Bette Midler is not the enemy but she could still learn a little bit
I touched briefly on the “women” vs “people who give birth” issue in my email last week and yesterday on America’s birthday Bette Midler chimed in as well.
I think this a complicated issue because essentially people are reacting to misogyny and transphobia from 360 degrees of attack, and it’s causing a lot of dissonance in the crossfire. To be honest, this tweet almost reads as if Bette has mistaken the more biologically-inclusive language as an angle of approach from the right, as opposed to be it mostly being verbiage created by people on the left.
In that last email, I mentioned how it’s kind of clunky to keep having to say “people with uteruses” or “menstruators” when talking about these things, but there’s also an accuracy to it: frankly, trans men that give birth are going to have a harder time getting abortions.
I think where some of the dissonance comes from can be highlighted by a few questions. I’ll try to answer them as best I perceive our current state, but your answers may be different and I think no matter what they make the issue more complex and less cut and dried:
Do conservatives that want to ban abortion seek to do so to control the bodies of women, or the bodies of everyone that gives birth? I think that as these laws descend from archaic patriarchy, their spirit comes from controlling women-as-potential-sexual-targets. Through that lens, I think conservatives don’t give a rat’s ass about trans men. So I don’t think they are seeking to control trans men even if their actions are doing saw as fallout. This is not a reflection that they are progressive at all about trans issues; put it this way, as acceptance grows for trans women, I won’t be surprised if conservatives attempt to regulate their lives as well.
Does the overturning of Roe versus Wade affect women of any age and reproductive function, or only women that can give birth (or only people of any gender that can do so)? I can’t answer this from my own experience so I would gladly defer to someone else’s perspective, but from observation it seems like a whole lot of women past child-bearing age do indeed care about SCOTUS’s actions. Probably because it says they are second-class citizens… their bodies are under attack. I don’t personally ever have any intent to adopt a child, but if there was a law enacted that gay people couldn’t adopt, I do feel that would affect me in a more holistic way than just “what is it practically doing to my life”.
Is overturning Roe versus Wade an attack on women, people who give birth, ciswomen, ciswomen and transmen, ciswomen and transmen and non-binary people with uteruses, or something else? Anyone’s personal answer here probably reflects what language they prefer to use when expressing their outrage.
Unfortunately, the answer to the last question is most likely “yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and probably yes, and all of the above and more”.
I do agree that Bette Midler could do better and hope she learns from the moment and posts a tweet clarifying her position (because in the meantime a whole bunch of “gender critical” buffoons have taken her tweet as validation).
I also agree that a person shouldn’t be demonized for one misguided statement. But you can’t go back and undo it. If I could go back in time and undo things I would go back to when I spent $300 to see Bette Midler in Hello, Dolly! but that cash is out of my wallet and that tweet is out of Bette’s phone.
As usual, my pitch is for nuanced, moderate, more considered looks at these issues which is why I’m never going to buy a McMansion with my Substack money.
Happy July 5th!
If you think this newsletter is worth reading, please forward it to someone you think would appreciate it. If you don’t forward it to 10 people with 24 hours you will have bad luck. But let’s be honest you’ll probably have bad luck anyway. So live your life.