Once again, Facebook has accused me of violating "cybersecurity" community standards for sharing your content. Last week it was a three day ban, today it is a seven day ban. Remember when Twitter blocked everything on Substack? I wonder if the same thing is happening here.
I wondered the same thing. It's a smallish private group of people who are my friends, and the post is removed, my account restricted, all within about 20 seconds. It is unlikely that after months of posting these links and content, suddenly someone who has represented their life as being pro choice is reporting it as a cybersecurity violation, and so quickly.
Jessica, is there a way to reach out to, support, the teen you mention in this parenthetical statement? (A teenager in the state was recently sentenced to 90 days in jail for self-managing an abortion.).
BTW - I have changed my profile pic to a bluebird -- one whose brood I helped to midwife in my little woods a few years back -- because it occurred to me it might not be smart to have it posted in SubStack. Kinda silly since I have several times shared my entire Abortion hx on my FB page...
I disagree with Stephanie Grace’s assertion that Louisiana voters cannot vote on abortion. That sends the message that they should stay home on voting day. What they need to do is VOTE REPUBLICANS OUT of the state legislature. If everybody who believed abortion should be legal voted against any representative who made it illegal, things might change in Louisiana.
The tsunami of thought terminating cliches from the anti-abortion movement is breaking my brain.
Yet another example from today's WaPo The Daily 202 newsletter:
"Last week, the Biden administration requested $1.4 billion in emergency WIC (women, infants, children) funding be included in any continuing resolution — a short-term funding mechanism Congress is expected to need to avoid a partial government shutdown when the fiscal year ends Sept. 30. “The request hinges on House Republicans, who recently have tried to slash WIC funding in a move that could spell cuts to poor Americans’ monthly nutritional support,” Tony noted."
I want more Republican anti-abortion candidates to be put on the spot to explain their obsession with the sanctity of life... until birth. At which point, you know... you're on your own kid.
Government should have no say on any abortion. The 14th Amendment makes it clear that citizenship starts at birth. The government has the right and obligation to protect citizens. I'm not saying this is an argument whether abortion is the right thing to do but it is an argument against government interference.
By the way, this is exactly how president Biden could approach this. He could acknowledge that he is a practicing Catholic and that his religion opposes abortion so he doesn't think it is the right thing to do. However he could then say that, as President, he must ensure that the federal (or any other level of) government abides by the Constitution and doesn't use its power to force people to adopt the practices of a specific religion.
"New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie has a must-read piece on the connection it has to the conflicts and contradictions among states during slavery." Bouie fails to mention the argument that the 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude and therefore arguably protects bodily autonomy rights. The piece could actually bolster the argument that the 13th amendment is relevant, since essentially women are being deprived of liberty to travel. It is not a stretch to view this as a form of enslavement. Women who are seeking to flee the state to get abortion care are pretty analogous to enslaved people who tried to flee slavery. We should start calling those who are helping them the Underground Railroad.
There was a judge who argued abortion is covered under 13a but it never got any traction. It's frustrating. It is involuntary servitude to force people to give birth. Fetal personhood in particular is the state literally saying that pregnant people are the chattel of their fetuses.
I’m actually stoked over this next iteration of ‘sanctuary cities’ in Texas. It may give us the opportunity to take them on legally and spread the news that there’s no basis for these bans while challenging them to come up with...something.
Which brings up the 15 week ban. Why isn’t our messaging: where in the hell are they coming up with any of this? Conception? Heartbeat? Six weeks? Twelve weeks? They’re all over the place. An entity stuck on the ‘science’ of the Middle Ages does not get to determine ‘consensus.’
I don’t want to argue weeks: There are a million ways a pregnancy can go south and you can’t legislate for all of them. That’s why the decision must remain with the woman and her doctor.
I’d say the decision should remain with the person who is pregnant, though it’s true they’ll need buy in from a doctor. I think it’s a language issue - when we were fighting for abortion rights the first time, it was actually the argument that doctors should be allowed to practice medicine on those who are pregnant without interference from the state that actually carried the day, in many cases. So we got used to referring to “the decision belongs to the woman and her doctor,” but I think the actual decision as to whether or not to *have* an abortion belongs only the pregnant individual. The doctor can only decide as to whether or not he or she chooses to perform/prescribe the abortion.
My point was that we should refuse to argue about limiting access to abortion by the number of weeks of gestation because at any time, something can go wrong in a pregnancy. Women have every right to protect their own lives.
