#Abort male fetuses

[coochiequeens]

The Femicide Census, co-founded by Clarrie O’Callaghan and Karen Ingala Smith, records the death of every woman killed by a man in England and Wales. The number of women killed by sons has shown a steady and alarming rise since 2016, after decades of remaining stable. The number of grandmothers killed by grandsons has also risen. While younger women are more at risk of being killed by a partner or ex-partner, it is women in their 60s and older who are risk from their older sons and grandsons.

In the census’s 10-year report (2009-2018) 109 (8%) of the total of 1,435 women killed by men were mothers killed by sons while 11 grandmothers were killed by grandsons over the decade. In the latest Femicide Census statistics shared exclusively with the Observer, which is campaigning to end femicide, in 2020, the figure for matricide is 15% – 14 killings of mothers and five of grandmothers in a single year with 28 cases in which the relationship is not yet known.

I genuinely think if Women stopped birthing boys and chose to not to have them all together. The world could truly start healing. I don’t care if people think I’m extreme

[swagging-back-to]

theory: humans were a sex segregated species and that's why we have so many behavioral issues with males. they wouldn't be around women this often or this long naturally

[qilin27]

I've figured out the perfect compromise for the abortion debate:

Women are allowed to get abortions for any reason, but only if the fetus is female

[ineedtokam]

Wonderful news!

Here's the link:

[genderkoolaid]

Hi. You always post a lot of info so I'm wondering if you might be able to help me. Is there a difference between radfems and TERFs? Are they both bad? If so, why are they bad? Are there any dog whistles to look out for when it comes to these groups? Please ignore this if it makes you uncomfortable. I've seen a lot of people pointing out that they're bad, but never really saying why. I want to make sure I follow intersectional feminism and not those groups.

Radical feminism is the name of a branch of feminism. It originally got its name because it advocated for extreme changes to society to address female oppression, but developed into a specific worldview which I (off the top of my head) would define by certain traits:

Oppositional sexism. Men and women (or "males" and "females") are fundamentally opposed. Oftentimes this is bioessentialist, arguing that this opposite comes from biology, but it may also be framed as a political necessity; a radfem might argue that gender and sex are fake BUT we need male vs female as political identities in order to identify our "allies" and "enemies". Regardless, males and females are physically distinct and political enemies. You can tell a man from a woman, either from their body or their behavior, the two categories cannot overlap, and no other gender/sex-labels are relevant.

Fatalistic perspectives on patriarchy. Not only are males and females opposed, but this cannot be changed. This may be bioessentialist (the opposition comes from something in our nature, which cannot change) or gender-essentialist (the opposition comes from socialization which occurs as a child due to outside pressure and/or internal gender identity, and cannot change.) Focus is not placed on an ideal future where men and women are equals and social partners. Instead, there is a sense that there is no way to truly have a society with men and women where males do not oppress females, or try to. Sometimes this is more implicit and other times you have people who explicitly believe in creating & enforcing female-only societies.

Misogyny as the source of all oppression, or at least the most important & the one people should identity themselves as before anything else. Those who call themselves intersectional generally only really care about other issues to the extent that they affect women in some way. Part of the downfall of the original radical feminists was the fact that the dominant groups were upper-class white women, who ignored racism and classism and silenced poor women & women of color, insisting that anti-racist and anti-classist action distracted from The Movement & that calling out other women's bigotry was anti-feminist.

A general suspicion of sexual desire and sex, often expressing itself as whorephobia (anti-sex work) and anti-kink attitudes, specifically under the argument that they are inherently misogynistic and abusive. Sex is associated with men and maleness, which again, are inherently the enemy. Sex WITH men, or with a person or object that could be construed as male, is especially bad.

The impetus to make your personal life As Feminist As Possible– "The personal is political." That isn't a bad slogan on its own (it's true), but with radical feminists it expresses itself as a high standard of Radfemmaxing. You should be celibate if you are attracted to men, or become a political lesbian, you shouldn't be masculine OR feminine (anti-butch & femme sentiment), you should reject makeup and shaving, you should cut off male relatives and even abort male fetuses– and you must identify with womanhood and femaleness, while rejecting any identity related to manhood and maleness. It's not just that you should examine your desires and choices and question why you feel the way you feel (again, this is a good thing). Radfems have the belief that they already know the correct answer to that Introspection, and if you come to any other conclusion than theirs (I like wearing makeup because it's fun, I want to be a man because it fits me), then it's taken as proof you are still brainwashed.

