“[Roe v Wade] halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue."
—Ruth Badger Ginsburg, New York University Law Review, 1992
Look at the date on that quote. Do the math—are you mathing?? Flash quiz—how many years between 1992 and 2022! Quick! Don’t use your phone, use your brain, it needs the exercise anyhow.
Hint: Ginsburg wrote that THIRTY YEARS AGO, mate!
Were you listening? Did you hear the words she spoke? Did you read the words she wrote? Did you compute what she tried to tell you? You there, with pronouns in your Twitter bio and email signature, you who have proudly joined the woke witchfinder generals on their witch hunt against JK Rowling, Maya Forstater, Amy Hamm and any other women who dared to disobey your woke edicts, you who have decided to cheer young women amputating their healthy breasts, you who join in the shaming, threatening and abuse of lesbians and you who call female people nazis for setting boundaries that exclude males—did you hear RBG speak very specifically and pointedly about your divisive complacency?
Men shouldn’t be deciding what women can and cannot do with their bodies, say those who are outraged at the possibility of a SCOTUS with female representation (3/7) overturning the weak judicial activist ruling we refer to in the vernacular as Roe v Wade, a ruling made by seven (7) men.
Wait—did the gender extremism d1ck-sucking pronoun cult just lecture us all about how men shouldn’t be making decisions regarding female bodies? Seriously? And they weren’t taking the piss either, were they? Like, we just watched them all cheering Lia Thomas at the NCAA Division Championship and Laurel Hubbard at the Olympics and these same people have the narcissistic audacity to scream at anyone who will listen about men taking away women’s rights via overturning Roe v Wade? Is this real? Like, I didn’t just have dental surgery and now I’m strapped into my booster seat in my dad’s car, high AF asking if reality is real because my brain has been beset by a temporary opioid soup fog? OMG no, I am adulting and this is very real—people who made feminism all about penises now have an angry about men deciding women’s rights?! Hahahaha.
The Orobouros Effect—can we call it that?
AHAHAHA. Only it’s not funny though, is it? Because here’s the thing.
That’s weird, y’all sayin ‘men should not have any say in women’s reproductive rights’ since woke men have decided that: 1. they can be women simply through some magical unicorn gender emotive process no scientist has yet verified or even documented in a valid and reliable peer reviewed manner, 2. women can’t experience incarceration without men making it about them, 3. women can’t experience a pap smear or pregnancy/childbirth without men making it about them, 4. women cannot use the public toilet without men making it about them, 5. women can’t talk about our reproductive health, ie the menstrual cycle, without men making it about them, 6. women can’t have motherhood because it excludes men, and, 7. women can’t even heal from rape without men making it about them.
Yes, I definitely mean men—this is always and only about sex not gender, gender is woke-colonial horsesh1t, gender is for linguistics not human rights or health care delivery or legal human safeguarding. Humans are not sequential hermaphrodites and no amount of synthetic/exogenous hormone and cosmetic surgery will change any human’s reproductive class or give them a feeling of safeness inside their body. Definitely lobotomising the endocrine system and severing neural circuitry DOES NOT assist humans to feel safe inside their physical organism—this is a most egregious lie easily disproved by existing science.
Look—more people truly believe (and it’s more plausible from a material reality perspective btw) that an angel actually did come down from heaven to reveal the Quran to an unlettered man over a period of many years than believe than any male becomes a woman simply by declaring a (non-existent) “gender shahada” including announcing feminine pronouns, mmmkay? Facts. No one actually believes men are women, they go along with that lie because they think it is being asked of them when they are told to be polite and nice. None of these blokes who call JK Rowling a bigot and who are trying to destroy Amy Hamm’s career think any male who identifies as a woman can give him a baby. And none of the heterosexual blokes who insist up and down and sideways that males who identify as women are women would bed one of these males they vehemently insist are women. No one thinks this nonsense the elite media tried to ram down our gizzards, it’s the stuff of delusions.
Everyone knows how babies are made, mate. This is why we still have surrogacy and it is why we still have prostitution—sex is real huny. Sex, ie reproductive class, is immutable. Sexual attraction is about physiology, the literal roots of the body, not about “feeling like you have a body you do not”. Bodies experience sexual sensations and feelings and bodies have sexual intercourse—bodies, not projected identities and not pronouns. Sex is a physicality that does not wish to conform to your narcissistic Queer Theory constructs. Existence is a bottom up process.
Destroying neural networks and violating bodily integrity through chemotherapeutic and surgical means for no scientifically sound medical indication will not help anyone except shareholders in those corporations who created these technologies and the cultists who have infiltrated medicine and health care delivery to gain fame and accumulate wealth and push the limits of science in an ego-driven Victor Frankenstein glory quest. This seems like very basic common sense when you present it in this factual manner. Physiology DGAF about pronouns or identity. Corporations and the rich who have never before cared a fig about humanity now suddenly are pushing this gender horsesh1t and you all just lap it up like desperate hungry animals instead of question why? AYFKM? Please. Stop it.
