@Vgal #109362
She's using rhetorical sleight of hand. She argues that "women", under her definition, need "a few special accommodations so that they aren't at a disadvantage compared to men". She specifies only maternity leave, access to abortions, and access to contraceptives, as being those "special accomodations" needed. For everything else, she says, men and women can be treated exactly equally. Seems reasonable, right?
Except, by her own explicit argument, the only thing that gives men an advantage over women is that women (to her) can be mothers, and men can't. Trans women can't be mothers, so therefore, to her, that means they can never be disadvantaged via pregnancy and childbirth and so don't need those special accomodations and thus are men. Except post-menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomiee, and women who just can't have children for other reasons don't need to have those special accomodations either. Does that mean, in her view, that those women fall into the same category as trans men and "biological men" because they aren't disadvantaged when compared to the childbearing mothers she apparently thinks are the only ones that count as "real women"? Because, remember, she says that outside of the childbirth-related accomodations she lists, she says that men and women should be treated exactly alike.
By her own logic and direct argument, this would be the case. But that's not all.
She then goes into several rants about how "forcing female people to share their identity and their rights with male people whether they like it or not is neither feminist nor liberal. And the women most likely to be harmed by the inclusion of male people are the vulnerable ones such as prisoners, rape survivors, victims of domestic abuse and religious minorities", "denying biology is unhelpful to women because it makes it more difficult to put in place the accommodations women need to make sure they aren't at a disadvantage compared to men due to their biological sex. Which is the only respect in which men and women actually need to be treated differently", and "[trans-friendly "libfems"] believe that the word "woman" should include any male person who wants to be included, despite the fact that he has an advantage over women due to his male biology. They don't think female people should be allowed to have a word for themselves which does not include male people, or any spaces from which male people can be excluded. They're teaching the next generation of young women that they are not allowed to say no to people with penises."
All of which are part of her argument why trans women are not just not "women", but dangerous to women and even the whole idea of feminism, Except, again, her only "special accomodations", the sole things she explicitly says are where men and women not just should be, but need to be treated differently, are maternity leave, abortion, and contraception. All things, and only things, dealing with pregnancy and childbirth.
By her other rants, she obviously (and vehemently) believes there's more to feminism (and the rights women need) than simply maternity leave, abortion, and contraception. So she's not only defining "women" as "those who have children and no other" for the purposes of her faux-reasonable list of "women just need maternity leave, abortion, and contraception and otherwise can be treated identically to men", she immediately pulls a bait and switch, adding additional issues and rights that feminism needs to fight for beyond simply maternity leave, abortion, and contraception, but does not correspondingly expand her definition of "women" who face these additional issues and need those additional rights. She retains the definition of "women" as "childbearers only", even for the purposes of her expanded definition of what women have to face and what rights they should have.
Which, as pointed out, is remarkably like the definition of "women" held by theocrats and conservatives.