Categories
abortion creepy Dunning–Kruger effect hetsplaining homophobia irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA rape things that aren't rape transphobia twitter

Ladies! Protect your right to gestate from men who want to grow babies in a box, world’s weirdest “reproductive rights” activist declares

Ladies! Protest your eggs from men who want to give birth

By David Futrelle

Most reproductive rights activists today are doing their best to deal with the increasingly likely reversal of Roe V. Wade, brought a step closer to reality by the draconian anti-abortion bill just signed into law in Alabama, likely to be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

But the exceedingly sui generis reproductive rights activist John Howard — Twitter’s @EggAndSperm — has rather different concerns. Like men trying to gestate their own fetuses in a box, women trying to fertilize the eggs of other women, and single and/or gay people having sex.

I first ran across Howard in tweets from @Chinchillazllla and @NuclearTakes several days ago, and I’ve been trying to figure him out ever since. He’s no feminist, obviously, but he’s no Men’s Rights Activist either — he doesn’t seem to want men to infringe on what he sees as women’s fundamental right to gestate. He’s kind of his own thing, mixing the assorted bigotries of a Christian fundamentalist with the paranoia of someone who’s just read Brave New World for the first time. (And he seems way too dedicated to be a troll; he’s been at this for years.)

John Howard
‏
 
@eggandsperm
Follow Follow @eggandsperm
More
Replying to @BrendaWestcott2 @jwblanding and 2 others
To support reproductive rights, we have to prohibit making babies with genetic engineering, artificial gametes, in artificial wombs. Females have the right to gestate and give birth, males do not. Females do not have a right to fertilize. 

#SexStrike
John Howard
‏
 
@eggandsperm
Follow Follow @eggandsperm
More
Replying to @bjconk01 @rooshv
Congress needs to protect people from exploitation by giving them full information about their reproductive rights. Males only have a right to reproduce with their own genitals, they don’t have a right to gestate a baby in a box or make eggs from stem cells.

Huh. It never occurred to me that my inability to become pregnant was a right; I just thought it was a biological limitation. I guess I also have a right to not be as smart as Einstein, as well as a right to not be able to fly by flapping my arms. Apparently I have as many rights as there are things I’m unable to do.

Oh, and as a single person, I also have the right not to have sex. When Howard talks about the reproductive rights of men and women, he makes clear he thinks these rights (including the right to have sex) only apply to straight, married couples.

John Howard
‏
 
@eggandsperm
Follow Follow @eggandsperm
More
There is no right to have sex or procreate except marriage. Single people don’t have a right to have sexual intercourse. #SexStrike

Congress needs to end gay marriage to preserve the sexual reproductive rights of marriage.
Undo gay marriage! Same-sex couples are not equal, they don’t have the right to procreate together. Only a male has a right to procreate with a female. Doh!

Howard is so sure that (straight) marriage is the only way to go that he’s managed to convince himself that all sex between single people is therefore somehow rape.

John Howard
‏
 
@eggandsperm
Follow Follow @eggandsperm
More
Replying to @TheLaurenChen
All unmarried sex is technically rape because it is not fully informed consensual sex. It’s mutual rape, where they both are willing victims and perpetrators.

But Howard seems less concerned with this sort of “rape” than he is with the specter of gay marriage, which he manages to blame for everything from school shootings to the opioid crisis.

Gay marriage is “what the hell is going on” causing terrorism, mental illness, school shootings, opioid crisis, transgender crisis...  Congress must ban male pregnancy and end gay marriage. Men and women have different reproductive rights, not the same!

While gay and lesbian couples are shit out of luck in Howard’s imagined utopia, he’s an eensy, teensy bit more forgiving towards trans people — but only if they accept the fundamentally transphobic belief that trans women are really men and trans men are really women.

John Howard
‏
 
@eggandsperm
Follow Follow @eggandsperm
More
Replying to @urkgurgle @canuckfreezeray and 2 others
Right, trans people are human and have human rights, the same rights they would have if they weren’t trans.

Trans women have male rights, to provide a sperm, not a right to provide eggs or gestate or breastfeed. Trans men don’t have a right to provide a sperm.

You might wonder why Howard is so intent on banning things that aren’t actually possible in the world we live in today — obviously, neither cis men nor trans women can produce eggs; nor can cis women or trans men produce sperm. But he of course has an answer.

aliens

No, really. His answer is “aliens” — or at least their technology.

Howard — while not a TERF himself — has some awfully TERFy concerns:

Trans women don’t have women’s rights though. Trans women have a right to impregnate women not be pregnant themselves, even after surgery and hormones and legal sex changes. People with the right to impregnate shouldn’t get to force their way into women-only spaces.

But he also thinks he’s got a solution:

The way to reverse this trend and make women safe again in changing rooms is to rule out the prospect of transgender reproduction. That will force them to accept they aren’t women, most will desist.

