entitlement of the transgenderists when it comes to abortion is titanic. Conservatives can simply sit back and chortle at the mess that the transgenderists are plunging the pro-abortion/feminist camp into.

As so many articles touting the glories of radical gender ideology do, this one features the usual statement from an “expert”—in this case, a person with the grand title of “interim co-director of programs and policy at the Transgender Law Center” who uses a locution that enables her to erase the word “women” from the English language:

Often, there's not the understanding that trans men are men and that nonbinary people are nonbinary people, and the needs of both of those categories and folks who are capable of pregnancy are often overlooked

Let me see, if I following this. Trans men are men—except that they are women, apparently, given that they are “capable of pregnancy.” And “nonbinary people are nonbinary people.” Oh. And all of these people want abortions—like the nonbinary ones who are “capable of pregnancy,” which makes them women. Still with me?

This “expert” continues:

So even before Roe v. Wade was overturned, folks were struggling to find reproductive care that was affirming of their gender identities…

Hmm, one would hope that those providing reproductive care would be focused on ensuring the well-being and safety of women and the babies they are carrying and not spending time “affirming” the gender of women who hate being women and want to dissociate themselves from their sex—except when they want abortions.

One of the women in the article, who identifies herself as “a transmasculine nonbinary person” and whom the reporter refers to as “they,” displays the obsession of the transgenderist movement has with ejecting the words “woman” and “women” from common parlance:

they said they didn't feel comfortable going to their local abortion clinic that included "women's surgical center" in its name. The name signaled to them that they may not get treated well in a space that seemingly only catered to women and wouldn't understand how to provide quality healthcare to transgender and nonbinary people.

Imagine that—a clinic designed to treat women had the effrontery to use the word “women” in its name. How dare it? This clinic is clearly not on board with this person’s anger:

"That's the result of institutional transphobia not prioritizing knowledge about trans bodies."

Yeah, I guess doctors who want to treat women are now supposed to prioritize treating women who alter their bodies through radical surgery or via hormone treatments so as to try to pass as men.

But this “transmasculine nonbinary person” is able to set aside for a bit her fury at the medical establishment for daring to treat women who don’t hate themselves for being women. She find professional fulfillment and validation as a "man" in aborting her child. The reporter (again, using “them” to refer to this woman) tells us that abortion is a great thing for women who hate being women because one of them believes that pregnancy would have exacerbated her mental problems:

their abortion was personally a form of gender-affirming care in the sense that being pregnant would've caused intense gender dysphoria for them

Pretty sad that she would have found the normal process of becoming a mother such torture—but revealingly, she says flat out that her abortion was a straightforward career move:

"On a personal level, had I not had an abortion, I definitely would not be in the position that I am in today…I would not be as far in life, I would not be able to be doing any of the kind of advocacy that I am doing, if I had been forced to birth a child."

What a pitiless view of the unborn—a life must be cut off so that transgender advocacy work can proceed. To her credit, the woman does use the world "child." But she disposed of it, nevertheless.

And what a sexist notion—that children impede a life of advocacy. So much for such feminist icons as Emmeline Pankhurst (who had five children) or Elizabeth Cady Stanton (who had seven). Heterosexual women (like say, Amy Coney Barrett) seem perfectly able to raise and love children while managing active careers. But “transmasculine nonbinary persons” can’t seem to get anything done unless the unborn are killed.

The article is a truly amazing document. It actually says:

he said he found out he was pregnant around the six-week mark

It just bears repeating that “he” can’t be pregnant—no matter what CNN says.

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