People With the Capacity For Pregnancy

@Chellezhere (10790)
United States
July 13, 2022 2:39pm CST
For many years, women fought for the right to do many things. And the democratic party was behind them all the way. But now, it seems the democratic party wants to disregard all that and ignore women altogether. Yes, we fought for the right to work in male-dominant fields - some of which even I don't think we belong in (firefighting and military combat). But I don't think our presence damaged male accomplishments as much as allowing transgender women to participate in girls' and women's sports has affected biological females. My mother was a gay woman who majored in health and physical education. She once told me she understood LGB but not the TQRSUVWXYZ part. Mom was against transgender women participating in girls' and women's sports. Mom was proud when tennis legend Martina Navratilova spoke against letting trans women compete in girls' and women's sports. And Mom died a couple of months before U. S. Congresswoman Cori Bush referred to pregnant women as "birthing people." But I know she would have been appalled by "birthing person" and "people with the capacity for pregnancy" instead of mom or mother. Where are the progressives and leftists going next with their identity politics? And, when are true democrats going to realize that these terms are disrespectful to biological women who identify as women? When will they stop allowing the minority progressives and leftists in the party to control their party's narrative? Are you comfortable with these terms and the disregard shown toward biological women (who are the majority of people capable of giving birth)? I ask because today's democratic party is not the same democratic party that left me during Bill Clinton's first term in office. And that democratic party is not the same as the one that existed when my parents registered to vote back in 1967. And, my great-great-grandfather would recognize the democratic parties of the 1960s and 1980s long before he'd see anything democratic in today's democratic party.
6 people like this
7 responses
@Deepizzaguy (71542)
• Lake Charles, Louisiana
13 Jul
I remember many politicians who are no longer with us saying the Democratic party of today is not the party of our grandparents generation.
2 people like this
@Deepizzaguy (71542)
• Lake Charles, Louisiana
14 Jul
@Chellezhere My late dad admired Franklin Roosevelt since he did find work during the Great Depression when he was a teenager. The Democratic Party is leaning toward socialism.
2 people like this
@Chellezhere (10790)
• United States
14 Jul
@Deepizzaguy And they have been doing so since FDR's New Deal became law because that is what that piece of legislation is - Socialism.
1 person likes this
@Chellezhere (10790)
• United States
13 Jul
Yes, they have been saying that for a long time now. My great-great-grandfather lived from 1856 - 1839. He told all ten of his children and their children that the democratic party was the party to belong to, and the grandchildren told their children. They all blindly toed the line, but my generation and the next have not.
2 people like this
@WorDazza (15798)
• Manchester, England
13 Jul
I'm always very wary of any organisation or country with the word 'democratic' in the name. They often tend to be nothing of the sort. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Democratic Republic of the Congo Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria to name a few. All countries presided over by authoritarian regimes. Clearly a case of 'Methinks the lady doth protest too much' where these are concerned.
2 people like this
@Fleura (21629)
• United Kingdom
14 Jul
Don't forget the former German Democratic Republic!
1 person likes this
@WorDazza (15798)
• Manchester, England
14 Jul
@Fleura Oh yeah. Rather ironic that the totally undemocratic part of Germany was the one claiming to be democratic. You must remember though, the Berlin wall was to keep West Berliners out of the German Democratic Republic.
2 people like this
@Chellezhere (10790)
• United States
13 Jul
I know. I have noticed that too. And the fact is, the United States of America is and is not a democracy, but it is a republic - a constitutional republic.
2 people like this
@Fleura (21629)
• United Kingdom
13 Jul
We are going through the same thing here, but at last there seems to be some common sense being brought to the table. For a few years people have been afraid to speak up, but now one after another brave people, mostly women but not all, are speaking out, stating the truth, and even going to court to fight for their rights. Some sports associations have banned trans women from women's sports, people are standing up against schools and even the Scouts 'pushing' trans ideas.
2 people like this
@LindaOHio (103696)
• United States
14 Jul
The party definitely has changed.
1 person likes this
@Chellezhere (10790)
• United States
14 Jul
During Clinton's first term, when I could see that the party was not the same as the party my parents and grandparents had been talking about since 1968 and that it was changing still, I got out because the party had and was continuing to leave me. I don't understand why more people, especially of your generation, haven't put their feet down to stop the progressive leftist takeover or switched parties. It makes no sense to let the minority progressive lefts in the party run the show. But that is what has been happening.
1 person likes this
• Defuniak Springs, Florida
13 Jul
How can you sit there and support women rights and then in the same breath say they shouldn't be in all fields of work.
1 person likes this
@Fleura (21629)
• United Kingdom
13 Jul
You can support a person's right to be there even if you don't really consider it suitable.
2 people like this
• Defuniak Springs, Florida
13 Jul
@Fleura You can, but you aren't really supporting something, if you yourself don't believe its right. Are you?
1 person likes this
@Chellezhere (10790)
• United States
13 Jul
@Fleura Correct. I am all for women in other roles in the military and women in emergency medical services. But I do not think being a firefighter or combat soldier is suitable for a woman. My reasoning has to do with body structure.
2 people like this
@Fa_Maverick (8933)
• Australia
27 Aug
Its only disrespectful if they refer to everyone this way instead of doing what they keep peddling and asking how someone be adressed. I myself am biologically capable of giving birth but I do not identify as a woman. Would I be icked by being called a pregnant woman yes pregnant enby or nonbinary good. Danny the trans dad gave birth to his child Wilder. While being completely biologically capable of giving birth he is not a woman he is a man and it would be disrespectful to call him a woman. He is a birth person and a father. Here is a ground shattering suggestion for everyone involved show some respect and ask people what they'd like to be adressed as. It isnt hard...
1 person likes this
@Chellezhere (10790)
• United States
28 Aug
It is not my job to ask anyone how they would prefer to be addressed. My mother was a lesbian feminist during the second wave women’s movement, and she taught me to be open-minded, respectful toward others, and to pick my battles. This is a touchy topic for many people, but it is a fact. Sometimes we all feel more masculine than feminine and more feminine than masculine, but none of us was born wrong. We were all born the genders we were supposed to be. No amount of insistence, identity politics, virtue signaling, surgeries, hormone replacements, etc. can change that. Everyone knows a man who gets pregnant is not a biological male, and my cat is not my pet. He is my son. The only difference is I don't get offended when someone who doesn't know this insists he is "just a cat."
1 person likes this
• United States
21 Aug
I agree with most of what you said here. I would have to, honestly, say that my main beef with the Transgender movement is that their motto seems to be "be your authentic self". And that is fine with the movement UNLESS someone wants to detransition. Then they are ostracized and left out in the cold. To be one's "authentic self" should be supported no matter what they finally conclude about themselves, shouldn't it? Otherwise it isn't a free movement but a movement that wants to dictate what others should and shouldn't be. That's so confusing and unreasonable to me. I have a friend whose daughter is struggling. Changed her pronouns and her name. Now she feels like it wasn't her authentic self and is moving towards her birth gender once again. So? Let her be and support her. She's now closer to adulthood and shouldn't she be allowed to be her authentic self without the judgement from a movement that claims they are judged for everything???? Will they only support her if she decides against her birth gender?? That means they are just lying and posturing and as long as you agree with them you are accepted. That's not the definition of tolerance but then maybe THAT has changed as well.
1 person likes this