TERFS are trans-exclusive radfems. They believe that being trans is not real, or at least not healthy or an acceptable feminist stance. TERFs tend to use the language of "sex" and "males vs females." Many use the term "gender critical," meaning they see gender as fake and damaging, while sex is real and the proper platform for feminist analysis. I once saw a TERF define her stance as "it's not degrading because its feminine, its feminine because its degrading." They believe in things like autogynophilia and rapid onset gender dysphoria, and attribute transgender identity with sexual trauma, internalized homophobia and internalized misogyny.

TIRFs are trans inclusive. They believe that transgender feelings are natural and should be listened to and followed, and that feminism should take gender identity into account. However, they still have a "male vs female" worldview. They may argue that transgender men's internal gender feelings led them to internalize male socialization, while trans women internalized female socialization, meaning that all trans people's experiences with gender and misogyny align most with cis people who share their gender identity.

In both cases, anti-nonbinary exorsexism and intersexism are unavoidable. TERFs will label intersex people as "males/females with a disorder" and attribute nonbinary identity either to internalized misogyny (FTX) or to avoid being held accountable for male privilege (MTX). TIRFs similarly fail to acknowledge how someone's socialization can be affected by intersexism. MTX people are either trans women in denial or flamboyant cis men; FTX people are either trans men avoiding their privilege, or cis women avoiding their privilege*.

Not everyone who uses radical feminist arguments or shares the general perspective openly identified as radfem. There are many "cryptos" who purposefully obscure their political identity to spread radfem ideas in queer & feminist spaces. Other people adopt the general ideas of radical feminism without consciously identifying as one, because of cryptos and how pop feminism often adopts their flashier ideas. So it's important to understand these qualities as on a scale, with some versions being more subtle while others are explicit.

Radical feminism always reduces trans experiences (& experiences in general) to a simple, uncrossable binary, based either in gender or sex. Nuance and cros- or non-binary gender experiences are seen as anti-feminist and aligned with the patriarchy, if not part of a targeted plan to hurt feminist movements.

*the idea of "AFAB privilege" is. a thing in some people's analysis of transmisogyny.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/768686563949428736/honestly-i-do-kinda-think-the-discussion-around?source=share

idk, I think the "what's the alternative" argument still misses the point somewhat though.

for me, the point of "my body my choice" is literally just that - forcing a pregnancy on someone that they don't want (or forcing them to abort one they do want, for that matter) is SUCH a massive violation of bodily autonomy that the "reasons" for doing that don't matter. pregnancy fundamentally changes your body and affects everything about your health for 9 months. pregnancies that go wrong can threaten the life of the pregnant person AND their baby. that shouldn't be something people have to go through if they on board with it, period. for the same reasons you can't be forced to donate any part of your body if you aren't okay with doing that, even if you could do fine without it and the other person would die.

that's why as a disabled person myself i have no patience for the people who cry about "disability abortions" or compare it to eugenics. because sorry but people with ableist beliefs still deserve bodily autonomy, and it's just as much of a violation of their autonomy - and therefore their most basic human rights - to force them to go through with a pregnancy because their reasons make YOU, a person who is not going through that pregnancy, feel troubled. as i've seen posts on here say, you can't "perform eugenics on your own uterus." you are not obligated to give birth to any person you don't want to, and that is fundamentally different than a government or society killing people for who they are. same with people who want to abort because of the baby's sex. same with people who want to abort because, idk, they were given an expected date in the first week of january and they don't want their baby to be a capricorn. (i know this sounds like a joke but i have friends who are a hippie lesbian couple who announced the birth of their son with "it's a [his expected astrological sign]!" which was really funny because he was born a couple weeks early and then turned out to be the previous sign. so, people who take astrology way too seriously DO have babies)

