Roe vs Wade overturned

[uppi]

Conservatives atm aren't set on restricting choice (which is what the above do), they are set on eliminating it.

No argument from me, there. My point is that to stop them and reverse it, you are going to need decisions by people not affected by it.

 

[Crezth]

The point was specifically being made that if you only allowed women a say on the issue, abortion rights would be guaranteed more strongly than if both men and women had a say. This is true (5% greater support for legal abortion among women than among men) but there are substantial numbers of women who do not support abortion rights at all.
I don't think the assertion that women are a class, in this context, is relevant unless the implication is that their membership in this class would lead them to support abortion rights. Which is already not true.

More broadly I think there is tendency to over-broadly apply the idea of identity groups facing such acute oppression that their political interests are largely identical; this case applies to black Americans up until about 1965 or so but I think it is a strained analogy in most other contexts.

It's conceivable that more women (and men; fwiw) will be pushed into abortion-rights support as the manifest injustice of abortion bans (particularly those without exceptions for rape or health of mother etc) become clearer.

I really think you don't understand identity politics for all the allusion you do to it. The point is not that these groups are literally a monolith. I'm frustrated that you can't understand that. The point is that the material conditions of their actual lives' generate a real solidarity.

Now, for an example you said that Black Americans' interests were largely aligned until 1965. I think this is an oversimplification, but to go along with it, why do you think that would be the case that they were ever aligned? Was it, perhaps, because there was some law or group of laws that identified them and affected them as a group? Could it be they came to realize this, and then sought to advance their interests in solidarity, as a result of experiencing the injustice that affected them specially?

Armed with this knowledge, can you conceive of a present circumstance which may cause inflammation in the solidarity of women? And then can you seriously say that it doesn't matter that women in general have lesser political, economic, and social power?

 

[Lexicus]

The point is that the material conditions of their actual lives' generate a real solidarity.

I mean I literally said exactly this a few posts back, my point is simply that this is a point that should be established by evidence, not taken as an assumption. An empirical prediction entailed in this assertion is that women would tend to take similar positions on political issues especially those directly concerning their welfare and status; if that's true then female solidarity is somewhat difficult to perceive in the fact that over a third of American women oppose abortion rights.

Now, for an example you said that Black Americans' interests were largely aligned until 1965. I think this is an oversimplification, but to go along with it, why do you think that would be the case that they were ever aligned? Was it, perhaps, because there was some law or group of laws that identified them and affected them as a group? Could it be they came to realize this, and then sought to advance their interests in solidarity, as a result of experiencing the injustice that affected them specially?

Yes, the insinuation that I am not aware of all this is odd, why else would I say what I said?

Armed with this knowledge, can you conceive of a present circumstance which may cause inflammation in the solidarity of women? And then can you seriously say that it doesn't matter that women in general have lesser political, economic, and social power?

Never once said this.

 

[AmazonQueen]

No argument from me, there. My point is that to stop them and reverse it, you are going to need decisions by people not affected by it.

Yes, the decision not to interfere in and restrict other peoples choices. Should be pretty easy for conservatives if they actually believed their own rhetoric.

 

[El_Machinae]

Society does need to create the infrastructure, which could include a broad range of early in utero testing options. After that, we choose which ones to subsidize and which ones to even allow. On the strongly pro-choice end, there are as few restrictions as possible and even as much subsidization as possible.

 

[Crezth]

I mean I literally said exactly this a few posts back, my point is simply that this is a point that should be established by evidence, not taken as an assumption. An empirical prediction entailed in this assertion is that women would tend to take similar positions on political issues especially those directly concerning their welfare and status; if that's true then female solidarity is somewhat difficult to perceive in the fact that over a third of American women oppose abortion rights.

Doesn't matter. Can still trust a woman better than a man.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Doesn't matter. Can still trust a woman better than a man.

Don't be so sure.

 

[Crezth]

Right, women* and men*.

 

[Crezth]

I mean I literally said exactly this a few posts back, my point is simply that this is a point that should be established by evidence, not taken as an assumption. An empirical prediction entailed in this assertion is that women would tend to take similar positions on political issues especially those directly concerning their welfare and status; if that's true then female solidarity is somewhat difficult to perceive in the fact that over a third of American women oppose abortion rights.

I was snippy before because I was annoyed you circled back to this, but I figured for the viewers at home I may as well go over this one more time.

The point is not to generate an outcome that you think is desirable based only on your devotion to electoral politics. For my own part I think you're arranging deck chairs on the titanic worrying about electoral politics, but even if I agreed with you that it was the centerpiece of justice, the logic of my argument is not stipulated on women generating the so-called desirable outcomes in all circumstances. The point is to make women responsible for and in charge of their own affairs: seeing to their own political power, organizing on that basis, and empowered with the legal rights, privileges, and protections that will allow them to guarantee their own rights. The point is to introduce greater justice for women in general, and abortion is merely a symptom of the broken and patriarchal system.

