Prolonged Eye Contact

Not that we needed further proof radscum are racist and stuck in the 60’s…

lucypaw:

prolongedeyecontact:

[TW for discussion of forced sterilization and racism]

So someone on Feministing (I think) finally made the connection that trans* rights and reproductive rights/abortion are both fundamentally about bodily integrity and autonomy and therefore have many intersections, and proponents of both should be working together (something I’ve been saying since day one, along with many other trans* people before me).

Well radical feminists aren’t having it. Apparently the fact eludes them that forced sterilization and forced birth are two sides of the same antichoice coin. Which brings me to my main point. This so-called “conflict of interest” has happened before (maybe more than once?). During the second wave the interests and reproductive rights of wealthy, white feminists and WoC were going in opposite directions. White women were demanding access to abortion and to voluntary sterilization without restrictions from paternalistic doctors and simultaneously WoC were struggling to: be allowed to have children, not be demonized for having children, not be forcibly sterilized (often without their knowledge or consent), and not be tested on for development of contraception or other medications. Guess who was prioritized. Exactly. There’s a history here and a lot of tension and mistrust (rightfully) still remains because rich, white women made “reproductive rights” synonymous with what they needed access to and completely avoided the fact that the right to have children is as much of a reproductive rights issue as the right to abort/not have children.

My point is we know these radical feminists hate intersectionality because they think sex-based oppression is the only thing that matters (this is racist all on its own) and we know they hate trans* people. The fact that they don’t see how important forced sterilization is now anymore than they did back then has some serious implications considering the intersection of race and trans* status. Forced sterilization affects us all but TWoC are disproportionately the victims of violence and often have an even more precarious and tenuous relationship to the medical establishment, opening them up to all kinds of violations, particularly in regards to reproductive rights. That once again forced sterilization isn’t a priority for radical feminists and reproductive rights activists is further proof of their racism and the fact that White Feminism™ is alive and well, in case you doubted it for a split second.

I would point out it’s not just radscum.  Sure, radscum are the most obvious and most extreme but mainstream/liberal feminism still doesn’t really give a shit about reproductive rights as anything but abortion and voluntary sterilisation.  Oh, wait, I take it back, they will sometimes mention fistulas and women in the developing countries but it’s still self-centred and paternalistic to other people.  White Feminism™ lives in the mainstream as well as the backwater sludge that is the radscum.

Oh, definitely, definitely! I was just a little hyper-focused on them because this was a direct response to some stuff I saw on radical feminist blogs, but you’re absolutely right and I do usually go after mainstream/liberal feminists just as hard on this issue as well. They’re certainly not much better.

What is Trans* Repro Justice?

transreprojustice:

A lot of people when they hear the terms “prochoice”, “reproductive rights” or even “reproductive justice” only think of abortion, but this view is myopic in my opinion. “Reproducing” encompasses many things which includes the right to choose to have children (or give birth and choose adoption), to choose to not have children right now, and to choose to never have children. Reproductive justice frameworks are holistic and look at reproductive rights with the whole person in mind. This means people also have the right to quality and comprehensive sex education, contraception, relevant medical care, the right to be sterilized and the right to not be forcibly sterilized, and a whole host of birthing choices as well (home/natural births, VBACs, the right to refuse c-sections, etc).

Not only that but reproductive rights activists are also concerned with advocating for the personhood/bodily integrity/and autonomy of pregnant people, advocating for reproductive health care as a human right, eradicating obstetric fistula and illegal/unsafe abortion in the developing world, lowering the incidence of teen pregnancy and STIs, lowering the mortality and morbidity rates of pregnant people, improving access to quality healthcare especially for people in poverty. The list goes on and on. Further, we must remember that race, class, disability status, citizenship status, gender, sexual orientation, etc all intersect and all have an effect on how we can or cannot utilize our reproductive rights, and therefore all of those issues must be addressed for reproductive justice to be successful in upholding the rights of all people not just those who are white, wealthy, able-bodied, straight, cis, male citizens. 

