Opinion of the LGBTQ strike in Israel

[America Needs R'hllor]

Some background: after the Israeli parliament passed a law allowing surrogacy for basically everyone other than gay couples, and in protest against a recent stabbing of a trans woman in the streets of Tel Aviv and the continued oppression of the community in Israel, the LGBTQ organizations united and declared a general strike in Sunday (which is a regular work day in Israel) by all members of the community. In recent hours, more and more corporations and employers declared that they will give LGBTQ workers who want to participate in the strike a day off. It made so many waves that disruptions are expected in the flight schedules in Sunday.

Initially, I opposed this move for two reasons:
1. I view strikes more as a tool to help workers improve their conditions rather than a tool to advance social causes.
2. I believed that it would not gain enough traction due to the thin spread of LGBTQ workers in all the workplaces. I feared that it would only socially hurt those who participate and won't really be felt.
But I've clearly been proven wrong. This is making large waves and seems very much felt. I now view it as a Freedom Strike, an impressive show of power for the Israeli LGBTQ community.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I think paid surrogacy is exploitative and should be illegal for everyone, so horrible strike.

I see- there are many people who oppose surrogacy but support the strike because this law allows surrogacy but directly discriminates against homosexuals. What's your take on this?

[America Needs R'hllor]

It's an indication of how sick and screwed up we are that the strongest popular reaction to commodifying the womb like this is discontent with its discriminatory application. Any limitation that reduces the amount of paid surrogacy is better than none, but it's unfortunate that workers are not instead striking to recall every MP who voted to allow this.

I know it's shocking, but not everyone agrees with your opinion. Some people happen to believe that surrogacy is a completely legitimate process and that "commodifying the womb" isn't different from commodifying the hands of a construction worker. Others also happen to believe that surrogacy is wildly different from prostitution in its mental impact, and that the prostitution industry is horrible while the surrogacy "industry" is doing no harm, so the comparison you're going to make in the next comment is moot.

I'm sure there are legitimate arguments for your side on this issue. But using wild hyperboles and delegitimizing everyone you oppose isn't a good look, and is very unconstructive for an argument. Disappointing.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I know it's shocking, but not everyone agrees with your opinion. Some people happen to believe that surrogacy is a completely legitimate process and that "commodifying the womb" isn't different from commodifying the hands of a construction worker. Others also happen to believe that surrogacy is wildly different from prostitution in its mental impact, and that the prostitution industry is horrible while the surrogacy "industry" is doing no harm, so the comparison you're going to make in the next comment is moot.

I'm sure there are legitimate arguments for your side on this issue. But using wild hyperboles and delegitimizing everyone you oppose isn't a good look, and is very unconstructive for an argument. Disappointing.

Yes, I can read the comments above mine and read the results of the poll. I'm aware that an overwhelming majority of posters on this forum disagree with me.

It's awfully strange to open an "opinion of" thread and then lecture someone for having the temerity to disagree with you in strong terms.

I don't lecture someone for disagreeing with me, as you could see from my replies to other posters. I do find it disappointing that you imply everyone who disagrees with you is "sick and screwed up".

I also think that "I oppose surrogacy, therefore discriminating gays is better than letting everyone have a surrogacy" is a point of view similar to "I oppose religion, therefore banning Islam is better than letting everyone practice a religion". Sure, it doesn't come from a homophobic worldview which I'm sure you don't have, but it promotes homophobic policies. But that's another thing.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I know it's shocking, but not everyone agrees with your opinion. Some people happen to believe that surrogacy is a completely legitimate process and that "commodifying the womb" isn't different from commodifying the hands of a construction worker. Others also happen to believe that surrogacy is wildly different from prostitution in its mental impact, and that the prostitution industry is horrible while the surrogacy "industry" is doing no harm, so the comparison you're going to make in the next comment is moot.

I'm sure there are legitimate arguments for your side on this issue. But using wild hyperboles and delegitimizing everyone you oppose isn't a good look, and is very unconstructive for an argument. Disappointing.

Yes, I can read the comments above mine and read the results of the poll. I'm aware that an overwhelming majority of posters on this forum disagree with me.