i think that unfortunately and especially for a lot of people with conservative upbringings, a lot of people tend to see a hypothetical fetus with some identity in common with them and project themselves into that situation. the "what if i had been aborted?" thing but somewhat less self-aware about it. some feminist writing in the 80s talked about men doing this with aborted fetuses, seeing themselves as a male fetus being "killed" by a woman, but i think it's clear some women do it too when they share a (potential) identity category with a fetus. and i think the bigger issue here is that it erases the pregnant person. even the argument anon is making here, which again they're right about, still focuses on the outcomes for the baby rather than the person carrying them. and i think you "get" pro-choice politics better when you make a point of centering the person who is pregnant, and resisting any framing that (consciously or not) frames them as just a place where the baby grows. for instance, as a disabled person, my disability comes with a low pain tolerance that is a big part of why i never want to be pregnant. there are a lot of disabled people where that disability interacts negatively with their pregnancy in some way, and disabled pregnant people are usually among the first whose rights anti-choice people try to take away, whether it's their right to choose an abortion, or right to procreate in the first place, or right to raise the child they give birth to. i just really cannot take your disability rights advocacy very seriously when "disability + abortion" for you is only ever about the fetus and never about the pregnant person! (or also, when people fearmonger about autism screening for abortion. both because a lot of those people seem to think that's currently happening when it's not, but also everything we know about autism so far suggests it's extremely unlikely to be something we can ever detect with precision in utero. starting with that it's probably not caused by purely by genetic factors in the first place, and also that it's likely not just one specific thing caused by one gene. they're able to screen for down syndrome because it involves an extra chromosome, which is extremely easy to detect. also, sidenote, before people go into shaming people who abort fetuses with trisomy 21, keep in mind that there's a lot more to down syndrome than intellectual disability, including most people who have it having life-threatening heart problems that tend to keep them in the hospital for the first several months or even years of life. there are a lot of reasons people don't want their children to go through that, especially people without consistent access to health care, that is not just "ableism" toward the intellectually disabled.) geezus, this got long. sorry about that. i guess i just had a lot of thoughts about it, hope they were enlightening enough to anyone reading along to be worth the verbosity! but they were a lot of what convinced me when i used to be one of those people who was uncomfortable with "disability abortions"

--

Well said.

I think it's important that we let ourselves have our emotions about other people's choices without thinking they're a basis for policy. What if my child needs my kidney? Should I be legally obligated to donate? People will think I'm an asshole if I don't, but should I be obligated to?

[feminist-furby-freak]

I’m not an antinatalist feminist.

I think pregnancy, birth, and motherhood are beautiful.

I just think women shouldn’t partner with men and should abort all male fetuses.

[alexanderwales]

I think the worst part of my experience with the internet is when people make bold claims and I say to myself "is that actually true though?" and then, rather than continuing on with my life and letting it lie, I take it upon myself to answer the question to my own satisfaction.

And this is often very difficult and time-consuming, because the thing that's boldly being claimed is complex and nuanced, and there's possibly a grain of truth somewhere that I really would need to go looking for.

I used to have a very Catholic coworker who I'd get in fights with all the time, and he was terrible about providing sources for the things he said, because obviously it was based on an article that had landed in his inbox and it was hard for him to remember all the details, except that he had definitely read it somewhere. So I would take it upon myself to say "okay, what the fuck is this guy talking about" and then eventually I would find the kernel of truth that had led to whatever was in his head. Sometimes this was interesting and worthwhile, but often it was not. On a few occasions, it was just funny/frustrating, because he'd been shared something from the Onion.

(As one example, he had said that Pepsi products contained pieces of aborted fetuses, which was clearly stupid on the face of it. But when I went to go figure out where he'd gotten that from, I learned some stuff about cell lines, and in particular, HEK-293. That cell line comes from the kidney of an aborted (or possibly miscarried) fetus from 1973, and through the magic of biology, became an immortal cell line. This cell line was then used by a company called Senomyx, which had developed a way to test sweetness using them, though so far as I know no one had any proof that they did anything with that particular cell line in association with their partnership with PepsiCo. They certainly weren't putting HEK-293 cells in their drinks. An anti-abortion group then began attempting a boycott of PepsiCo around 2010 on the basis of this partnership, which is how my coworker had wound up repeating to me the claim that Pepsi had aborted fetuses in it. I found this to be a Fun Fact.)