Your 2nd paragraph, yes. Every person who interviews one of these forced-birthers should ask that question. “You keep moving the needle: 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, conception, fertilization. Which is it? You can’t throw out all these different timeframes and call it science.”
The militant groups like Students for Life will be happy to say things like “fertilization” and “birth control aborts babies.” Because they already do. Legislators can be slicker, though. I wish every reporter interviewed legislators like Jon Stewart does.
I want to know the delusional rationale as to how they intend to enforce these laws. What woman would go around telling people they're traveling to get an abortion?
It’s all performative. It depends totally on the threat of prosecution or lawsuits even though it’s unlikely anyone would be prosecuted, even if travel were against the law, which it’s not. Only this vague ‘aid and abet’ which a court has not found sufficient to stop the funds from operating, which are the real targets.
And another thing: most of the legislative leadership hates this. They have wanted to keep everything hush-hush because they for their laws passed. (“No appetite” is what I’ve heard they’ve told the state lege ‘freedom’ caucus that tried to get a travel ban through the last session.)
Also wanted to mention I was able to have a great conversation with a family member about abortion rights because of the issues raised in this newsletter!
This person leans conservative and was bringing up concerns about how the current administration was ramping up surveillance efforts and undermining democracy. Because of AED, I was able to bring up cases of how Republicans have been weaponizing surveillance against pregnant people through snitching, digital data, and travel restrictions as well as how they are also using the courts and federal bans as an end-run around the “states rights” that conservatives supposedly champion. The points were surprisingly well-received and I thank Jessica and Grace for their tireless work!
Also saw on AP that the complaints filed with Wisconsin’s state judiciary disciplinary panel against State Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasciewicz have been dismissed!
Was fucking ridiculous to see the GOP float demands for recusal and/or impeachment over campaign comments considering how Kascmaryk, Ho, and Starr have known ties to far-right groups 😡 Ugh! Let’s see if (or how) conservatives will back off here, but considering the ballot language battle in Ohio, Im not sure they will. Still, I will take the good news where I can.
They're afraid the court will find a way to draw new legislative maps that will cost them their majorities. 'Neutral' maps tend to favor Republicans because of the geographical distribution of each party's voters, so a 'fair' map that would be close to proportional would look like a Democratic gerrymander. That must be what they're expecting and why they're threatening nuclear options.
Hi Whitney. Thanks for article. I had been wondering about her fate. Since it seems like the State Senate will not go along with any assholery the house might inflict. This is indeed good news 😄
They only need a simple majority in the assembly to impeach, and while they would need every Republican senator to convict, she can't serve while impeached, so the legislature could just draw it out to try to keep the court at 3-3. I'm not sure what the conservative 'swing' justice thinks of all this, because that could break 3-3 on at least some votes. Although what's to stop them from inventing something to impeach other justices. I think Governor Tony Evers is going to have to be very aggressive with his powers if the other two branches of government indeed go to war.
I am saying that I wish this newsletter wasn't transphobic and that it's subscribers also weren't transphobic. I'm saying that "women" and "girls" aren't the only ones who need abortion care, and I'm saying that limiting the issue isn't clearing up waters from being muddied, it's actively harming a population that's so small I guess it just isn't profitable or interesting to care about us in relation to this conversation.
Language is changing. I don’t see this newsletter as excluding trans and non-binary people from the conversation around abortion. I know that I see an effort from many of the posters here to be inclusive. I try to vary the words I use, so in one sentence I might refer to “people” or “those” who need abortion care, and in another sentence I might use the word woman.
Personally, I’m trying to strike a balance. Some cis woman feel excluded by language that either defines them by body parts, or social role. So do some trans and non-binary people feel excluded by the word woman or mother in reference to childbearing and abortion. I vary my language because I don’t want anyone who can get pregnant to feel put off or excluded by what I’m saying.
The issue of abortion is too important, in my view, to allow people to get so sidetracked by the language I use that they miss the point I’m making.
I would hope that people are mature enough not to think I’m excluding cis women when I use the term “people,” and to realize I’m not excluding non-binary or trans people when I use the word “woman” in the same sentence/paragraph.
I don’t think I’m the only commenter here who makes that effort, btw.
How are you getting from “I vary my language because I don’t want anyone who can get pregnant to feel put off or excluded by what I’m saying,” to deciding I don’t care?
That’s precisely the opposite of my intent, and the comment you’re replying to.