There is no way anyone who isn’t a female human can have any knowledge of the felt sense of being a female, just like one who isn’t a male cannot have a felt sense of being a male. A human does not have a felt sense of being a cat or dog or any other orgasm that it is not. Conscious existence happens at the convergence of biological systems, it happens because the senses and soma communicate with the nervous system (afferent), which transmits this information to the brain and our cortical processes execute a behavioural response (efferent)—this is existence, it is connective and integrative and dynamic because human systems are all a part of one nature that seeks balance.
The crude dichotomous view of humanity which we inherited from Descartes has lead us to such a disembodied conception of humanity and humanness—it dehumanizes. In the movie Possible Worlds, we follow the struggle of a man to discover himself: he experiences several alternative realities as a dream state and tries to tease out which thread is “real”. Eventually, we discover that this consciousness experience of story arc we have ridden throughout the film actually belongs to a living brain inside a glass container—ie without its body. So all of these possible worlds is “real” for a disembodied brain, without a body to verify material reality.
The soma, the physical body, the flesh is not weak, not corrupt, not evil, or any of those ridiculous constructed projections Catholic thinkers decided hundreds of years ago. The body is physical. The body is sacred, a temple to be nourished with light and goodness and truth and compassion. Sex is not evil, it is neither a hedonistic pleasure pastime, it is who we are, how we got here, how we reproduce, and on the most intimate level, it is how we connect with one we wish to know.
I recently came across a shocking photo of a surgeon with her young female patient and the parents. The young patient, posed with an open shirt, had visible recent breast amputation scars, and also a visible web of old self harm scars on the abdomen. The adults looked so pleased with themselves—the parents had a tee shirt with that awful slogan the surgeon created herself to promote this endeavour of amputating healthy breasts of very young female people clearly struggling with emotional regulation and somatic safety regulation. A sad sick feeling rises in me when I see such images.
How have we got to this point where we have essentially disembodied ourselves and now see cutting away body parts as liberating and even life saving? Having nursed women who suffered through double mastectomy as part of a cancer journey, and having seen first hand the profound grief that humans experience when they lose body parts, I simply cannot grasp how this mass amputation of young female breasts is doing no harm.
So, the progressive left has lied and emotionally blackmailed and else-wise manipulated its way to disembodying young female people and gaslighting them into thinking this is empowering and liberating, they have built a false human rights movement around men’s rights activism that’s jeopardised female people and they have essentially stolen female sport. Young girls struggling with puberty now face the real prospect of state-forced sterilisation when they seek help from child education or medical experts thanks to new “conversion therapy” laws recently passed in Canada and other countries around the west. And the progressive left has sucked all the oxygen from the room in America, anyway, so that none is left for the essential battle—the one to guarantee access to safe abortion.
So, let’s return to Roe v Wade for a moment. It’s a terrible ruling that set back abortion rights through complacent stagnation. It does not centre women, it does not come from a place of belief that a woman has the right to choose pregnancy termination because forced pregnancy is enslavement. Roe v Wade removes the decision about a fundamental moral dilemma (yes abortion poses a moral dilemma because that is a life form, with its own distinct DNA, not just a clump of cells—FYI) from the people. Lawmaking belongs to elected representatives, not appointed judiciary who exist to interpret existing law and protect and uphold the constitution. Judges interpret laws, they strike down laws which violate the constitution, they don’t create new ones. Abortion decriminalisation can exist in the realm of the judiciary, abortion legislation always belongs to the people though. That’s what democracy is—and that’s what freedom for society requires.
Adventures with Bad Hijabi is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Be clear if you are in Canada that abortion isn’t our issue. Chantal Daigle made sure a woman alone would have the right to make a decision about pregnancy termination, and that no man could weaponise the law to try to force her to carry his child. Henry Morgentaler made sure that Canadian women would have access to safe abortion, I personally lived through these times as a young woman and they left a profound mark on me, as they did on anyone my age, no doubt. So we don’t want or need to have that discussion in Canada, we decided long ago to leave that one alone. Let’s honour that agreement we made and focus on actual problems we need to address when it comes to the rights of girls and women, such as the right to experience puberty and make it to adulthood (ie when the brain is fully developed) without chemical castration, sterilisation, cessation of sexual functioning, and amputation of reproductive organs.
Monkey likes shiny thing. Rational human have the capacity for critical independent thought and can make connections and can focus on what’s important in the now. Which one are you? Decide carefully.
Image Source: This is a PNG extraction from a drawing by Theodoros Pelecanos, in an alchemical tract attributed to Synesius (1478).