Anyway, tumblr is a particularly bad place for misinformation and bold claims, but today was the first time I failed to stop myself from trying to get some actual sources when someone tossed of a little treat of a fact which did not actually sound true to me. And I didn't even get the answer I was looking for!

It's tangential to this post, but the claim was that sometimes sports were segregated because women were outcompeting men, rather than the reverse. So far as I can find, the answer is "probably false if taken to be anything on the level of a trend", but gymnastics apparently has men and women doing totally different events, and without grabbing a book on the development of gymnastics as a sport, it would be difficult to determine whether the segregation was specifically because men could not compete, rather than some other motive.

The other, more clear-cut example, was mixed skeet shooting, where a woman won a gold medal in the event, then women were barred from competing the next Olympics and a separate women's skeet shooting event was made. Barring other details, this is some sexist bullshit on the part of the International Shooting Union. So I did find evidence of it happening at least once, in a single sport, which was already a sport where women are roughly at parity with men. And if I've found evidence of it happening once, there's a good chance that it's happened more than that. Seems very rare though, and more of a "because sexism" thing rather than "because biological differences". But if I didn't know about that, what else might I not know? Think about what a fool I'd look like if I displayed ignorance of Shan Zhang's 1992 Olympic skeet shooting performance and the subsequent rule change.

The other claim I was trying to track down was "what's the difference in funding for male and female sports, and can we predict how much of an impact that has on performance", which is obviously a fucking huge research question, so I was hoping that someone had done some kind of study that I could read. I don't think there's a bunch of data on how much money is spent on facilities or coaches or whatever, but I was thinking that maybe you could try to find comparable budgets. That would still leave you with some of the social/access/selection problems, but it would at least be something. If the hypothesis was that socialization and funding are the primary reason for the performance gap, we could eliminate at least one of them, and I think there are statistical methods to account for different sample sizes. I was hoping that someone would have done it, or something better than that took an actual knowledge of statistics and sports into account, but apparently not.

FWIW the sports where men and women are at something like parity appear to be those that require endurance, flexibility, or where we wouldn't think there's that much reason your specific body would matter: ultramarathons, equestrian, shooting sports, some archery, and some climbing. It would be weird to me if a difference in funding and engagement and sexism was making a difference in other sports, but not these ones, but I guess I could float some theories if I had to.

I actually do not care that much about these questions, and it gets into a lot of feminist and trans waters that people have strong feelings about, where to me it's just a research issue, trying to find some empirical data. I am including this stuff here mostly for the sake of completeness and because I dislike vagueblogging.

[empress-hancock]

Men are the ones that raise those boys to be cruel. Whether it’s their dads or male classmates or men in movies or online. Sure women birth children but I think many of us recognize that men raise boys, boys who may not even be their own, to be the way they are. If it was only women raising them we wouldn’t have this issue.

people who have sons and unleash them upon the world are committing war crimes imo

[old-school-butch]

The shrinking global population

This is something that is getting lots of media attention, especially in anything focused on economics and global growth.

The narrative goes like this: as a country’s wealth grows and living gets more expensive, women get more educated and push back the age of marriage and opt to have fewer kids.

There is an incoming deluge of think pieces and policies too to ‘encourage larger families’ that will range from abortion bans to baby subsidies.

As feminists, we must insist that these discussions focus on the reality of women’s labor as the unpaid resource that is being exploited in our society.

Some key points:

1. Even women working full-time jobs do more housework and childcare than their male partners. This is called the ‘double-shift’ and it’s been observed since the 60s.

2, Women in advanced economies that have more supportive programs for mothers, (where having a child doesn’t mean abandoning your career) have more kids that women in advanced economies that offer no support. In nations where those measures - like parental leave - extend to fathers, dads take on more of the work of raising kids and ultimately... this also leads to more kids. So the patriarchal argument that women’s rights need to end so women will return to being barefoot and pregnant can be rebutted with the simple notion of ‘maybe try making motherhood less shitty for women?’