I try to to be less boring. Oddly, thanks to the Republicans and anti's. Woke, woke, woke. Exception, Exception, Exception. Didn't they hear about Roget back in school? I'm going to try to take my advice to heart. I know that I use assholes a lot. In one of my foreign newsletters, someone used numbness. I'll try to use that sometimes.
I would strongly disagree with any suggestion that Jessica is transphobic. If you're referring only to us in the comments section, that's open for debate. I think it's very important to note that misogyny is NOT the same as transphobia. They are two different things, both of which are bad. The conversation here is more likely to be about misogyny, and that's where most of us keep our focus. The roots of Jessica's writing are in feminism. And I suppose many of us bristle at anything that takes the focus off that, because we feel cis women have been put at the back of the line for centuries. Perhaps that's exclusionary. But the enemy of your enemy is your friend, so we really shouldn't be at odds.
I'm sure this sounds weird, but one thing I like about this forum and AED is that I often get a good laugh. The Palmolive reference made me lol. Plus, I agree with your whole comment.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend until my enemy says "you can get what you want if we turn against them". Which is clearly something you agree with wholesale. I don't need to keep fighting. There are tons of not transphobic people doing this work, and I'll be taking myself over there.
Wow -- i am a subscriber who is most definitely NOT transphobic!! I haven’t noticed that in this newsletter, and am interested in your observations, Em.
Keep scrolling, you'll see it. Right, perfectly, in the comments on my comment.
It takes the form three ways:
-Saying transphobic things
-Supporting or liking transphobic statements
-Arguments that on their face aren't transphobic, but are arguing that trans people just need to "wait their turn" or "aren't relevant" in these conversations. People who refer to us as "insufferable" for daring to . . . exist in these spaces and also need medical care and "puritanical" for asking to be included.
Of course bodily autonomy impacts everyone! I think it would be a great idea for someone to create a newsletter tracking the laws relating to trans healthcare, like this newsletter tracks what’s happening with abortion access around the country.
Jessica and Grace only have so many hours in the day - I think expecting them to take on trans healthcare as well is impractical.
Erin Reed is doing something like this already: https://www.erininthemorning.com. It’s really incredible work. I subscribe to both AED and Erin’s newsletter, and I think both do a good job articulating how closely connected these issues (abortion and trans healthcare) are.
Thanks for this comment broce. You were much more polite than I could have been. Really I'm down with trans rights but these people can be insufferably paternalistic.
When have our spaces/issues *not* been asked to prioritize tangentially (or back in the day with men’s rights, even not tangentially) related issues?
IMO, it’s a cultural thing. We are expected to put everyone else’s needs first, whether that be in the home, the workplace, or politically.
Personally, I’ll never get over the men who were pissed off that we weren’t building shelters for men who were abused in domestic violence situations. Go raise your own money, and build your own shelters, and stop expecting us to do your work for you.
Bodily autonomy is Important for everyone, but this blog is *centered* on the issue of abortion/reproductive rights. There is absolutely a need for a blog devoted entirely to trans health care issues. But this blog isn’t that space, IMO.
I really think it’s the cultural expectation that we have *all* absorbed. It’s like the Palmolive Lady used to say: “You’re soaking in it.”
I honestly think that most of the time, it’s so ingrained that people neither notice nor question it. It’s going to take centuries to root out this kind of stuff.
Not only are we all taught that women come last (and most especially mothers come last), from the time they are little girls, women are taught that not only is it selfish to prioritize themselves, they’re taught that it’s a virtue to put themselves last. So we often feel *good* about putting others before ourselves. It’s a neat trick, to make people feel so good about their own oppression, they feel it’s a good character trait to oppress themselves voluntarily.
One of the many things I like about the growing acceptance of trans women as women is that while they are steeped in the same bullshit as the rest of us, at least among my trans women friends, they haven’t absorbed the idea that their automatic response to conflicting needs should be to feel *good* about putting themselves last. I’m hoping that spreads to the rest of womanhood.
That last paragraph is interesting. I hadn't thought of that aspect specifically before. Parents need to be conscious of any differences between how they raise girls and how they raise boys. And then the school system needs to do the same. By the time we're adults it's much harder to change. If we could raise our children differently the culture should eventually change. And I'm not even sure it's so much that what we tell girls is wrong, it's that we don't tell boys the same thing. In most cases, I don't think women acting more like men is an improvement to society. What needs to happen is for men to act more like women. But yes meeting someplace in the middle will have to work.
