this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2025
847 points (91.6% liked)
Political Memes
10028 readers
1709 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Men's rights very much do differ by state but not anywhere near as significant
You are missing the point. There are no rights exclusive to men that vary by state. The only rights that vary by state for one gender are women's rights.
Things like parental rights don't apply here because those impact both genders (they are zero-sum; a decrease in men's paternal rights implies an increase in women's rights).
Only women have specific rights that ONLY impact women and vary from state to state
There are no rights exclusive to men or women. Abortion also affects trans men.
While you are technically correct, this is very obviously a discussion about reproductive rights, and the historical oppression of women as those who are most commonly impacted by reproductive rights issues. Your point is factual and valid but it is a distraction from the very important conversation being had here.
If this discussion leads to improved protection of reproductive rights, by pointing to the imbalance between traditionally male and traditionally female rights under US law, then trans men will also benefit. As such, the distraction of pointing out that trans men are also impacted therefore it's "not just women" and the implication that we shouldn't be talking about the ongoing oppression of women but rather "uterus havers", works against your own interests.
The people who need to be convinced that reproductive rights need protection, and for whom the "it's imbalanced" argument will be effective, are often even more vehemently opposed to trans issues. Bringing your point up here only serves to further entrench people who might otherwise be swayed to make changes that would benefit trans men. This is called "breaking into jail".
There is a time and a place to have the "trans men are impacted by reproductive rights issues" discussion and this isn't it.
Maybe make the point in a more direct and less confusing manner then? People are just critiquing the message because its written poorly. Its not even apparent its about reproductive rights until someone else clarifies that.
I knew immediately that it was about reproductive rights, but that's just because that's been the latest and most consistent snub against women lately.
If this were 40 years ago it would probably be about their ability to get a bank account or credit card without a man.
Or vote
I know it seems pedantic and normally I wouldnt interject but clearly based on your responses throughout this thread it needs to be brought up.
My omission of your point was intentional because as I said, in this context it's not pedantic but rather self-defeating.
If we were in a different context I'd be right there with you championing the fact that trans men are effected by reproductive rights issues.
But for all the reasons I've already explained I chose not to bring transgender matters into this conversation because it only serves to make it harder to get the things you actually want, which is reproductive healthcare equality for trans men (and women).
It was a deliberate choice to meet my target audience where they are, knowing that a victory in that context would benefit trans men too.
Oh hush. The post clearly means the sexes not the genders.
Transphobia flourishes when it's dismissed, minimized, and forgiven.
The only differences between "men's rights" and "women's rights" comes down to unequal treatment by police and the courts. When we talk about abortion and rape, the group in question can be described a bunch of ways ("female", "xx", "uterus-having") but not accurately simply as "women".
Because trans-men are men, not women, and treating them as such is every bit as bigoted as treating trans women as men.
Do you not think that access to abortion affects cis men too? Of course it’s far more important to the woman whose body is at risk, just not solely important to her. This is the kind of stupid divisiveness that doesn’t help.
No it doesnt. They state gender multiple times.
Hush? Like how women have been historically told to hush? Trans rights are every bit as important as women's rights.
So you’re saying that in addition to the rights we all have, women have additional exclusive rights.
No, I'm saying that women are SUPPOSED to have the same rights as everyone (e.g. complete bodily autonomy) but have their rights restricted in varying ways from state to state.
This really isn't that hard to understand. Women have had their rights restricted in ways that men didn't for a long, long time. It's so normal that you aren't even aware of it.
They got the right to vote later than men.
They got federal protection for their right to have their own bank account without a man's approval in 1974 for fuck's sake.
Is it so hard to recognize that women's rights are controlled in ways that men's aren't?
Female genital mutilation is illegal in the United States. Male genital mutilation is common practice. The discrepancies certainly aren't equal, but they aren't exclusively one-sided.
Let’s not forget that women have never had compulsory military service in the US either. I hear some things can happen to your body in war. I mean aside from it being mandatorily shipped away for months and years.
Yes, anyone pushing for that last inch of total exclusivity here has another think coming.
It’s not that hard to understand. Neither is “Men's rights very much do differ by state but not anywhere near as significant.”
If you had just been reasonable and settled for that, I woudln’t be deliberately winding you up like this.
Well yes. In addition to the body parts we all have, women have some that are exclusive to them; and as they're a bit special they require extra rights.
Well, no. Both sexes have body parts which are exclusive to them. And before you say “yeah but there’s nothing controversial or invasive happening to any male body parts” consider circumcision.
No contradiction there (I'd very much like to ban infant circumcision)
Amendment 2 varies by state county city. But not by sex. Lots of rules are state wise, not federal
What do you mean by this?
You can open carry where? You can own an assault rifle where? You can not open carry nor own a pistol where 18 vs 21 where?
All are questions of the second amendment. In NYC you can't own a gun without privelege. In Orlando, you can now own one and carry one.
You're missing the point: are any of those rights different my state only for men or are all of those rights different by state for EVERYONE including men and women?
There are no rights exclusive to men that vary by state. The only rights that vary by state for one gender are women's rights
I was agreeing they didn't vary by sex, but just to play devils advocate, rape. In many states only men can be charged with rape, because it defines it as penetration, and I don't believe fingers count
You can kinda stop there, I mean, are there any rights exclusive to men? If there aren't this is kind of a false dichotomy.
Not that I disagree with women's rights of course, I'm just having trouble thinking of something that even would possibly "only apply to men."
What's amendment 2?
Electric bugaloo
The right to bear arms.
right to own bear arms.
Oh. Usually it's phrased as second amendment.
Yep, I definitely think the whole phrasing of that comment is unusual. I understand the basic facts they are stating, but not the point of stating them.
I'm confused about what your point was in your original comment. I don't get the relevance?
My original comment? I just answered your question as to what that other commenter meant by "amendment 2." I didn't say anything else? Did you not want someone else to answer your question and only want that commenter to?
Oh sorry. Everyone on this site feels like the same person to me except for @SantasMagicalComfort@piefed.world
The world is at the brink of war because 1 man was used as a parrot, and you haven't cauton yet?
Let me debrief you.
Man in Whitehouse is grifter who doesn't care about anyone.. being used by governments around the world (Russia, SA) to get what they want. It doesn't end there
The second amendment to the constitution
Which rights are exclusive to men?
The right to drink a beer while operating a riding lawn mower in full view of the public without wearing a shirt.
But that's illegal for everyone. Even for women.
I think you have it slightly twisted. If you're mowing your own lawn on your own property as a dude and showing a bare chest, you will find that there are no laws on the books in your locale prohibiting this. If you dare to show boobs while doing so, however, you are certain to cop an indecent exposure charge (or at least the threat of the same) if anyone sees you.
There are some exceptions where being out and about topless as a woman isn't illegal, but these are indeed exceptions in specific states and municipalities, which is kind of the point of this entire thread. Nobody's going to say anything to a guy doing this, even if he's ugly.
I think you missed the part about operating a riding mower while publicly consuming alcohol. That's the part that's illegal for everyone.
On your own property? No it ain't. On the street, sure.
Show me in the OP screencap where it says exclusive
Women's rights vs. men's rights.
Do women have the right to receive life saving medical care(abortion) as they should?
I'm not arguing the point it's making, just that the wording doesn't convey what it means to