@rooster it's been kinda darkly funny to watch them to find increasing linguistic acrobatics to try to anchor the definition of woman to reproductive ability without defining their own wives, mothers, and grandmothers as not women.
The first bills doing this would say things like a woman is a person who can get pregnant. And then people were like, "Um, Mr. Senator, your wife is in menopause, so does that mean you're married to a man?" Then they scrambled to redefine it by organs and then people pointed out that would remove anyone who's had a hysterectomy or mastectomy. And now the most recent one is something like, "people who generally should be able to produce ova" or something like that.
It's like, wow, how long until we're just reverting to some sort of weird neoplatonism to appeal to the ideal form of woman and the instantiation of forms? Legislation is gonna get WEIRD.
@rooster of course, worth noting their obsession with that is because their ultimate goal is to remove bodily autonomy from the people they want to fuck and coerce into having their babies, so it absolutely makes sense.
This is why every TERF has so clearly abandoned any feminist cause in allying with these fascists. Reproductive Justice and Trans Liberation bloom from the same soil, and I hope everyone shows up for both because these rights are inherently bound together.
Add comment