I do wish people could accept the idea that it's a numbers game. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, but when we're talking feminist issues, that's half the population, being mistreated because they identify as women. One in four women (right?) needs abortion care at some point in her life. We're fighting for bodily autonomy; the same arguments should benefit trans people too. But I don't go out of my way to be trans inclusive because if we're only willing to accept support from people who are fully enlightened on trans issues, we've shrunk our support, and anti-abortion knows it, that's what they want, and they're counting on it. The same is true for race and economic issues. They want to push us as far left as possible because that's the only way they can win. I get the accusations of throwing people under the bus. But I promise, if we can't win this issue, secure reproductive rights for half the population, there's not a chance in hell any of those other issues are going to move forward either. Can people understand that?
For better or for worse, the far right has bound these two issues together. They’re using the same weapons against both abortion rights and trans rights: threatening to imprison doctors & restrict travel, BS rhetoric about parents rights, risk of regret, compromises & exceptions, etc. And they’re intentionally weaponizing both abortion and transgender rights to destroy trust in major institutions that the left cares about - public schools, higher ed, medicine and healthcare.
It’s true that the transgender population is very small, but so was that little grate at Helms Deep that Theoden left undefended (sorry, I’m a dork).
Also it just occurred to me that Georgia passed its 6-week abortion ban 4 years *before* its transgender-healthcare ban. And so far, the lawsuit against the transgender healthcare ban has moved faster and had more success than lawsuits against the abortion ban.
I guess what I’m saying is, there are problems with framing this as a numbers game. Defending the smaller population can be a way to move forward with your larger goals. (Not to mention the moral argument you pointed out, that everyone deserves bodily autonomy.)
Good points. The line that stood out to me though was 'too slow forward' vs. 'rapid backwards'. We are going rapidly backwards just as much on reproductive rights as on trans rights. That may force them to be linked together, but I just don't want it to become a distraction. Idk whether we do better, worse, or the same, when we explicitly bring up trans rights, but I do know that's what the other side wants. I just try to keep the focus on the 50% of the population who are cis women. 🤷
The right is absolutely trying to tie the issues together, but they’re doing so because they think that people who are willing to vote for abortion rights will not do so if they think it means minors getting trans health care.
They aren’t necessarily wrong, btw - after all, parental notification and consent laws around abortion are acceptable to a large numbers of moderate voters who are otherwise incensed about abortion bans.
A lot of parents are very concerned about what they see as governmental intrusion into what they see as parental rights, regardless of the issue.
I don’t think we should allow the right to muddy the waters by conflating abortion and trans health care, particularly when they’re trying to tie abortion rights in general to trans health care for minors in particular.
One is an issue about parental rights, the other is about banning abortion for *everyone.* I have not seen any politicians talking about banning trans health care for adults. One of these things is not like the other, and it isn’t in the interest of anyone, IMO, to allow them to be tied together.
If Democrat strategists aren’t reading this newsletter and its comments daily, they should be.
I saw the Biden/Harris 2024 pro-choice campaign ad today. Not as hard-hitting as I’d like but still a strong pro-choice statement.
Once again, Facebook has accused me of violating "cybersecurity" community standards for sharing your content. Last week it was a three day ban, today it is a seven day ban. Remember when Twitter blocked everything on Substack? I wonder if the same thing is happening here.
That’s really strange. I wonder if someone is reporting your posts? I usually share this newsletter every day, with a pretty significant pull quote.
I wondered the same thing. It's a smallish private group of people who are my friends, and the post is removed, my account restricted, all within about 20 seconds. It is unlikely that after months of posting these links and content, suddenly someone who has represented their life as being pro choice is reporting it as a cybersecurity violation, and so quickly.
Hi Sunday. That stinks 😕. Were there any prior warnings that were any more explicit as to your alleged impropriety.?
As for Twitter, Musk's current target is Johnathan Greenblatt from the ADL.
So, you're in good company for what it's worth.
No other prior warnings. But I'm glad to be in such a high esteemed group!
Jessica, is there a way to reach out to, support, the teen you mention in this parenthetical statement? (A teenager in the state was recently sentenced to 90 days in jail for self-managing an abortion.).
BTW - I have changed my profile pic to a bluebird -- one whose brood I helped to midwife in my little woods a few years back -- because it occurred to me it might not be smart to have it posted in SubStack. Kinda silly since I have several times shared my entire Abortion hx on my FB page...