This requires a structural adjustment. Therefore I really do not care about your electoral precepts. I suppose that indeed there will be women voting against abortion. But at least it shall be women voting.

This is decolonization. That is why I made all those points about you assuming that, say, Indian independence is undesirable because some Indians like the British or the Raj. Indeed, so they do. Are they less Indian you think? And more importantly, what has that got to do with self-determination and social and economic justice? Huh?

Never once said this.

Perhaps you know the meaning of the word "implication."

 

[El_Machinae]

Despite the fact that I would lose the ability to explain that pro-lifers are inherently driven by misogyny, I don't think anyone could argue that the discussion itself would improve from my cohort's absence. That would be a separate prediction from whether it would create an outcome that I think is the best, even if I was lucky enough to be right.

Practically, it might be impossible, because the urge to cheat by bringing in outside power leads to a prisoners dilemma

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So why do you think women can't be a class because they don't all support the same things?

I think my posts pretty much speak for themselves.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Class is essentially a human construct superimposed upon the physical world and nature.

Differentiation of terrestrial life forms into biological males and females predated humanity's development of social constructs.

I therefore consider regarding women (or men for that matter) as forming a class akin to other such social construct classes as absurd.

 

[Senethro]

Class is essentially a human construct superimposed upon the physical world and nature.

Differentiation of terrestrial life forms into biological males and females predated humanity's development of social constructs.

I therefore consider regarding women (or men for that matter) as forming a class akin to other such social construct classes as absurd.

Sure, but I somehow doubt that you think everyones social constructs are equally absurd. Mysteriously, you think some are more valid than others, perhaps due to some kind of correspondence with ~Nature~ despite how birds have WW/WZ chromosome system, and there are eusocial mammals with queens (among a very long list of others).

 

[EnglishEdward]

Sure, but I somehow doubt that you think everyones social constructs are equally absurd.

I don't think social constructs are equally absurd.

I simply don't regard male v female as a social construct.

There are some odd contradictions. For instance some scientists say that there are no such thing as races.
In which case on the face of it racial discrimination can not exist. This results in adopting a metaphysical concept
that while races don't exist, people falsely believe they do exist; so they do exist if only as a social construct
and people discriminate on the basis of a mistaken understanding of racial categorisation that does not exist.

And then there is the question of beauty that someone here has already alluded to.

 

[sophie]

“If money is a social construct, then that means poverty cannot exist.” <————this is you

 

[Senethro]

I don't think social constructs are equally absurd.

I simply don't regard male v female as a social construct.

There are some odd contradictions. For instance some scientists say that there are no such thing as races.
In which case on the face of it racial discrimination can not exist. This results in adopting a metaphysical concept
that while races don't exist, people falsely believe they do exist; so they do exist if only as a social construct
and people discriminate on the basis of a mistaken understanding of racial categorisation that does not exist.

And then there is the question of beauty that someone here has already alluded to.

Yeah, and if you were a sentient salamander you might have a different opinion that you're similarly sure of. Which is in some senses not relevant as we are all of the same species, and work within the concepts easily available to that species, and yet you're still confusing (a poorly defined) Male/Female with the social role of Man/Woman.

Additionally, I'm suspicious that implying "some scientists" DO say there are such things as races is a deliberate distraction. Let me just say emphatically No, and invite you to start a thread about it if you care.

 

[El_Machinae]

Male/female will exist as a social construct, because we use words around such things. There can both be a real difference and a social construct at the same time. "Height" exists as a real difference, for example, but thinking of people as 'short' or 'tall' will be a heuristic that we then form social norms around. Examples are harder to give when they're not bimodal, I'll grant. "Circle" is also a impossible-to-attain definition that tracks onto some actual real-world functional implications. If we don't sort into categories, things are sloppier than we prefer, so we don't. Fruits and vegetables exist as 'hard' definitions, but also exist as social constructs. You're more likely to find cucumbers close to broccoli in the grocery store than next to apples. The definitions we create aren't always going to be track perfectly with the roles things play.

"Race" has become interesting, because I find that I can predict who will tell me what race I am. Their confidence in slotting me into a category will track with other politics. It's an interally defined condition and an externally imposed one.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Well first tell me what your opinion would be if you were an sentient salamander?

And let me see:

Circle = Wheel = Orbit

Circle (mathematical concept) = Inner Circle (social construct), Outer Circle (social construct)

 

[Senethro]

If I were a sentient salamander, I might recognise genders/social categories based upon an individuals phase of metamorphosis, their current breeding potential, and perhaps if they have changed sex in the past.

Our hypothetical salamanders might undergo a life history where they are female transient when young and switch to male territory holder when old. This species when encountering us might insist upon gendering everyone as male after age 30 or when they buy a house.

The salamanders are extremely incorrect to try to map these concepts of what they know to us. But you are somewhat incorrect to imagine there exists in nature a platonic concept of Male and Female that map very very well to Man/Woman.

 

[Farm Boy]

Certainly interesting!