Pregnant people instead of pregnant women?

A lot of people are losing their shit about this, most notably the madfems but also Ian Miles Cheong for what appears to be no reason at all other than I think he dislikes SJWs and a lot of SJWs are trans.  He’s pretty ideologically opposed to anything that seems a little SJW-y and as usual, has grabbed the wrong end of the stick.

So what’s the story even about you ask? Basically a lot of REEEEE and nothing much else. In short, there’s this UN treaty and previously in the treaty the wording has said “pregnant women must be protected”. Which has been working pretty well and we’ve been affording protections to those pregnant women for decades now. Protections such as “you can’t execute pregnant women”. Which is nice.

However, we now live in a world where pregnant trans men exist. Since the UK has had at least two I believe, its no surprise that this is now starting to be represented in our legal system and by extension, any legal treaties we sign with other nations.

In the UK we have a thing called the “gender recognition certificate” – essentially this certificate serves to help you update your birth certificate and to be legally recognised as the sex you believe yourself to be. So for a trans woman she would be a woman in the eyes of the law, and be entitled to the same pension age etc as non-trans women. The same is true for trans men and being entitled to men’s things.

Also in the UK we have a legal system which has three core rules of construction for which to use when arguing the legality of situations and interpreting legislation. One of which is the “plain meaning rule” – which specifies that we have to interpret things using the ordinary meaning of the words.

If we combine what we now know about the British legal system and trans people, ie plain meaning rule & legal recognition. This means that because trans men are legally recognised as men they were excluded from the legal protections afforded to women – and by extension, pregnant women too. Obviously this leaves a group of people without those same pregnancy protections and well… that’s not particularly equal is it?

Whether or not you personally agree with the fact that trans men are men – the law recognises them as such, and so this protection needed to be expanded as to include them in the case that they get pregnant.

This isn’t a personal attack on women, it isn’t erasure of females, it isn’t mandating anyone else call them pregnant people or even refer to trans men as men. It’s literally just a UN treaty hardly anybody is ever going to read which needed to use specific wording as per UK law and include trans men in those protections for the sake of equality. Standing against this isn’t standing against “muh crazy PC culture” or “muh sjws” or “muh trans lobby” or even “muh soggy kneeeeees!!!”. It’s literally just maintenance to a loophole in a legal document which could’ve impacted some people negatively.

The closest you can get to a fair criticism of this is saying why change it for 2 people? and to that I say its 2 people now. It might be more in the future, especially given that trans women are potentially soon to be able to give birth too.

And since everyone else was being so histrionic, let me have a go at it too:

Standing against this is basically like saying “I’m okay with females being beheaded when they’re pregnant if they’re trans men.” Lol Why does feminism have this much overlap with Radical Islam?



One thought on “Pregnant people instead of pregnant women?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s