In addition to thanking and celebrating Kimra Luna ❤️❤️ I wanted to share this piece.
https://www.statnews.com/2023/09/06/wes-adams-abortion-access-appalachia/?utm_source=Global%2BHealth%2BNOW%2BMain%2BList&utm_campaign=15de46fdc4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_09_06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8d0d062dbd-15de46fdc4-3238122
That last story about the 12 & 14 y.o. girls helping to develop that app! Ugh! Crying so hard right now!
I disagree with Stephanie Grace’s assertion that Louisiana voters cannot vote on abortion. That sends the message that they should stay home on voting day. What they need to do is VOTE REPUBLICANS OUT of the state legislature. If everybody who believed abortion should be legal voted against any representative who made it illegal, things might change in Louisiana.
The tsunami of thought terminating cliches from the anti-abortion movement is breaking my brain.
Yet another example from today's WaPo The Daily 202 newsletter:
"Last week, the Biden administration requested $1.4 billion in emergency WIC (women, infants, children) funding be included in any continuing resolution — a short-term funding mechanism Congress is expected to need to avoid a partial government shutdown when the fiscal year ends Sept. 30. “The request hinges on House Republicans, who recently have tried to slash WIC funding in a move that could spell cuts to poor Americans’ monthly nutritional support,” Tony noted."
I want more Republican anti-abortion candidates to be put on the spot to explain their obsession with the sanctity of life... until birth. At which point, you know... you're on your own kid.
Sounds like WE need to call Lamar Outdoor Advertising to complain?
Here's another place you can see the VA Dems ad in case you are having Twitter issues. https://richmond.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/abortion-laws-see-the-new-ad-virginia-house-democrats-released/article_5fec3912-3c3c-11ee-9999-4f6d42d10cb3.html
Government should have no say on any abortion. The 14th Amendment makes it clear that citizenship starts at birth. The government has the right and obligation to protect citizens. I'm not saying this is an argument whether abortion is the right thing to do but it is an argument against government interference.
By the way, this is exactly how president Biden could approach this. He could acknowledge that he is a practicing Catholic and that his religion opposes abortion so he doesn't think it is the right thing to do. However he could then say that, as President, he must ensure that the federal (or any other level of) government abides by the Constitution and doesn't use its power to force people to adopt the practices of a specific religion.
"New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie has a must-read piece on the connection it has to the conflicts and contradictions among states during slavery." Bouie fails to mention the argument that the 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude and therefore arguably protects bodily autonomy rights. The piece could actually bolster the argument that the 13th amendment is relevant, since essentially women are being deprived of liberty to travel. It is not a stretch to view this as a form of enslavement. Women who are seeking to flee the state to get abortion care are pretty analogous to enslaved people who tried to flee slavery. We should start calling those who are helping them the Underground Railroad.
There was a judge who argued abortion is covered under 13a but it never got any traction. It's frustrating. It is involuntary servitude to force people to give birth. Fetal personhood in particular is the state literally saying that pregnant people are the chattel of their fetuses.
I’m actually stoked over this next iteration of ‘sanctuary cities’ in Texas. It may give us the opportunity to take them on legally and spread the news that there’s no basis for these bans while challenging them to come up with...something.
Which brings up the 15 week ban. Why isn’t our messaging: where in the hell are they coming up with any of this? Conception? Heartbeat? Six weeks? Twelve weeks? They’re all over the place. An entity stuck on the ‘science’ of the Middle Ages does not get to determine ‘consensus.’
I don’t want to argue weeks: There are a million ways a pregnancy can go south and you can’t legislate for all of them. That’s why the decision must remain with the woman and her doctor.
I’d say the decision should remain with the person who is pregnant, though it’s true they’ll need buy in from a doctor. I think it’s a language issue - when we were fighting for abortion rights the first time, it was actually the argument that doctors should be allowed to practice medicine on those who are pregnant without interference from the state that actually carried the day, in many cases. So we got used to referring to “the decision belongs to the woman and her doctor,” but I think the actual decision as to whether or not to *have* an abortion belongs only the pregnant individual. The doctor can only decide as to whether or not he or she chooses to perform/prescribe the abortion.
My point was that we should refuse to argue about limiting access to abortion by the number of weeks of gestation because at any time, something can go wrong in a pregnancy. Women have every right to protect their own lives.
Definitely!
Doctors are not neutral parties.
And yet you often need one to get an abortion, as I did. But not my point…
Your 2nd paragraph, yes. Every person who interviews one of these forced-birthers should ask that question. “You keep moving the needle: 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, conception, fertilization. Which is it? You can’t throw out all these different timeframes and call it science.”
