Question: Should Men Make Law About…Anything?

I saw this circulating the interwebs a few days ago and it provoked me to question a few things about tolerance and governmental involvement. I need to have these questions answered before I can give this picture legitimate consideration.

1) Did the creator of this image just assume the gender of the lawmakers? 

I read an article on Everyday Feminism once that said misgendering is insulting, psychologically and physically harmful, and intolerant. If the creator of this picture is, in fact, a debased gender-assuming bigot, then I can’t stand behind this at all.

Bonus question: If I’m being intellectually consistent, and if the creator of this picture really is, in fact, a debased gender-assuming bigot, then would that also make the supporters of this picture debased gender-assuming bigots as well?

2) If gender is fluid and on a spectrum, then how can we possibly expect to know the difference between men and women in order to discriminate who should and shouldn’t be making laws?

Seriously, if men and women are the same and if gender is 100% fluid and malleable, then how can we know the difference between male and female?

3) Speaking of discrimination…

If men are barred from making laws about women’s bodies, or law period, just because they’re men, then isn’t that, by definition, discrimination? 

Last time I checked, sex discrimination was a bad thing and a huge civil law issue. So wouldn’t barring people from a job position strictly because of their sex be like…bad? 

4) Does this mean we can overturn Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade was decided by men. If men shouldn’t be making laws about women’s bodies, or law in general, then can we at least overturn Roe v. Wade? I’m not a lawyer, but from what I’ve read, it’s a poorly done piece of law in its own right, regardless of one’s stance on abortion.

Think about it: If we overturn it, then we can discuss a new law to replace it with. A new, better law. A law that would ban all abortions, except for the ones that legitimately threaten the life of the mother. We could even discuss abortion in the super rare cases of rape and incest since those are only 1.5% of all reported abortions.

Morally, even abortions due to rape and incest should still be barred because it’s not the baby’s fault they were created and they’re literally completely innocent in the whole thing. But if it would lower abortion rates by 95% or more, I’m willing to have that discussion.

While we’re creating new laws, we could also discuss creating one about death and/or castration for rapists! But I digress.


What do you think?

Shoot me an email at Adam@LetsDigress.com or leave a comment below. But I must warn you, if the comment isn’t nice or if it has severe grammatical errors, it may not be approved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *