Terms:
Man = A biological male with a penis
"Man" = A biological female with a vagina
Woman/"Woman" = Vice versa
Hypothetical: Suppose a federal law is promulgated that makes it so that people, including all elected officials and employees of the state, are legally bound to recognize people
only in terms that align with that person(s) declared gender identity / gender expression. Ex: If a person with a vagina identifies as a man, then people are legally bound to recognize this person
as a man. If a person with a penis identifies as a woman, then legally that person is a woman.
Now imagine a legally married couple: A person with a vagina, who identifies as a man ("man"), and a person with a penis, who identifies as a woman ("woman"). Now suppose that the "woman" impregnates the "man", and one of them wants to have an abortion.
Just for the sake of a single scenario: The legal "man" (the biological host) does not want an abortion. The "woman" (not the biological host) does.
In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court held that
"the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects, under certain circumstances, a woman’s decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term."
In this scenario, it seems to me that the "man" could say that, as the biological host, they retain the right to choose. However, in order to overcome the legally recognized "woman's" wishes, they would have to either 1) use their biological sex to overwhelm the expressed gender of the "woman" or 2) declare that gender expression plays no role in retention of the right to choose what to do with their body, making it so that abortion is no longer a woman's rights issue, but rather, simply a human rights issue.
Discuss.
Bookmarks