The militant groups like Students for Life will be happy to say things like “fertilization” and “birth control aborts babies.” Because they already do. Legislators can be slicker, though. I wish every reporter interviewed legislators like Jon Stewart does.
I want to know the delusional rationale as to how they intend to enforce these laws. What woman would go around telling people they're traveling to get an abortion?
They're fishing for snitches, and they'll probably dangle rewards. 🤷
It’s all performative. It depends totally on the threat of prosecution or lawsuits even though it’s unlikely anyone would be prosecuted, even if travel were against the law, which it’s not. Only this vague ‘aid and abet’ which a court has not found sufficient to stop the funds from operating, which are the real targets.
And another thing: most of the legislative leadership hates this. They have wanted to keep everything hush-hush because they for their laws passed. (“No appetite” is what I’ve heard they’ve told the state lege ‘freedom’ caucus that tried to get a travel ban through the last session.)
Also wanted to mention I was able to have a great conversation with a family member about abortion rights because of the issues raised in this newsletter!
This person leans conservative and was bringing up concerns about how the current administration was ramping up surveillance efforts and undermining democracy. Because of AED, I was able to bring up cases of how Republicans have been weaponizing surveillance against pregnant people through snitching, digital data, and travel restrictions as well as how they are also using the courts and federal bans as an end-run around the “states rights” that conservatives supposedly champion. The points were surprisingly well-received and I thank Jessica and Grace for their tireless work!
This one brightened my day a bit!
Also saw on AP that the complaints filed with Wisconsin’s state judiciary disciplinary panel against State Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasciewicz have been dismissed!
Was fucking ridiculous to see the GOP float demands for recusal and/or impeachment over campaign comments considering how Kascmaryk, Ho, and Starr have known ties to far-right groups 😡 Ugh! Let’s see if (or how) conservatives will back off here, but considering the ballot language battle in Ohio, Im not sure they will. Still, I will take the good news where I can.
https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-impeach-865fadb85762b0039490f218da3b8db8
They're afraid the court will find a way to draw new legislative maps that will cost them their majorities. 'Neutral' maps tend to favor Republicans because of the geographical distribution of each party's voters, so a 'fair' map that would be close to proportional would look like a Democratic gerrymander. That must be what they're expecting and why they're threatening nuclear options.
Hi Whitney. Thanks for article. I had been wondering about her fate. Since it seems like the State Senate will not go along with any assholery the house might inflict. This is indeed good news 😄
They only need a simple majority in the assembly to impeach, and while they would need every Republican senator to convict, she can't serve while impeached, so the legislature could just draw it out to try to keep the court at 3-3. I'm not sure what the conservative 'swing' justice thinks of all this, because that could break 3-3 on at least some votes. Although what's to stop them from inventing something to impeach other justices. I think Governor Tony Evers is going to have to be very aggressive with his powers if the other two branches of government indeed go to war.
Ooh downer 😬
Yeah, but if they want a fight we'll give it to them. These four women are not going to back down, so the rest of us better not let them down.
That's more like it 😁
I wish that this newsletter felt as strongly about trans healthcare as abortion limitations.
Bodily autonomy impacts all of us.
Em,
From what Marjorie said down thread, it looks like there’s a Substack doing the exact work you’re looking to track!
https://www.erininthemorning.com/
You are strongly misunderstanding me.
I am saying that I wish this newsletter wasn't transphobic and that it's subscribers also weren't transphobic. I'm saying that "women" and "girls" aren't the only ones who need abortion care, and I'm saying that limiting the issue isn't clearing up waters from being muddied, it's actively harming a population that's so small I guess it just isn't profitable or interesting to care about us in relation to this conversation.
Thanks!
Em,
Language is changing. I don’t see this newsletter as excluding trans and non-binary people from the conversation around abortion. I know that I see an effort from many of the posters here to be inclusive. I try to vary the words I use, so in one sentence I might refer to “people” or “those” who need abortion care, and in another sentence I might use the word woman.
Personally, I’m trying to strike a balance. Some cis woman feel excluded by language that either defines them by body parts, or social role. So do some trans and non-binary people feel excluded by the word woman or mother in reference to childbearing and abortion. I vary my language because I don’t want anyone who can get pregnant to feel put off or excluded by what I’m saying.
The issue of abortion is too important, in my view, to allow people to get so sidetracked by the language I use that they miss the point I’m making.
