They could be a Jordan Peterson person. I have a friend who got into an argument with me about how he thought he was "more left" than me when I called Natalie Wynn a liberal, and he also had a period where he thought Peterson was cool. I don't really know how that happened, because the whole thing that made Peterson popular was transphobia and this friend of mine was utterly immersed in trans friends, acquaintances, lovers, etc. But I never really looked into Peterson back then so when he was like "nah he's not what everyone says" i was kind of just like "alright whatever, some random canadian guy isnt a big deal"

anyway, moral of the story i guess is people are fuckin incoherent

I think we've just reached the point where gender critical or radfem isn't dogwhistly enough anymore, so she has to go with jungian and "being a gay person mortally afraid of coming off as too queer is the new punk rock".

I mean, i'm guessing here, but come on, if she wants to control other people's uteruses in case of an unwanted pregnancy, she won't be fine with other people getting that shit removed when it's giving them gender dysphoria. I can't think of any anti-abortion activist who isn't also transphobic, particularly not when they are backed by some fundi org that throws way too much money at weird ops like this.

Ill make sure this twitchy ass fed is "trauma-informed" if i ever get handed one of these lmao

love that they open with a label that specifically pertains to their opinion on morally acceptable fanfiction. Unserious person.

after all, who has the money to actually print out a 100-page full color zine just to "hand out"

Even worse than in the bio.

A lot of Zines are generally pretty cool. An anarchist and often lgbtq bent is part of them. My personal favorite is one titled "Abolish the Restaurant Industry".

Yes.

Castle Doctrine: The conservative case for abortion

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60950016

different person, but part of the same org full of catholics and anarchists

As a gay, I'm highly disappointed in the results of our latest Five-Year Agenda.

• P1: My questions going into this are: "is this sincere?" and if so "how does someone get like this?" Right away I'm noticing the that they're using the definition of femme which reads "Real Biological Pussyhaver, but I'm actually woke. If I met a butch I'd throw up and cry." This doesn't tell me much, since a lot of actual progressives say this.

• P2: Most of this is gibberish. Casual use of the phrase "wombless male body" and "fertile female body."

• P3: "Or someone who wants to mock her did." This sounds like an outright admission that this is bait trying to propogate by people shitting on it. Or at least that this person gets bullied a lot. Also why did they censor the word fuck? Is that a joke? TikTok brainworms? I'm putting another tick in the "crypto-christian tract" column. Wait okay Consistent Life Ethic is a Catholic thing, so no crypto- nothin. The arguments are bad and delusional not because they're insincere, but because Christians are incapable of realizing how insane they sound to normal people.

Skimming... most of this is nonsense... I will note that this ugly as fuck "zine" looks like one of those informative instagram or facebook meme accounts. I don't think it's Ironic. You can really infer the creator's media diet.

• P18-19: Struggling to wrap my tiny, non-catholic brain around the argument here. They seem genuinely unable to conceive of the idea that a woman might actually want to not give birth.

• P21: "If we won these reforms, then free abortion would no longer be forced abortion." This page is starting to sound like an actual argument, which makes it vulnerable to salient questions like "okay, so is abortion not a bad thing in itself? Would you accept the "right to choose" if you could be sure that there was no possibility that a pregnant person is being at all economically coerced? What if someone is pregnant within the capitalist order, but they're a single capitalist not beholden to the demands of a partner, with full access to both adequate childcare and adoption, but they just don't want to create a human life? Is abortion acceptable to you in that circumstance? In fact, I'm not sure if it really follows that if one's choices may be constrained, then they ought to be constrained even further to make sure that they make the right one.

• P22: Herndon-De La Rosa is a Republican anti-abortion activist. There's this species of conservative self-identified feminist who advocates for no women's issues and has made a career out of pushing anti-feminist positions as Feminist Actually based on the strength of the argument that she's a woman, and women are feminist. See also Christina Hoff Sommers.

• P23: 🤓 ummmm argumentum ad populum much? Not clear on what "economically vulnerable" and "economically privileged" mean in this context. We find out by the second paragraph that this barrage of polling statistics comes from a Gallup Poll, but not what this poll was called, when it was taken, how many people were involved, or what the gender crosstabs look like. I don't think the author has even noticed that they transitioned smoothly from "individual women getting abortions just think that's what they want, because they are being coerced and brainwashed by Capitalism" right into "the unwashed masses know that terminating a pregnancy is economic warfare, and only rich people think abortion is okay."

• P24: I'm nitpicking language again, but I'm noticing that this leftist loves the phrase "economically disadvantaged" but never says "working class." I have to assume it's intentionally, but I'm not really sure what it means.

• P29: "Hustle fetal bodies" Really starting to sound like James O'Keefe now lol.

• P31: Holy fuck these people really have no idea what they sound like

The use of generic reddit meme templates throughout (again, this is a zine in the loosest sense) is really making this start to feel like some kind of baroque bit.

• P33: Okay, adoption is also bad. This is one position that isn't usual for anti-choicers, but at least it's consistent here.

• P37: Utterly generic anti-feminist "feminist" conservative argument. Women shouldn't try to take mens' roles or mens' power or be equal to them! That's anti-women! By this point I think this person is completely serious, otherwise their arguments would not be this bad. I have to wonder what they thinks feminism actually is.

• P38: "Customarily women have held a collectivist attitude." Sure. Yeah. Why not. We're in full on sacred-feminine gender essentialist land now.

• P40-41: ???????? IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT PREGNANCY MIGHT NOT BE A DESIRABLE OUTCOME REGARDLESS OF ECONOMIC ABILITY THAT KIND OF UNDERCUTS YOUR OTHER ARGUMENTS. Is the action you're demanding here actually "make abortion unnecessary" or "make abortion illegal"?

• P43: Belatedly realizing that the author is assuming that the average male reader is already pro-life, and thinks this is a good first step. He just needs to do it feministly.

I think this person thinks a zine is just a really badly laid out series of tweets

• P46: "Nobody wants to have an abortion." I don't think you've adequately demonstrated this yet.

• P58-60: These Philosophy 101 syllogisms are very confused. I have no idea what "essential human powers" means. I don't think this means anything if you don't have a specific conception of God, and I don't think they realize this. I'm not sure what they think a social construct is. I think they're really trying to do something here and just failing spectacularly.

• P64: "I accept govt expanding the definition of personhood to include animals and corporations" I think this was meant rhetorically, but again it's a particular Catholic brainworm that makes them equate animal rights with corporate rights.

By this point they've abandoned any semblance of logical structure and are just copying off their insta feed

• P71: Constant appeals to what is natural. You could kill this person by sending them a link to the Xenofeminist Manifesto

• P74: Wendy Simonds' name is misspelled. Her book is Abortion at work. Ideology and practice in a feminist clinic. Like most of the sources used in this tract it is not properly citied.

• P89: There are two ways to interpret all the sloganeering that sounds like everdayfeminism.com got bought out by Focus on the Family: either it's a cynical and lazy attempt at laundering reactionary beliefs through progressive language that the writer doesn't really get, or it's very sincere and they just think that radical politics is about having really catchy slogans.

• P93: Gibberish. This means nothing. You sound insane.

• P94: Planned Parenthood absolutely asks a ton of questions lmao. Like most unsourced claims about human trafficking, I'm going to assume this was made up by an evangelical Q cultist.

• P98: Lmao this is how you know they're sincere. They're not trying to feed us any horseshit about how they think there are exceptions where abortion is permissible. Also weirdly for an (i think) Catholic, they appear to be pro death-penalty.

• P99: Not for people who seek abortions though, of course not! How could you even think that? Even though they're obviously evil criminals, we can use Restorative Justice to help them heal their sick souls.

• P100-101: This is a fucking nightmare. Gilead designed by a Smith student.

• P102: Why are you giving advice on "anti-capitalism." I guess I have this question for every radlib, but why can't you say the word communist.

• P103: Yes, conservatives are reactionary. They are against progress. Many of them are open about this. They are not confused. They are not mistaken. They are not the unknowing agents of the long arc of history.

• P105: NANETTE QUOTE I LOVE WHEN NANETTE FROM NANETTE SAID LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION LOL

• P111: NANETTE QUOTE SO GOOD THEY USED IT TWICE

Final thoughts: This fuckin sucked and I regret it

I dunno about you, but I make sure to ask all my partners right after sex. And unlike the bigot who made this zine, I ask regardless of what their genitalia is.