My Pro-Choice Politician: Nina Turner (D-Cleveland, OH)
This is the fifth in an on-going series where you all nominate state- or local-level elected officials who are standing up for reproductive rights in their communities and states, and we all, as a community, thank them for what they do.
We need to keep reminding these hard-working, often unacknowledged state-level politicians that we see the work they are doing and we are incredibly grateful for it.
(list of previous installments at end of post)
Today’s Pro-choice Politician is Nina Turner, an Ohio state senator (D-Cleveland).
Ms. Turner was nominated by both Gig Hartline and Heidi Swindell.
Ms. Turner became nationally famous in March when she introduced her “viagra bill.” Mimicking the paternalistic rhetoric of much anti-choice/anti-contraception legislation and the politicians who support it, Senator Turner said the bill was necessary to “protect men’s health.” From Robin Marty:
As I’m sure anyone who has experienced priapism can no doubt tell you, erectile drugs side affects are no laughing matter. Well, unless you’re in an “American Pie” sequel.
That’s why Ohio state Senator Nina Turner is introducing a very important bill to help regulate Viagra usage.
Via the Middletown Journal:
Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.
At least she didn’t mandate a rectal exam.
Today, if you head over to Senator Turner’s website, this is the first image you will see:
Help us say, “THANK YOU!” to Senator Turner for being a staunch pro-choice ally and for fighting tirelessly for reproductive rights.
Thank you, Senator Turner!
This idea was inspired by our post a while back for Kentucky State Rep Darryl Owens.
First installment: Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago)
Second installment: Kathy Stein (D- Fayette, Kentucky)
Third installment: Edith Ajello (D - Providence, Rhode Island)
Fourth installment: Mark Dayton (Governor of Minnesota)
Transgender People and the War on Women
These posts by Golden Notebook, Unkowablewoman, and Unhurriedheart address inclusion of transgender people in the War on Women. My thoughts follow.anonymous asks:Wait, are you against the terminology “war on uterus bearers”? :2unknowablewoman said:
it’s like you’ve never even read my Tumblr
yes, anon, yes
I believe that erasing the violent misogyny inherent in the anti-choice movement is dangerous because it only serves to further decenter women from the issue when we are alreadyseen as incubators and non-people. Referring to anyone as “people with uteri” is gross as fuck. Abortion/reproductive rights have been contextualizedas a women’s issue and I think it’s disrespectful and misogynist to remove that context, both rhetorically and practically. If woman-centered language is cissexist here it’s because we have been reduced to our reproductive organs. Furthermore, as a cis woman, it doesn’t even make any sense for me to talk about these things as a “uterus bearer” issue when I have no idea what it’s like to be seeking reproductive healthcare as a trans person. Why would I do that? When I talk about abortion rights, I’m going to talk about my experiences as a woman and the experiences of the other women I know who are being TARGETED by this legislation. This legislation IS about us. Tough fucking shit if you narcissistic babies cannot handle women talking about their experiences as women.
And finally, let’s get fucking real, people. How many non-women are having abortions? Really? Do we have any statistics on this? I’m truly sorry for anyone who experiences an unplanned pregnancy, but when 90%+ (and I’m being generous here) of the people actually seeking these services are women then I think it’s completely fucking asinine to expect us all to change the conversation. Not everything is going to be about you 24/7 and you can call it erasure until you’re blue in the face but I’m going to call it the real world.Andwhile you’re tearing down well-meaning, experienced activists, volunteers and reproductive health workers over something as petty as this, the GOP/Religious Right are fucking succeeding at rolling back access to reproductive healthcare of all kinds. They are SUCCEEDING and you honestly fucking think that now is the time to argue about this? You think this is a game? Protip: if women can’t access abortion, then nobody can.