I would hope that people are mature enough not to think I’m excluding cis women when I use the term “people,” and to realize I’m not excluding non-binary or trans people when I use the word “woman” in the same sentence/paragraph.
I don’t think I’m the only commenter here who makes that effort, btw.
You don't need to write multiple paragraphs to say you don't care, you've said it enough times in other comments.
Em,
How are you getting from “I vary my language because I don’t want anyone who can get pregnant to feel put off or excluded by what I’m saying,” to deciding I don’t care?
That’s precisely the opposite of my intent, and the comment you’re replying to.
I try to to be less boring. Oddly, thanks to the Republicans and anti's. Woke, woke, woke. Exception, Exception, Exception. Didn't they hear about Roget back in school? I'm going to try to take my advice to heart. I know that I use assholes a lot. In one of my foreign newsletters, someone used numbness. I'll try to use that sometimes.
I would strongly disagree with any suggestion that Jessica is transphobic. If you're referring only to us in the comments section, that's open for debate. I think it's very important to note that misogyny is NOT the same as transphobia. They are two different things, both of which are bad. The conversation here is more likely to be about misogyny, and that's where most of us keep our focus. The roots of Jessica's writing are in feminism. And I suppose many of us bristle at anything that takes the focus off that, because we feel cis women have been put at the back of the line for centuries. Perhaps that's exclusionary. But the enemy of your enemy is your friend, so we really shouldn't be at odds.
I'm sure this sounds weird, but one thing I like about this forum and AED is that I often get a good laugh. The Palmolive reference made me lol. Plus, I agree with your whole comment.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend until my enemy says "you can get what you want if we turn against them". Which is clearly something you agree with wholesale. I don't need to keep fighting. There are tons of not transphobic people doing this work, and I'll be taking myself over there.
Wow -- i am a subscriber who is most definitely NOT transphobic!! I haven’t noticed that in this newsletter, and am interested in your observations, Em.
Keep scrolling, you'll see it. Right, perfectly, in the comments on my comment.
It takes the form three ways:
-Saying transphobic things
-Supporting or liking transphobic statements
-Arguments that on their face aren't transphobic, but are arguing that trans people just need to "wait their turn" or "aren't relevant" in these conversations. People who refer to us as "insufferable" for daring to . . . exist in these spaces and also need medical care and "puritanical" for asking to be included.
Want me to send you today's LGBTQ daily? 😇
Em
Of course bodily autonomy impacts everyone! I think it would be a great idea for someone to create a newsletter tracking the laws relating to trans healthcare, like this newsletter tracks what’s happening with abortion access around the country.
Jessica and Grace only have so many hours in the day - I think expecting them to take on trans healthcare as well is impractical.
Maybe it’s something you could try to organize?
Erin Reed is doing something like this already: https://www.erininthemorning.com. It’s really incredible work. I subscribe to both AED and Erin’s newsletter, and I think both do a good job articulating how closely connected these issues (abortion and trans healthcare) are.
Darn! Now I got more to read , since I just subscribed.
Thanks for this comment broce. You were much more polite than I could have been. Really I'm down with trans rights but these people can be insufferably paternalistic.
Laura,
When have our spaces/issues *not* been asked to prioritize tangentially (or back in the day with men’s rights, even not tangentially) related issues?
IMO, it’s a cultural thing. We are expected to put everyone else’s needs first, whether that be in the home, the workplace, or politically.
Personally, I’ll never get over the men who were pissed off that we weren’t building shelters for men who were abused in domestic violence situations. Go raise your own money, and build your own shelters, and stop expecting us to do your work for you.
Bodily autonomy is Important for everyone, but this blog is *centered* on the issue of abortion/reproductive rights. There is absolutely a need for a blog devoted entirely to trans health care issues. But this blog isn’t that space, IMO.
THIS. It drives me nuts when the left keeps looking for someone - anyone - to put in front of plain old 50% of the population cis women in the line.
Zach,
I really think it’s the cultural expectation that we have *all* absorbed. It’s like the Palmolive Lady used to say: “You’re soaking in it.”
I honestly think that most of the time, it’s so ingrained that people neither notice nor question it. It’s going to take centuries to root out this kind of stuff.
Not only are we all taught that women come last (and most especially mothers come last), from the time they are little girls, women are taught that not only is it selfish to prioritize themselves, they’re taught that it’s a virtue to put themselves last. So we often feel *good* about putting others before ourselves. It’s a neat trick, to make people feel so good about their own oppression, they feel it’s a good character trait to oppress themselves voluntarily.
One of the many things I like about the growing acceptance of trans women as women is that while they are steeped in the same bullshit as the rest of us, at least among my trans women friends, they haven’t absorbed the idea that their automatic response to conflicting needs should be to feel *good* about putting themselves last. I’m hoping that spreads to the rest of womanhood.
That last paragraph is interesting. I hadn't thought of that aspect specifically before. Parents need to be conscious of any differences between how they raise girls and how they raise boys. And then the school system needs to do the same. By the time we're adults it's much harder to change. If we could raise our children differently the culture should eventually change. And I'm not even sure it's so much that what we tell girls is wrong, it's that we don't tell boys the same thing. In most cases, I don't think women acting more like men is an improvement to society. What needs to happen is for men to act more like women. But yes meeting someplace in the middle will have to work.
I do wish people could accept the idea that it's a numbers game. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, but when we're talking feminist issues, that's half the population, being mistreated because they identify as women. One in four women (right?) needs abortion care at some point in her life. We're fighting for bodily autonomy; the same arguments should benefit trans people too. But I don't go out of my way to be trans inclusive because if we're only willing to accept support from people who are fully enlightened on trans issues, we've shrunk our support, and anti-abortion knows it, that's what they want, and they're counting on it. The same is true for race and economic issues. They want to push us as far left as possible because that's the only way they can win. I get the accusations of throwing people under the bus. But I promise, if we can't win this issue, secure reproductive rights for half the population, there's not a chance in hell any of those other issues are going to move forward either. Can people understand that?
For better or for worse, the far right has bound these two issues together. They’re using the same weapons against both abortion rights and trans rights: threatening to imprison doctors & restrict travel, BS rhetoric about parents rights, risk of regret, compromises & exceptions, etc. And they’re intentionally weaponizing both abortion and transgender rights to destroy trust in major institutions that the left cares about - public schools, higher ed, medicine and healthcare.
It’s true that the transgender population is very small, but so was that little grate at Helms Deep that Theoden left undefended (sorry, I’m a dork).
Also it just occurred to me that Georgia passed its 6-week abortion ban 4 years *before* its transgender-healthcare ban. And so far, the lawsuit against the transgender healthcare ban has moved faster and had more success than lawsuits against the abortion ban.
I guess what I’m saying is, there are problems with framing this as a numbers game. Defending the smaller population can be a way to move forward with your larger goals. (Not to mention the moral argument you pointed out, that everyone deserves bodily autonomy.)
Chris Geidner (mentioned in a comment above) had a recent piece related to all this that you might want to check out: https://www.lawdork.com/p/dangerous-arguments-and-anti-trans-laws
Good points. The line that stood out to me though was 'too slow forward' vs. 'rapid backwards'. We are going rapidly backwards just as much on reproductive rights as on trans rights. That may force them to be linked together, but I just don't want it to become a distraction. Idk whether we do better, worse, or the same, when we explicitly bring up trans rights, but I do know that's what the other side wants. I just try to keep the focus on the 50% of the population who are cis women. 🤷
The right is absolutely trying to tie the issues together, but they’re doing so because they think that people who are willing to vote for abortion rights will not do so if they think it means minors getting trans health care.
They aren’t necessarily wrong, btw - after all, parental notification and consent laws around abortion are acceptable to a large numbers of moderate voters who are otherwise incensed about abortion bans.
A lot of parents are very concerned about what they see as governmental intrusion into what they see as parental rights, regardless of the issue.
I don’t think we should allow the right to muddy the waters by conflating abortion and trans health care, particularly when they’re trying to tie abortion rights in general to trans health care for minors in particular.
One is an issue about parental rights, the other is about banning abortion for *everyone.* I have not seen any politicians talking about banning trans health care for adults. One of these things is not like the other, and it isn’t in the interest of anyone, IMO, to allow them to be tied together.
Sadly, lawmakers are starting to go after adult trans healthcare too :(
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/floridas-ban-on-gender-affirming-care-for-minors-also-limits-access-for-trans-adults
"...and I smote his ruin upon the mountainside."
SO satisfying.
I know right? It doesn't help to be as puritanical as anti-abortion is. All it's doing is derailing the conversation.
Took another look, also has a substack link to subscribe.
I just googled him. He's got cred. All his stuff including archives are there.
I just subscribed and he subscribes t this too!
I really wish we could reclaim Abortion on Demand. It sounds awesome and strong. I want health care on demand. American health care kinda sucks.