This really pisses me off. Reproductive justice is a women's issue.
Except for the gendered men who can become pregnant.
There is no "right answer." I had this conversation with one of the 12 black women who coined the term and movement "reproductive justice."
There is definitely talk among the movement in regards to using women vs using people who can become pregnant. The argument that some of them make is that the RJ movement is specifically for black women. So no that does not include trans men.
I just brought that up as another example in which the intention of language to be more inclusive might be missing the mark in a similar way to latinx.
Post by cattledogkisses on Dec 12, 2019 18:08:05 GMT -5
Framing it as a women's issue leaves out trans men and gender non-binary people who can also get pregnant, and are also affected by this.
And since I'm getting questionable vibes from you I'm going to come out and say that if you don't think trans men are men and trans women are women, you can go ahead and GTFU, because we don't tolerate transphobia here.
Framing it as a women's issue leaves out trans men and gender non-binary people who can also get pregnant, and are also affected by this.
And since I'm getting questionable vibes from you I'm going to come out and say that if you don't think trans men are men and trans women are women, you can go ahead and GTFU, because we don't tolerate transphobia here.
I replied to pixy above.
I'm not trying to be transphobic. RJ can be seen as pretty specific. It's also not about white women. RJ was built for pretty specific reasons based on history, so yes I do think it's going to leave some people out. Not all of the original founders agree on every single framework that has since come out of the movement. But there is definitely the discussion of using women vs people who can get pregnant in regards to RJ because trans men are not women even though they can get pregnant.
I'm just presenting the info. Like I said above there is no "right" answer, so I think people are ok to have their viewpoints on it in regards to RJ, especially the founders.
Framing it as a women's issue leaves out trans men and gender non-binary people who can also get pregnant, and are also affected by this.
And since I'm getting questionable vibes from you I'm going to come out and say that if you don't think trans men are men and trans women are women, you can go ahead and GTFU, because we don't tolerate transphobia here.
I replied to pixy above.
I'm not trying to be transphobic. RJ can be seen as pretty specific. It's also not about white women. RJ was built for pretty specific reasons based on history, so yes I do think it's going to leave some people out. Not all of the original founders agree on every single framework that has since come out of the movement. But there is definitely the discussion of using women vs people who can get pregnant in regards to RJ because trans men are not women even though they can get pregnant.
I'm just presenting the info. Like I said above there is no "right" answer, so I think people are ok to have their viewpoints on it in regards to RJ, especially the founders.
I didn't see your response before I posted, sorry! I appreciate your take on this, truly, and wasn't directing my above comment to you.
johncandy , do you see the label of "women's issue" as one that also encompasses people who are not/do not identify as women? For me, women's issue is not broad enough to encompass the many people who do not fall into the traditional category of "woman". People who can get pregnant appears to be much more inclusive of all those who can get pregnant, whether that person identifies as "woman" or not.
You can see my further response above to other posters. To answer your question, some people believe that RJ is specific for black women, so no that does not include white women and no that does not include white or black trans men.
I'm not trying to be transphobic. RJ can be seen as pretty specific. It's also not about white women. RJ was built for pretty specific reasons based on history, so yes I do think it's going to leave some people out. Not all of the original founders agree on every single framework that has since come out of the movement. But there is definitely the discussion of using women vs people who can get pregnant in regards to RJ because trans men are not women even though they can get pregnant.
I'm just presenting the info. Like I said above there is no "right" answer, so I think people are ok to have their viewpoints on it in regards to RJ, especially the founders.
I didn't see your response before I posted, sorry! I appreciate your take on this, truly, and wasn't directing my above comment to you.
johncandy , do you see the label of "women's issue" as one that also encompasses people who are not/do not identify as women? For me, women's issue is not broad enough to encompass the many people who do not fall into the traditional category of "woman". People who can get pregnant appears to be much more inclusive of all those who can get pregnant, whether that person identifies as "woman" or not.