Yeah, that’s not how that works.

Indeed, Howard might well be the poster child for Not How This Works. So I’m just going to end this with that lady from that commercial. And every other gif along those lines I could find.

And for you Star Wars fans:

As for me, I’m just going to go lie down for a while.

We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ichthyic
Ichthyic
3 years ago

story was worth it for the cat at the end.

also? I’m off to ensure my right not to have a car engine implanted in my chest to replace my heart.

toodles.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
3 years ago

So I was reading the first volume of Robert A. Caro’s biography of Lyndon Johnson, and came across the woman in charge of a college who not only enforced gender separation for swimming in the river, but insisted that men only swim downstream from the women, for fear that their sperm would be carried on the current and impregnate her innocent charges.

I honestly thought that would be the weirdest reproduction-related thing I came across this week.

numerobis
numerobis
3 years ago

This all reads as the usual catholic (and various other totalitarian religions) crap to me. The fear of artificial insemination, the control of sexuality, sex as purely procreative. It’s bog standard.

In this view, men and women are here to make babies via PIV sex in the missionary position, and that’s the start and end of it all. Any hiccup on that is an abomination.

Lainy
Lainy
3 years ago

I lost brain cells reading this ?

Phaos
Phaos
3 years ago

Apparently all I need to do is accept that I don’t have a right to become pregnant and somehow I just won’t be crushed by my dysphoria, who knew.

Bina
3 years ago

I didn’t think it was possible for heaps of bat guano to become sentient and start talking English (however incoherently). However, this one convinces me that Something Must Be Done To Stop Heaps of Bat Guano Becoming Sentient.

The question remains, however: What the everfucking FUCK?

epronovost
epronovost
3 years ago

Apparently, it’s theoretically possible to have a genetically unique baby produced by two female with no male involved. It requires an ovule and a stem cell from a different female and some genetic hacking to remove genes that prevent same sex reproduction in mammals (but apparently those are easy to find and remove). The experiment only ever succeeded on mice and we have yet to succeed with two males, but hey. In couple of years, maybe he could start to rave about lesbian having children of their own without sperm donors. Not that such a technology is really useful and would be very costly for pretty much nothing, but it’s possible.

https://www.inverse.com/article/49792-can-two-males-or-females-make-babies

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago

@epronovost

In practice though it runs into a very nasty little problem that nobody has figured out to bypass: genetic imprinting. Basically, for some genes it doesmatter which parent the gene comes from, and in quite a few cases development of an embryo only works if one set of genes comes from a sperm cell and another set comes from an egg cell. Nobody’s sure how exactly the genes can tell where they were inherited from, but whatever process it uses is important enough to make this guy’s fears about women fertilizing the eggs of other women literally impossible.

That’s because those imprinted genes include the ones that play a critical role in the formation of the placenta. In experimental scenarios using animals where an ovum was “fertilized” (via a sperm cell whose nucleus was replaced with that of another ovum’s) the embryo formed more or less normally but inevitably died due to the placenta never forming properly. There’s also the case where one sperm (sometimes two) “fertilizes” an ovum which doesn’t have any DNA due to errors in meiosis. The failed zygote reduplicates its DNA (in the single sperm case) so it technically has a full set of chromosomes, but instead of a viable pregnancy it develops into something called a hydatidiform mole, which can generously be described as a hideous mass of grape-like vesicles that can sometimes spread through the uterine wall as a malignant tumor.

I have seen photographs of those things. Suffice to say that even the most extreme anti-abortionists would be hard-pressed to recognize them as having ever possessed the potential to be human.

Pie
Pie
3 years ago

@Anonymous

Nobody’s sure how exactly the genes can tell where they were inherited from,

Methylation.

Knowing that doesn’t make it easier to fix, however.

Genjones
Genjones
3 years ago

Hold on a tick, he’s against adoption as being unnatural? What the hell is supposed to happen to orphaned and abandoned children then?

Lainy
Lainy
3 years ago

@genjones

The natural thing of course. They die like animals who parents die or abandoned them. Like the panda in the wild that had twins and threw one out to die to because she couldn’t produce enough nutrients for two cubs and herself. If you want get really natural women could eat the babies they don’t want like mother animals on the wild do.

Weatherwax
Weatherwax
3 years ago

Well, now I need to go reread Blue Genes by Val McDermid.

Moggie
Moggie
3 years ago

Women don’t have a right to be unable to be pregnant? I know I shouldn’t be surprised by this, but somehow I still am.

Nanny Oggs Bosom
Nanny Oggs Bosom
3 years ago

Amoeba on Saturn could Tweet more sensible things than this guy.

Samantha Kaswell
Samantha Kaswell
3 years ago

I am sure that many have heard the news from Alabama, but I wanted to spread it around anway.

