They have women’s parts, practical to the extent that they have become pregnant. They think they are gonna get turned away because they wear a tie or have hair on their lip and call themselves ‘Mister’?
I think the only ‘women’s organizations’ that would turn them away are the kind that would not being providing abortion services of any kind to anyone. Further, I believe that would be the general assumption.
But you know what? Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe someone knows of a Women’s organization that provides abortion services AND turns away people who do not strictly self-identify as women.
Why are you refusing to consider any other potential problems in this situation besides outright “getting turned away”? In particular, why did you completely ignore this highly relevant part of what I wrote in replying to you?
Yes, transgender men and other people who don’t identify as women but have female anatomy do find it helpful and supportive for organizations like abortion support services to be explicitly inclusive of their identities.
No, that doesn’t mean that organizations that take the trouble to use explicitly inclusive language are somehow implying that transgender men are just too dumb to understand their own anatomy or to understand that they are entitled to use “women’s” services.
So I don’t think the Abortion Liberation Fund needs you kibitzing their perfectly reasonable decision about their name change out of “concern” for some imaginary potential insult to the intelligence of non-cisgender people. FFS.
What a sneering bigoted dismissal of the diversity of human nature, and utter oblivious ignorance of the appalling treatment of trans and non-binary people. You’re no less an embarrassment to your species than the gutless transphobic fuckwit who started this thread.
I apologize, I didn’t notice your post and I have just used alternative terminology to describe Paul. It’s almost as confusing as the pathetic old bigot’s struggles with the use of the word “women”.
Abortion providers in general I believe will serve their clients equally, no matter if they’re homeless, prostitutes, are STD positive, present transgender, are scruffy runaways or secretly seeking as a conservative Christian. You thinking theres some bright line they won’t cross as if there’s an anti trans cabal running most abortion clinics is nonsense.
You do understand that of the people that support women’s rights, there’s an entire subsection that very specifically exclude trans people from that scope, right?
Chela said a pregnant trans man may not want to go to a TERFy women’s clinic.
You overtly misrepresented that statement by saying chela suggested there’s an ‘anti trans cabal running most abortion clinics’. Then created a strawman by calling chela’s argument that said cabal is “running most abortion clinics” nonsense.
One group saying ‘we include everyone’ doesn’t imply that all or most of the other similar groups exclude certain people.
Yes, I did. Funny thing is, I was still half asleep and as I was getting ready for work a few minutes later I was thinking to myself ‘there’s no way I wrote that whole post without making any mistakes’.
Are there any documented cases of trans-men being turned away from abortion clinics or from Planned Parenthood type medical services?
It’s my understanding, women who are often accused of being TERFs don’t actually advocate for discrimination or denial of services to trans people. There may be a handful of extremists but the overwhelming majority believe that trans people need to be treated with dignity, respect and are entitled to equal rights. The only non-trans-positive position they hold is, from a strictly biological perspective, they do not believe that TWAW or TMAM. Additionally, they advocate for additional scrutiny when it comes to women only spaces. I think they may be exercising an over-abundance of caution in some cases, and there is room for criticism of their positions there.
I have no idea and wouldn’t even know how to look something up like that. I’d be surprised if something like that was documented in such a way that it was even searchable. I’d imagine the doctor isn’t going to write ‘Procedure is denied due to PT being a transman’ but rather something like ‘after full workup, it has been determined that PT cannot proceed with procedure due to health issues’ or something like that.
But then maybe those people aren’t actually TERFs. But that doesn’t mean they’re not out there and a trans man still would probably prefer to avoid them. A clinic that went out of their way to remove the word ‘woman’ is, I’d think, less likely to be staffed by TERFs or even people on the TERF area of the spectrum.
I think it’s far more likely that people in the medical profession who are concerned primarily with women’s reproductive health issues, aren’t going to exclude or discourage trans men. And I think it’s doing a great disservice to these clinics and healthcare professionals to beat the bushes for suspected “enemies within” simply because the word “woman” is in their name (or information packet).
I don’t know if you realize it or not but this kind of thinking is well within McArthyism territory. You should examine your position.
From what I get from his posts, he’s saying that transmen (trans people in general) face all kinds of hate and discrimination, so they may be more careful about who they go to for services. Changing the name of an abortion service provider to be more inclusive indicates that provider has no issue with transmen.
Then you write that someone is beating the bushes to find enemies within and compare it to McCarthyism.
It is one thing to change the name of the clinic. I take no issue with that. It’s another thing altogether to imply that the name change has some sort of bearing on the attitudes held by those staffing the clinic, before or after the name change.
See, I didn’t pick that up at all. I saw it from the point of view of a trans person and how that person might perceive the name, along with the extra caution that trans people have to take due to rampant transphobia.
You know, there’s actually research on this, and it carries more weight than the views of some self-declared “centrist” male who’s just spitballing about what transgender men experience when seeking reproductive health care.
Entering a clinic where the sign advertises “Women’s Health,” where the walls and chairs are pink, where images of only cisgender women hang in the waiting room and visit rooms, where instructional brochures use language relevant for cisgender women only, and where the patient restroom is labeled a “women’s” restroom can be stigmatizing and isolating for a person who is not a woman. Similarly, experiences of mis-gendering by clinic staff, such as a clinic receptionist referring to a man as “Miss” or “she,” or the experience of being seen by a health care provider who is not knowledgeable about the provision of affirming sexual and reproductive health care for transgender and gender nonbinary patients—or who outright refuses to provide care to transgender and gender nonbinary patients—can traumatize patients and deter them from seeking future health care.
A trans man doesn’t have to be refused care to be harmed; it’s the sum of all the little things that contribute to making an extremely difficult situation even more uncomfortable. And that starts with the name of the clinic.