Some insufferable SJW who I can’t remember made a post about this lamenting the fact that we don’t “count their dead at all” when we don’t acknowledge that non-women need these services too and I find that hilarious because they’re acting as if our dead are counted. As if society gives two shits about the woman seeking an abortion to get out of an abusive relationship and as if correcting all the language to ~uterus-bearers~ in our literature will somehow fix everything. There are enormous barriers that trans people face in accessing reproductive healthcare and those definitely need to be addressed but I hardly think telling women they can’t contextualize the attacks they are experiencing as a War on Women is going to solve that. In fact, I know it won’t, which is why I’ve stepped away from internet SJ for the most part and do not even care anymore how much hate/unfollowing I get for this. I consider anyone who disagrees with me on this to be nothing more than a child and I don’t need to argue with children anymore.
you can unfollow me now and send me hate mail and call me cis scum or whatever is hip these dayswait. someone is saying that cis-women should simply call themselves “uterus bearers”? FUCK that noise.
It is truly unbearable. While LORD KNOWS trans women are incredibly, incredibly marginalized by the medical community and problematized and God knows what else, the simple fact is that anti-choice discourse is centered around cis women. John Boehner is not trans-bashing when he attempts for the umpteenth time to defund Planned Parenthood. Rick Perry is not gleefully rubbing his hands, thinking about all the “people who don’t ID as women who are pregnant”, when he diverts money to crisis pregnancy centers.
This particular brand of misogyny is about cis women, and to insist we call ourselves uterus-bearers, which btw is incredibly robotic and dehumanizing, is imo just as misogynistic.
This is not to say that trans-bashing does not fall on a spectrum of misogyny - of course it does! - but that one-upping women who want to talk about their experiences with your special Social Justice Super Secret Password Handshake is not only annoying as hell, but actively alienating to those who actually work with women getting abortions, like unknowablewoman.
Discussing misogyny is not a zero-sum game, where excluding trans issues on this one issue means that there isn’t enough oxgyen to talk about it when it’s relevant to many other things. Those who act like it is are being willfully disingenuous and I’m over it.
I hope you don’t mind that I reblog this, but I just want to say that this really hits on the head what I’ve been mulling about for weeks. The reason being called a ‘person with a uterus’ is unappealing to me is that it strips me of my womanhood somehow. I am not just my reproductive organs and fuck you if that’s what you want me to identify as. I support the fight for trans* rights, but I am also a cis woman who is mainly interested in the fight against cis women. Although trans* and cis women overlap sometimes, to say that our entire fight is all about trans* rights is very off-putting. Cis women in particular are major political targets right now and although it’s all fun and rainbows to be inclusive, sometimes you just don’t fit into parts of a movement.
To quote Flavia Dzodan, My feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit. The arguments here about why it’s ok to keep excluding trans people from the war on women are bullshit. Yes, I agree “uterus bearers” is not the way to correct that. I don’t want to be reduced to a body part. But using that as an excuse to continue the exclusion of trans people is ridiculous. Cis-women are not the only political targets right now. Um, hello, reauthorization of VAWA was opposed by Republicans because it extended protections beyond heterosexual cis-women! The fact that most politicians aren’t thinking about trans people when they wage war on reproductive rights, equal pay, etc. is no excuse for the feminist movement not to think about the ways this war affects trans people. Do we want to be on the same level as right wing politicians?
And that language of “inclusion” is still used is illustrative of the fact that cis-women still believe that we own this movement. That we will let you in when we think it will benefit us but if it doesn’t then you are on your own. And telling trans people that not everything is about them 24/7 is absolutely laughable and insulting. As if the feminist movement in general is always considering trans issues and we just right now need to focus on cis-women so back off you greedy trans people! These arguments are basically saying that if we consider the ways these attacks affect trans people then that will lead to the erasure of cis-women! Ridiculous!! Figuring out how to take a white, middle class cis-woman led movement and turn it something that actually makes a difference in all people’s lives is hard as hell. But we must find a way to have an intersectional feminist movement that actually ends the multiple forms of oppression we face. And we must find a way to do that without erasing anyone’s experiences or contributions.
And I’m just going to point everyone to the amazing tumblr: Trans Repro Justice.
Remember the scandal over Janet Jackson’s boob during the Super Bowl?
christianist propaganda is OK but cock and pussy is obscene. welcome to Amerikkka.