So what does this have to do with trans* people?

Well, perhaps not everyone within the movement believes “prochoice” should be a holistic philosophy, but I for one, do. We concentrate on abortion rights because that’s the issue so often under attack, but to be actually “prochoice” is much more expansive than that. It’s about bodily integrity and the importance of keeping personal bodily decisions just that, personal. It’s about birthing choices as much as it is abortion. It’s about how the reproductive rights of different segments of society have been effected differently and what that means to all of us as a whole. Intersectionality matters because poc, poor people, disabled people, trans* people, people of various sexual orientations have been targeted differently and yet it’s all part of a larger system that denies those seen as the “other” the freedom to make basic choices in regards to how their bodies are viewed and how they are utilized. Therefore it’s important to remember that the sexist and cissexist system that seeks to control the sexuality, bodies, and reproduction of those it perceives to be women is the same system that actively targets the identities, bodies, reproduction, and sexualities of trans* people. Reproductive rights aren’t about abortion, they’re about the profound and fundamental right to bodily integrity.

So what is trans* repro justice?

It’s the radical notion that:

• Our bodies belong to us and our right to bodily integrity doesn’t dissipate when society becomes aware of our trans*ness.
• Our bodies and identities are valid, no matter how “uncommon” they may be.
• Language matters and so does inclusivity. When your rhetoric excludes us so do your actions, and that sometimes literally kills us.
• We don’t need to be pathologized or “explained” within a cissexist paradigm. 
• You don’t need to understand us to respect us.
• Sex and gender are not neat binaries.
• We deserve to have our needs met and our boundaries respected just as much as anyone else.
• Medical care should be easily accessible to every one that needs and wants it.
• Parenthood and reproduction are basic human rights and no person should be sterilized without their consent or knowledge. In the other direction, all people that seek sterilization should be able to do so without jumping through hoops for paternalistic doctors.
• All of us have the right to information about our bodies, that doesn’t exclude or denigrate our identities or misgender us, to ensure we can maintain our health.
• All of us have a right to maintain our humanity, dignity, and health. This doesn’t change with citizen status or prisoner status.
• Intersectionality is important. Trans* activism must be cognizant of it, and willing to acknowledge the power hierarchies and systems of privilege within our own community.
• We all have the right to control our fertility how we see fit (whether through pregnancy, adoption, single parenthood, harvesting eggs, sperm banking, etc), and those services should be accessible and affordable.
• We are perfectly capable of being wonderful parents and raising amazing, well-adjusted children.
• Men can and do give birth. Not all those that give birth are mothers.
• Women can and do impregnate people. Not all those that impregnate are fathers.
• “Mothers” and “fathers” aren’t the only type of parents that exist.
• We have a right to obtain government issued identification documents that acknowledge our identities (even nonbinary ones!) without having to undergo costly surgery we may not even want.
• We shouldn’t have to conform to a coercive, gendered script for the comfort of cis people nor should we be expected to live or perform a typical trans* narrative to be taken seriously.
• We should be able to use public restrooms without being attacked, mocked, or arrested.
• Our identities and bodies shouldn’t be caricatured for the amusement of society.
• We are people. We are valid. We are here to stay.

This is a work in progress. Any additions are welcome!

Reblogging here so more people will see this and also to plug my new trans*-centered repro justice blog.

I SEE YOU

shl333:

Politicians who began and instigated the “War on Drugs” which effectively put thousands of people of color behind bars, I SEE YOU.