3. Even without government subsidies, women around the world who have male partners who take on more of the house work and childcare have more children. A specific complaint of South Korean feminists, for example, is that men have not changed their attitudes about the role of wives as domestic servants. Why marry a man and have your workload triple - caring for yourself, him and a baby too? Women are making rational choices.

4. Limiting those choices will be attempted. Bans on birth control, abortion rights will be a theme for the next decade.

5. Appealing to racism and/or weird guilt trips will be attempted. Resist all messaging to ‘save’ whatever ethnic, religious, racial or cultural group you are in by having more children than you want.

6. We must resist another rational choice that will be available for some women - to offload the work of child-raising onto an underclass of women. From using surrogates, maids, or low-paid childcare workers - the ‘solutions’ available to upper/middle-class women will continue to exploit economically vulnerable women as a group. Men already exploit these women as mail-order brides, and this practice will increase since so many countries have aborted so many girl fetuses that there’s an excess population of males. Instead, we need to examine how to make childcare more efficient and extend health care for all families to protect women and children’s health.

7. A shrinking population is always framed as a disaster in the making, but surely some economists can come up with ways to manage this process in a way that makes a bit more room on this planet for plants and animals. Growing populations have driven famines and wars for millennia, surely it’s time for humans to learn to how to create a slower, more stable impact on the earth.

[queen-esther]

Your most recent post about pro-choice women reminded me of seeing a (male) pro-choicer boasting about his infallible argument for abortion - if you had to choose between saving one born baby and a thousand fetuses, you'd obviously choose the baby because we all intuitively know that babies are human and fetuses aren't.

The thing is, "intuition" is a lousy guide to reality; for example, one of the reasons geocentrism held on for as long as it did is that geocentrism is very intuitive (the earth feels stationary, the sun looks mobile) while heliocentrism is very unintuitive. Which is quite funny seeing as pro-choicers will boast about having science on their side.

Sorry, I just wanted to talk to someone about this and you seemed like a good person for this.

Not only that, but that guy failed to explain what he means by “fetus,” because I guarantee even most pro-choicers would look at a nine-month-old fetus and a newborn baby and have a very hard time telling the difference. People like that guy love to pretend all babies look like sea monkeys until the very moment of birth, so it should be “soooooo obvious” which choice you would make in his hypothetical scenario.

[redditreceipts]

friendly reminder to abort your male fetuses

stay safe besties 💕

[lesb0]

i dreamed that all men killed each other and left us in a utopian paradise during "generation sperm bank" and in the news there were headlines like, should we really stop aborting male fetuses, do we really wanna go back to having wars and rapes and abusers and the women who said yes they need a 2nd chance were all treated like morons LOL

[lorynna]

Seperate post because I am unable to reblog yesterday's debate about sex-selective abortions:

Down below is the link to the full blog post if anyone is interested in reading the whole thing. I am just going to reply to a few of the absolute insane and brainrot takes by @aux-squiggle :

1) "I'm sure you'd (correctly) chastize me if I went on every post with someone having bleach & dyed hair crying about how hair bleach harms the hair and saying "yes I understand it's your body and I'm not against your autonomy but hair dye is so stupid" at some point one realizes that it's just my opinion on hair dye and I should shut up unless explicitly asked for my opinion, which at no point were you asked for your opinion on what I'll do or (what you think) makes sense to do with my body."

Starting right off, it's actually the first time I ever spoke about sex-selective abortion on here, so me "going on every post" is wrong and intentional inflammatory wording. The comparison between dyed/bleached hair and abortion lacks heavily - it's also ridiculously stupid. I'm sure what you do with your hair and the policies surrounding it is an equally political and complicated topic like abortion. Even if you should go around telling people "Sure, do your thing, dye your hair but it's unnecessary in my opinion to promote the beauty industry by partaking in it, because it makes money off of women's insecurities" you have the right to speak your opinion and reblogging another person who's stating their opinion, who's stopping you? Surprise, you can speak your opinion even without being asked for it! Some people will agree, some won't, that's the way it is! I'm sure you don't ask people you have differing opinions from each time if you please may reblog their post, or do you? This is the internet babe.