You can see my further response above to other posters. To answer your question, some people believe that RJ is specific for black women, so no that does not include white women and no that does not include white or black trans men.
johncandy , do you see the label of "women's issue" as one that also encompasses people who are not/do not identify as women? For me, women's issue is not broad enough to encompass the many people who do not fall into the traditional category of "woman". People who can get pregnant appears to be much more inclusive of all those who can get pregnant, whether that person identifies as "woman" or not.
You can see my further response above to other posters. To answer your question, some people believe that RJ is specific for black women, so no that does not include white women and no that does not include white or black trans men.
I feel like I’m fairly well versed on the need for reproductive justice for black women (thanks to recent news coverage) but can you explain more why you’d exclude black trans men?
You can see my further response above to other posters. To answer your question, some people believe that RJ is specific for black women, so no that does not include white women and no that does not include white or black trans men.
I feel like I’m fairly well versed on the need for reproductive justice for black women (thanks to recent news coverage) but can you explain more why you’d exclude black trans men?
I just want to clarify that this is not "me" excluding anyone. I'm just bringing up discussions that are being had within the movement. The controversial use of latinx made me think of it. I completely understand that gender is on a spectrum and that "women's issues" affect transgender people.
RJ was founded by black women during a conference in which their issues were ignored. It was founded with a specific focus in mind based on specific issues directly affecting black women. The thinking is that RJ is specific to black women and using the term "people who can get pregnant" opens that up and takes away the focus from black women. The thinking is that in general trans men consider themselves men and not women.
I personally feel that RJ has become a new buzz phrase and I'm seeing organizations throwing it around without truly understanding the movement and just trying to appear "woke." I think that this is just one of those examples and why people within the RJ movement are having this discussion and some are trying to bring the focus back to black women specifically.
I feel like I’m fairly well versed on the need for reproductive justice for black women (thanks to recent news coverage) but can you explain more why you’d exclude black trans men?
I just want to clarify that this is not "me" excluding anyone. I'm just bringing up discussions that are being had within the movement. The controversial use of latinx made me think of it. I completely understand that gender is on a spectrum and that "women's issues" affect transgender people.
RJ was founded by black women during a conference in which their issues were ignored. It was founded with a specific focus in mind based on specific issues directly affecting black women. The thinking is that RJ is specific to black women and using the term "people who can get pregnant" opens that up and takes away the focus from black women. The thinking is that in general trans men consider themselves men and not women.
I personally feel that RJ has become a new buzz phrase and I'm seeing organizations throwing it around without truly understanding the movement and just trying to appear "woke." I think that this is just one of those examples and why people within the RJ movement are having this discussion and some are trying to bring the focus back to black women specifically.
Got it, thank you for the explanation. And I’m sorry if I implied this was coming from you specifically — definitely meant the general “you.”
I don't know about the RJ discussion and it's not my place to say what Black Women should do in their movement - including Trans Black Men or not. I have, though, witnessed comments at the March for Black Women that says they include representing Black Trans women, Trans Men and non-binary persons whose bodies are affected by politics affecting those with female reproductive issues. But to ensure the focus stays on Black Women they are keeping their branding as such so the majority focus isn't lost.
And related to inclusive language for transgender and nonbinary individuals - I was sooooo impressed yesterday. I was approached with a job description for our hospital pharmacy staff who handle hazardous drugs that had language proposed by white men which read, "requires training on the handling of hazardous drugs and its impact on individuals of reproductive capacity, as well as signed acknowledgment of the risks."
That was amazingly inclusive for that particular group. I was very pleased to see it.
PS - re Latinx, I reached out to my friend who is a leader in the advocacy for the advancement of Latinas in the U.S. She said the use of the term is an ongoing conversation in their organization and network and no solid stance has been taken yet. I'm going to watch them for some direction. The group is MANA (Hermana.org) if anyone is interested in a reference.