Politicians who pass voter reform laws making it harder for those of lower socio-economic class to vote, also know as people of color, I SEE YOU

Lobbyists, politicians, and political advocacy groups who seek to limit those with uteruses access to contraception, I SEE YOU

Lobbyists and politicians and political advocacy groups who seek to limit gay, lesbian, trans*, and queer rights to marriage, adoption, insurance, to visit their dying partners in hospital rooms, to quality of life, to safety, I SEE YOU

Politicians, lobbyists, and political advocacy groups who seek to limit those with uteruses rights to abortion and even make their efforts to make reproductive choices a criminal act, I SEE YOU

Media executives and corporate heads who continue to refuse to give meaningful story lines or roles to people of color, women, gay, lesbian, trans*, and queer individuals, I SEE YOU

Media executives, advertisers, and corporate heads who continue to exploit people of color, women, gay, lesbian, trans*, and queer individuals to sell products, make jokes, and ultimately invalidate their human experiences, I SEE YOU

Media executives, advertisers, and corporate heads who continue to encourage an environment of shame against those who do not fit your societal standards of beauty such as trans*, queer, fat, gender bending individuals and people of color in order to sell products to them that they don’t need, I SEE YOU

The judicial system who refuses to prosecute, reprimand, or even criticize the behavior of members of the police force when it comes to issues of police brutality, racial profiling, and violation of civil rights, I SEE YOU

The police force that continues to brutalize, profile, and murder people of color daily, I SEE YOU

Those of you walking around everyday making jokes at the expense of sexual assault victims, people of color, women, trans*, gay, lesbian, and queer individuals, I SEE YOU

Those of you clutching your bags as a black man walks by, staring at a queer couple holding hands in the mall, asking objectifying and insulting questions about the validity of trans* peoples sex and gender, shaking your head at the girl buying plan B in front of you in the grocery store, I SEE YOU

YOU ARE NOT HIDING.
YOU ARE NOT FOOLING US.
WE WILL NOT GIVE IN. WE WILL NOT GIVE UP. WE WILL NOT BACK DOWN. 

#TRUTH

obviously.

the-mofo:

How can a mother’s right to refuse carrying a baby for 9 months be more important than the baby’s right to have his/her existance, the baby’s whole lifetime?

Using freedom to justify abortion is fucking nonsense. The mothers’ claim to have the freedom to get an abortion is definitely wrong since it takes away an innocent person’s right to live.

Bodily integrity is one of the most important rights we have, so maybe you should look into some actual human rights treaties on the subject. Here, I compiled a bunch.

Actual people with rights under the Constitution will always take precedence over non-sentient, non-autonomous embryos who are only potential persons and are residing inside someone else. We do have the right to bodily integrity and the right to bodily autonomy as well as the right to privacy. There is no such thing as a right to someone else’s body. Consent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy. And reproductive rights violations are considered torture in some cases and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in many more.

Pregnant people have every right to refuse 9 months of pregnancy because it’s something that will permanently change them. It’s not some inconvenient walk in the park. What’s “fucking nonsense” is your complete disregard for actual people’s fundamental human rights in favor of an embryo, which isn’t innocent by the way.

Oh, and trans* people exist.

Obviously.

(Source: mofo-escapist)

How did the Subcommittee on the Constitution spend International Women’s Day?

Holding a hearing on H.R. 2299, the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act”, of course!

I didn’t see the live webcast and I’m not sure if they’ll have a transcript later on [if so, I’ll add it], but here are pdfs of the witness testimony. Shockingly the one person testifying against the legislation is a priest (and President/Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School) from Cambridge, MA. As an interesting aside, I actually lived in a dorm on the EDS campus while attending the Art Institute of Boston.

Witness List

Professor Teresa Collett
Professor of Law
University of St. Thomas School of Law

The Very Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale
President and Dean
Episcopal Divinity School 

Dr. Michael New
Department of Social Sciences
University of Michigan - Dearborn 

From a NARAL Pro-Choice America press release:

…

On Thursday, March 8, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution will hold a hearing on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA). This bill would make it a federal crime for anyone other than a parent to accompany a young woman out of state for abortion care. It also would force doctors to impose a parental-notice requirement on young women from out of state – under the threat of fines and prison sentences.