2) "Next thing idk where you've gotten this "trivilization of abortion thing" or making it seem like I have said abortion is a cutesy procedure with absolutely no harm but as poodle has said it's also very safe. Idk if you think every mention of abortion has to come with a full list of disclaimers but if you read me saying "I will get an abortion if it's a male" to mean "lol guys I get abortions every weekend let's go down to the spa for a pampering plus abortion trolololol" that's your own tbh. The issue is you view being pregnant with a male fetus (as opposed to a female one) as a trivial difference, when it's not trivial to me, many other radfems and indeed for many libfem women."

Surely not every mention of abortion needs to come with a huge list of disclaimers, after all you're not their doctor but idk about you, talking about "i will get pregnant and abort as many times as I have to, until I conceive a daughter" does sound very trivializing to me. Lastly, sure the future sex of anyone's baby means something different to anyone and a certain preference or even the so called "gender disappointment" is real and valid, but is it really the solution to spin the wheel on each pregnancy again and again until you get what you want?

3) "As for the race, sex, other attributes thing, as I've already established, since fetuses are not people and are not going to suffer if their mom gets rid of them, I don't care. I couldn't give a fuck if a white woman aborts a half POC baby tbh like that's her business. No POC suffers from her actions. I also refuse to have a half white baby.

Obviously that's easily addressed by me choosing a black African sire but if I were in a consensual relationship with a white male (would never happen because I don't date males but ygtp) I would abort because I don't want to birth a half Euro baby, as statically they pair up with Eurodescendants themselves. I already know you probably also think that's stupid but I have no wish to contribute to my oppressor's group in that regard either, even by a generational separation, as I know the most likely choice Afro/Euro biracial children make as opposed to monoracial black children.

To me, mixed (b&w) people are black, but ¾ white people are white. Having a monoracial black child means my grandchildren (if any) will also be black (mixed b& something else, or monoracial) meaning the family makeup is what I'm most happy with. Idc what my great-grandchildren (if any) are, I'm probably dead anyways.

So yes I would intentionally make choices, including that of abortion, that bring me the life I'm happiest with. Other women who do that are not my business, I don't care. They could abort because they don't like the star sign their kid is expected to have. A birth that brings the mother sadness, no matter how small or how frivolous the reason for sadness is, is not good and if she aborts to avoid that, all power to her."

That's....really interesting...to know. You have established you would not blink an eye for whatever reason people abort, be it their future baby's star sign, their sex or their ethnicity & race. Your reasoning for not wanting a non 100% black baby being that according to you they statistically are more likely to pair up with eurodescendants making you worry about your family tree becoming "less black"? Then you're going on about "who is black" and "who is white" according to you.

To clarify to anyone who does not know my stance on abortion: I am pro choice, I support every woman's right that does want to get an abortion, despite her reasoning. An abortion as the process itself is not tied to a moral aspect, as the fetus in these stages of development where an abortion is possible, is a non conscious clump of cells. However I do think that the reason for why a woman decides to abort can be criticised. For example: A woman wants to get pregnant and succeeds. She finds out the baby would be born in February, making it an Aquarius, so she aborts it. My stance on sex-selective is similar to how I view cheating on a spouse. I don't think cheating is right but I wouldn't want it to be illegal.

"Regarding pro-choicers saying "no one aborts for fun and silly reasons" and prolifers potentially using this as a clapback, what do you want me to do about that? There's far superior pro-choice arguments, and further to that, these are only fun and silly reasons to you. These are monumental to other people (including me), and since it's their womb they're the only one's who's feelings matter.

Again as I've told you, I will not censor myself for the sake of prolifers not getting offended, I genuinely could not give less of a fuck what they feel. They will always find a reason to hate on the pro-choice movement and since we understand prolifism is actually about tying women down to men and control of women, everything about both my and your lifestyles upset them. There's no placating their bs. If you are upset that I won't censor myself, keep it to yourself."

