Accidental Liberal Shamings: Abortion, Bodies, and Sexuality

If there is one phrase that I think I could use to sum up American liberals (and some left wing radicals) it would be "well-inentioned." It is my experience that these individuals, unlike the right in America, really do want to do what's best; they intend to be kind, respectful, and supportive; they wish to be allies to oppressed peoples and those in parallel struggles.  However, good intentions do not always translate into good behaviors.  Here I want to address three "well intentioned" comments I sometimes hear that are ultimately problematic.  I doubt that these are the only three and I invite you to comment with any others.

(1) Abortion.  It is not uncommon to hear liberals say something like, "Abortion is a very difficult choice" or "No one would ever choose to have an abortion; it's a necessity for some people."  While it is certainly true that, for some women, abortion is a difficult choice, and that for others it proves to be some sort of necessity (whether that be medical, financial, psychological, etc.), there are also countless other women for whom it is not a necessity and for whom it is an easy choice.  If we really want to respect a woman's right to bodily autonomy, we should accept that these women too have the right to make that choice, and to do so with ease if that is how they feel.  For some women, they are simply making the choice to have a low-risk medical procedure that they believe is in their best interests.  And that OK.  It is OK to have an abortion for any reason you want.  To respond to anti-choicers with claims like those above instead of with a strong defense of choice itself as a basic right is to concede ground in the fight for choice.  Claims such as "No one would ever wantto have an abortion" ultimately say, "Yes, abortion is probably wrong; or it is least psychologically, if not physically, traumatic, but I still think it should be legal."  This is not only unnecessary, it is also largely inaccurate.  So stop saying that shit.  Instead, truly defend choice as a basic human right independent of the reason the woman is making that choice.  Similarly, stop saying things like, "Well, I could never have an abortion, but I respect women's rights to do so" unless someone has specifically asked if you would choose to have one.  To become defensive when no one has asked whether you would choose to have an abortion indicates that you perceive yourself to somehow be better than others, that there is something wrong with abortion.  It's OK to never think you would want one (though you should not guess what you would do unless you're in the situation), but what you think you would do is not really relevant to discussing the right itself.

Seriously, stop it...

(2) Body Shaming.  It goes without saying that some people suffer from eating disorders and that these can manifest in both stuffing or starving oneself.  Both potentially represent an unhealthy relationship to food.  It is also the case that such disorders are sometimes rooted in trauma.  As a consequence, some liberals and leftists will, when confronted with someone who is body shaming, say something to the effect of, "You know, a lot of people with that body type are struggling with some sort of trauma.  So really, in shaming her, you're shaming a survivor."  In some cases, this may be true.  But in responding this way, you transition from "shaming" to "pathologizing."  In both cases, the speaker is saying, "That is not an acceptable body type."  In the first, this is simply being said.  In the second, it is being said more subtly because the person says, "That body type represents trauma."  But the background of that is to say, "No one would have that body type if they were psychologically healthy," which can be reduced to, "No one would want that body type," which means, "That's a bad/unattractive/unhealthy body type," which is ultimately the same thing that the person who was originally shaming the person said.  So don't do it.  You do not need to pathologize someone's body to defend them against shaming or objectification.  A person has every right to have whatever beautiful, awesome body they wish to have, and they probably have plenty of people in their life who think they're body is the fucking awesome body that it is.  Some of those people may, in fact, be suffering from trauma too, but so are lots of other people for whom their trauma does not manifest in the same embodiment.  So defend a person's right to bodily autonomy and to have whatever body they please
independent of any reason (or lack thereof) for the body type.

(3) Sexuality.  There has often been a contested debate about whether or not homosexuality is a choice.  Liberals and leftists have frequently adopted the idea that individuals are "born that way" or "do not have a choice" to bolster their support for equality, and it is certainly not only straight people that make this case.  This is understandable in part because it has proven to be an effective strategy.  But like with the abortion claim above, it is also problematic.  An individual should have the right to bodily autonomy, and part of respecting that right is that individuals are free to consent or not to any sexual activity.  Why they wish to consent to that activity is irrelevant.  Some people may feel that they were born with a certain sexuality; others may feel it was a choice; others may feel a little of each.  It does not matter because what they do with their bodies is up to them!  To say, one is "born that way" as a response to a homophobe is to ultimately say, "If someone was not born that way, if it was a choice, then you are right, it would be immoral.  My only argument is that they have no choice."  This not only admits to homosexuality's potential supposed immorality, but it also subtracts free will, autonomy, and choice (basic priniciples of human dignity and respect) from other-than-straight people.  So, like with all the claims above, just don't do it.  Respect a person's right to bodily autonomy no matter what.  If we have the right to bodily autonomy, then the reasons for our consensual sexual, bodily, and medical practices do not matter.  It is only if those rights are already suspect that such explanations may begin to make sense.  But if those rights are suspect, then we are already ceding ground to those who would oppress and subjugate people.  These are already often literally fights for people's lives, so we don't need to do any of the fighting for the other side.

I get it.  People say these things with the best of intentions.  They hope that such claims will be persuasive, and thus make the world a better place; sometimes it even works.  But if we really want the world to be better for everyone then we need that world to be based in human rights and human dignity.  We must argue for these rights and for the idea that these rights do not need "excuses" or "justifications" behind them.  Otherwise, we run the risk of eventually losing these rights.