“We believe that loving parents should be involved when their daughter faces an unintended pregnancy and thankfully, most do. But in some tragic circumstances, young women cannot involve their parents because they come from homes where physical and emotional abuse are present or their pregnancies are the result of incest,” Keenan said. “Under this bill, a grandmother could be prosecuted for accompanying her granddaughter to a doctor in another state —even if that doctor is closest to the young woman’s home. Ministers helping a young woman in their congregation would face similar threats. This bill is not a solution; it is a callous example of government intrusion into tragic family circumstances.”

CIANA has been reintroduced as a free-standing bill in every Congress since the 109th, including earlier this session by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.). This bill, or similar versions of it, has been introduced in every Congress for nearly 15 years. While the House passed CIANA in 2005, the Senate rejected it in 2006. Major medical groups, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association all have longstanding policies opposing mandatory parental-involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians.

Please see more information on CIANA and other similar proposals.

Also see:

• The Center For Reproductive Rights press release
• NARAL fact sheet “Mandatory Parental-Involvement Laws Threaten Young Women’s Safety”
• ACLU’s “Reproductive Freedom: The Rights of Minors”

As always, this legislation will put all pregnant teens at risk, not just cis teens.

note-a-bear:

come on up to the house: fuck cis feminism.

so-treu:

collaterlysisters:

so-treu:

but not all individuals who can get pregnant are women. and to conflate the two is a super violent form of erasure for folks who are also in need of the same reproductive rights as cis women.

super violent?

god knows what language I’ll be left with to describe an actual assault, if this is how we talk about lapses in attention by feminists who are attempting to convey their distress at possibly being forced to give birth

………………….does someone else want to deal with this cissexist horseshit? as if trans women haven’t been targeted for violence by feminists? as if nonbinary folks have NO TROUBLE AT ALL with the medical establishment? as if the way feminist talk about this isn’t DIRECTLY related to or the cause of or furthered any of this?

As a uterus bearer who does not identify as a woman, I hope you don’t mind if I try and pick up the reins on this response.

@collaterlysisters: Apparently at some point you failed to learn that “Violence” as a term is used in a multitude of connotations and contexts. It is easier to highlight and make use of it when we speak to physical actions, yes, but words, political ideologies, and plenty of non-physical events can and are violent.

To speak to the point so-treu’s post gets at: Words and the managing of political movements therein (oh, say around reproductive health and access) tend toward violence. That is, on the Right there is the violent rhetoric of patriarchal domination and subscriptions to the notion that women and uterus-bearers have zero rights to their bodies. On the Left, however, there is a more insidious violence, it is the violence of erasure. When talking about reproductive health the term “Woman” is, in fact, used as a shorthand (or at least I’m assured of this by well-meaning liberals) for anyone who has the physical capacity to conceive.

The erasure is violent, because in discussion of access and rights it fails to recognize the particular context of those who are not Woman-identified and have need of those same services. Further, it makes the distinction between those bearing uteri who can conceive and those who cannot non-existent. This is a problem for several reasons, not the least of which is that it reduces health concerns around reproductive organs to a discussion only (or at least dominated by) the concerns of staving off or aiding reproduction. Which is essentialist, and thus damaging and potentially violent.

-

-

Let’s take this further, shall we?

If our only discussion around services provided is reduced to reproductive concerns, rather than general health concerns it persists in the fallacy that those who are born with uteri are only worth discussion or recognition if they are concerned with reproduction. It abandons those of us who can’t have children or don’t want them. And, in the general scope, it invalidates, silences, and erases people who do not identify themselves as women.

Again, this is violence.

This is violence, because it makes clear that some people are worth attention and care. It makes it hard to build up energy to access goods and services because it presupposes a single identity rather than a multitude.

This is violence because it denies access.

You see how I keep repeating that phrase “violence because it denies access”? Yeah, that’s important. Because without access to medical and non-medical services people die. People put off health concerns both minor and major until, oftentimes, it is too late.

Violence in language is comprised of all the little faults that lead to physical violence. It is dangerous and violent because without even seeing certain things made part of the conversation and coverage, people who have little contact outside of language may not (and often do not) think about those who are not explicitly talked about.

(Source: inflateablefilth)