Making it seem like I gave a fuck about pro lifers and said "oh look at this poor pro lifer being so upset about your words!" instead of "you are actively harming the acceptance of the pro choice movement". You don't understand that the activism you are making is nothing the world is ready for yet. In most countries, abortion is completely banned and women who go through with it nonetheless are going to prison or are even paying with their lives. I am genuinly glad, that you are living in a progressive country where you can access abortion easily and safely and where healthcare even pays for it. Most people do not have that kind of privilege and pro choice activism firstly needs to focus on gaining acceptance by introducing people step by step to the movement, coming to them with facts and good arguments. You've got to understand your far rad stance is not realistically applicable as of right now.

"If in the 0.00001% chance the genetic test is wrong (which have functionality been at 100% accuracy for years, btw I've found several Irish based tests so I don't have to use an international product) at 8 weeks (and the tests after that) then I get several scans from 14 weeks on that also confirm the sex (and would be told if there is a discrepancy). If at those tests they find it's actually a male and the Y chromosome was somehow not picked up, I go to the UK and get an abortion then. If somehow it's not found out until 24 weeks+ (I'd have an easier time winning the lottery) I go to New Zealand for a 3rd trimester abortion. There's probably something wrong if it was missed that many times, at every single scan and test.

Have you prepared for nuclear war Lorynna? Have you decided what to do if a gamma ray burst sanitizes exactly half the planet (the side you're not on), and have you got a contingency plan on what to do if suddenly 4 billion people die? What if global supply chains collapse tomorrow (an actual likely thing tbh). Nuclear war and supply chain collapse at least are far more likely than a fetus being missed as male not only on the first genetic test, AND the tests after that, AND every single ultrasound after that. Idk about gamma ray burst though, probably the same likelihood.

If by some hellish demon reality I get stuck with a son then obviously I raise my son, as I've discussed previously in the linked essay."

Insanity. Proceeding to ask me about every possible catastrophic event that potentially happen and asking me if i prepared for it because yes, sure - it is exactly as unlikely as your baby to turn out being a boy despite all of your fancy tests. But glad to know that should the tests fail, you'll raise your son?

"" There's no reason to fight" "but I do have an opinion." As established, your opinion was unnecessary and uninvited, so it's very likely people will get mad at you if you call major life choices "stupid" without providing any reasoning beyond your feelings. Like I said, telling me what I should be ok with residing in my womb is nothing short of foul, and frankly unasked for."

Oh no! How evil of me, I dare to have an opinion and according to you it was unnecessary and uninvited! Oh man, so many people are going to get mad at me for calling major life choices stupid without providing any reason at all! At this point I'm almost 100% sure you're illiterate and typed your responses while blindfolded and with your left pinky toe. Claiming my arguments are feeling-based rather than objective criticism. And sure, because I said that if you were mature, you'd approach an intended pregnancy, accepting that both sexes can be the outcome of that and that a person who wants to get pregnant in my opinion should be okay with either, I am the worst!

[female-malice]

THIS IS THE FUTURE! First we remove the taboo against female embryo selection. Then we remove the taboo against aborting male fetuses.

[tomboyfriends]

btw don't blame the misinformed women who decided to abstain this election. yes, they are wrong. but the majority of culpability lies with men who are collectively participating in a major backlash against women gaining financial, educational, suffrage, reproductive, and property rights. each and every male who voted for trump had a chance not to vote for a misogynist racist homophobic rapist felon, and yet they did so anyway. we need to control what we are in control of. we NEED outcompete men, in academia, in the workplace, and at home by refusing to cohabitate with men. we must outcompete men for our own labor. do not lift a finger to help men. ONLY help your female classmates, coworkers, roommates, friends, partners, etc. i've also said this before, but if you find yourself pregnant and are at liberty to receive reproductive healthcare, PLEASE IDENTIFY AND ABORT MALE FETUSES. realistically the fastest and only way women will be able to gain power is by systematically reducing the male population and increasing the female to male ratio. we cannot change men's minds, because they have much to gain from each type of misogyny against women and everything to lose should women gain power and independence from men. please. i beg of you.

i beg, i beg, i beg.