Gilead is becoming a stronger possibility with the passage, in Alabama, of the most restrictive anti-choice law in the country. No abortions, period. The one and only exception is it the mother will die during pregnancy because of said pregnancy. On top of that, they are trying to make it a felony for any woman to travel, while pregnant, out of the state, for fear that she will have an abortion in a state that allows it. Some of what I have read says that she would be charged with a felony if she was pregnant, but it was too early for her to know.

I believe that it is high time for we who are women to create a Lysistrata movement and refuse to take care of, feed, work for, have sex with or continue to live with any man who has not proven to be a true friend.

I have young grand daughters and I, for one, will fight to whatever end for their rights, and the rights of all girls, to live lives of freedom and integrity.

Talonknife
Talonknife
3 years ago

As a transhumanist, I like to think about how the medical science of the future will be able to alter our bodies, especially in the context of people with disabilities and trans people. I’m curious if we’ll eventually be able to give people fully functioning opposite sex reproductive systems and how many trans people would actually opt to get them. I recently saw a thread between some trans friends on Twitter discussing top and bottom surgery and a lot said they just wanted top surgery, not bottom. Is this because of the different ways dysphoria can affect different people, or is it because current bottom surgery is mostly cosmetic and not worth the price/effort?

rugbyyogi
rugbyyogi
3 years ago

I can agree that there is no right to have a child. The rest??? WT ever-lovin’ F?

Also, having been pregnant and given birth – bring on the baby-in-a-box thing. I’m cool with that.

Brandy Turing
Brandy Turing
3 years ago

@Talonknife I’m an expert only at my own lived experience, and informed primarily by my experiences talking with other trans people (so, anecdotally only) but I think that “because of the different ways dysphoria can affect different people” is much more the reason for people who like me (TMI probably sorry) don’t really want MTF bottom surgery.

For me, that part of my body isn’t the source of my dysphoria in any meaningful way, though it is for a lot of the trans women that I have met. I haven’t heard people in my circles say “the limited change that I would get isn’t worth the expense” but I have heard “I want it, but it is prohibitively expensive” as well as “I don’t need that part of my body changed”.

Big however: I’m middle-age and transitioning fairly late in life, so my years as a parent of children in the house are behind me, not in front of me and my experiences have led to many more conversations with trans women in my age range than with younger. To what extent there might be a generational difference, I couldn’t say.

Who?
Who?
3 years ago

Warning lawtheorie inside:
It comes down to that, has somethink to be explicite allowed to be legal or is everythink allowed that is not forbidden. Democracies tend to the second.

(I leave out the obvious point that the rights of other people are an important factor in your rights)

So from that point, yes people are allowed to have sex, married or not (not true in some islamic countrys), children from people who aren’t married have existed since forever. (Some societys had no concepts of mariage if I remember correctly) Modern society has chanced that those children are not to be ignored but have rights.

Leaving the religios isue aside, a mariage is a treaty that gives certain rights, makes the partners have responsibilitys for each other but is nothing magical.

Cat Mara
Cat Mara
3 years ago

O/T (via Charlie Stross on Twitter): One of the arseholes responsible for that disgraceful new abortion bill in Alabama is an OB/GYN with a documented history of being sued by patients for negligence.

Beyond Ocean
Beyond Ocean
3 years ago

@Samantha Kaswell

That’s dreadful news. But surely, such law must be unconstitutional?

I’m not from the US, but leaving aside criminalization of abortion, it seems impossible that a law could be passed that limits freedom of travel for an entire class of citizens?

Makroth
Makroth
3 years ago

@Beyond Ocean

The muslim ban exists.

Never say the words “it can’t happen here”. It creates vulnerabilities. Instead, hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Pie
Pie
3 years ago

Beyond Ocean

That’s dreadful news. But surely, such law must be unconstitutional?

The critical thing for the people involved with pushing these laws is getting shot of the Roe vs Wade decision. The actual laws they’re making are almost an afterthought… they’ll throw in all sorts of shit that they’d like, but the key thing from their point of view is that they receive legal challenges and can take it all the way to the SCROTUS who, they hope, will be on their side.

If the law gets watered down, as it almost certainly will, they’ll still consider it a win. They might even get to pretend they’re being magnanimous by removing the travel restrictions.

I’m not from the US, but leaving aside criminalization of abortion, it seems impossible that a law could be passed that limits freedom of travel for an entire class of citizens?

And yet, here we are.

Beyond Ocean
Beyond Ocean
3 years ago

If the law gets watered down, as it almost certainly will, they’ll still consider it a win. They might even get to pretend they’re being magnanimous by removing the travel restrictions

Right. Of course. Should have thought of that.

Thank you for reminding me what we’re dealing with.

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
3 years ago

@ Pie:

And yet, here we are.

A maxim for the time of trumpitude….

1 2 3
%d bloggers like this: