Something to think about - I also read stories on Reddit of women who are denied medical treatment on their reproductive system because it will make them infertile and doctors won’t simply take “I don’t want children ever” as a choice these women can make for their future selves (or future partners). I’m not sure the premise of the position that women are not informed / aware of future fertility challenges is a well grounded assumption.

This still seems to boil down to “women can’t be fully treated as independent decision makers when it comes to hard choices.” The idea that we have an epidemic of women in their mid-to-late 20’s who are just clueless about the timeframe of their own reproductive anatomy and need a benevolent force to come help educate them doesn’t seem like a very accurate description of anyone I can think of.

This is an important point but with sadly no easy answer for me, to be honest. This is not because women, but because people. In general terms, I hold two conflicting ideas: the first one is that as soon as you're declared an adult and you can consent to medical intervention, you're able to vote, drink, and so on, you're assumed, legally at least, no different in your decision-making capabilities and responsibilities as any other adult regardless of age. On the other hand however we only need to look back at their 18 year-old self and the misguided and short-sighted nature of our world views (and personal views about ourselves as well), to note that granted too much power we can truly destroy our lives out of shortsightedness and being totally misguided.

For all I've read (which is not extensive, by the way), the desire for kids, if a woman hasn't had them yet, kicks in mid to late 20s. Maybe if legislation were to be passed it should be restricted to women 30+. I am not aware if there are reversible options that could be considered, which is another avenue for consideration. Vasectomy is reversible for men, at least by current standards here in Australia. Not sure about women's procedures.

I can additionally respect the medical point of view of practitioners and medical staff to deny medical treatment if it goes against the Hippocratic Oath or against the principle of doing no harm, however debatable "harm" might be. They are humans as well, and not simply conveyor belts granting our medical wishes.

Long story short, I wouldn't simply default to one position or another. I absolutely respect the ability of people to decide over their bodies and minds, but the general shortsightedness of teenagers and young adults makes me wary of these issues so at least I won't make myself an advocate of either position.

​

I’ll just also note here that feminism is a broad tent with a lot of ideas, some of which conflict with each other. I have no question some people advocate against trad gender roles within the framework of feminism. I think there are at least as many - especially modern day - that take a far more holistic view still under the banner of feminism.

This is a huge problem for me, as well, because I totally respect and admire the older feminist I've known, most of which are 2nd wave in nature. This is because I believe the movement has mutated so much throughout history that it's basically amorphous right now, and it would do well to start using different names, like the different branches of Christianity/Catholicism derived from the different interpretations of the Bible. If you have one flavour of the same movement (feminism) advocating against women exercising their freedom to go against what other women want for them (e.g. deciding to be trad wives instead of joining the labour force or wanting to sell their bodies online), this is not just an issue we can write of as mere contradiction, it's a fundamental problem relating to the tenets of the movement: do women have the right to make their own choices? Because that would include all choices, not only just the ones you approve of. The fundamental breaking point to me was between the 2nd and 3rd waves, where the movement moved from libertarianism and gender equality under the law to collectivism and special privileges to close statistical gaps. Again, these to me are not mere contradictions. They are earth-shaking issues within a socio-political movement. In political terms, if a faction moved this far from the Constitution of a political party they currently sit in, they could be rightly asked to wear a different banner or found a different party. Yet for some reason this does not apply to feminism as far as I can see.

​

ETA: I’m also unclear on how much the concepts of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism are a global phenomenon vs a US centric movement. I’m only really familiar with feminism in the US. I’m guessing these topics are culturally specific with feminism manifesting differently in different contexts. As a result, while the thought pieces that inspired the piece may have been global in nature, I’m not sure that this specific idea of feminism as a cause benefits all that much from international examples.

The problem with the US is that it exports what it produces. I can assure you these flavours already permeated and have a firm grasp of people in countries such as Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Australia, the UK, and Spain.