It's awfully strange to open an "opinion of" thread and then lecture someone for having the temerity to disagree with you in strong terms.

I don't lecture someone for disagreeing with me, as you could see from my replies to other posters. I do find it disappointing that you imply everyone who disagrees with you is "sick and screwed up".

How exactly would you phrase a criticism of a culture that accepts something you find reprehensible?

How about "surrogacy is sick and screwed up"? Btw, you can't "recall" a MK in Israel.

If there's any insight social conservatives have to offer the public square it's that reproductive organs are very, very different from callused hands and strong backs.

I disagree.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I know it's shocking, but not everyone agrees with your opinion. Some people happen to believe that surrogacy is a completely legitimate process and that "commodifying the womb" isn't different from commodifying the hands of a construction worker. Others also happen to believe that surrogacy is wildly different from prostitution in its mental impact, and that the prostitution industry is horrible while the surrogacy "industry" is doing no harm, so the comparison you're going to make in the next comment is moot.

I'm sure there are legitimate arguments for your side on this issue. But using wild hyperboles and delegitimizing everyone you oppose isn't a good look, and is very unconstructive for an argument. Disappointing.

Yes, I can read the comments above mine and read the results of the poll. I'm aware that an overwhelming majority of posters on this forum disagree with me.

It's awfully strange to open an "opinion of" thread and then lecture someone for having the temerity to disagree with you in strong terms.

I don't lecture someone for disagreeing with me, as you could see from my replies to other posters. I do find it disappointing that you imply everyone who disagrees with you is "sick and screwed up".

I also think that "I oppose surrogacy, therefore discriminating gays is better than letting everyone have a surrogacy" is a point of view similar to "I oppose religion, therefore banning Islam is better than letting everyone practice a religion". Sure, it doesn't come from a homophobic worldview which I'm sure you don't have, but it promotes homophobic policies. But that's another thing.

That's a strange analogy.  Banning all religions is anti-Islam by definition.

The point was that supporting a blanket ban on something is one thing, but supporting a discriminatory ban on one group BECAUSE you support a blanket ban is supporting a policy discriminating this group, whether or not it comes from a personal dislike towards the group.

If there's any insight social conservatives have to offer the public square it's that reproductive organs are very, very different from callused hands and strong backs.

I disagree.

No one in the history of the universe has ever gotten pregnant from building houses. That alone is a BFD.

I don't see how it should matter to me?

I know it's shocking, but not everyone agrees with your opinion. Some people happen to believe that surrogacy is a completely legitimate process and that "commodifying the womb" isn't different from commodifying the hands of a construction worker. Others also happen to believe that surrogacy is wildly different from prostitution in its mental impact, and that the prostitution industry is horrible while the surrogacy "industry" is doing no harm, so the comparison you're going to make in the next comment is moot.

I'm sure there are legitimate arguments for your side on this issue. But using wild hyperboles and delegitimizing everyone you oppose isn't a good look, and is very unconstructive for an argument. Disappointing.

Yes, I can read the comments above mine and read the results of the poll. I'm aware that an overwhelming majority of posters on this forum disagree with me.

It's awfully strange to open an "opinion of" thread and then lecture someone for having the temerity to disagree with you in strong terms.

I don't lecture someone for disagreeing with me, as you could see from my replies to other posters. I do find it disappointing that you imply everyone who disagrees with you is "sick and screwed up".

How exactly would you phrase a criticism of a culture that accepts something you find reprehensible?

How about "surrogacy is sick and screwed up"?

That's the practice not the culture. How would you criticize the culture

I guess I can't really find a way to criticize it. I apologize if I came off as abrasive, but I did feel like Averroës' post was pretty dismissive of the concerns of the Israeli LGBTQ community. Considering the fact that many anti-surrogacy advocates support the strikes for the other goals it advocates, I'll settle on believing that he just puts opposition to surrogacy way higher than opposing discrimination against the community on his list of priorities. Which he has a right for, of course, but it does entail supporting homophobic policies.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I have no issues with anyone consenting to do any of those things for pay. ¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯

I believe that there's a difference between the two issues.
Imo, prostitution is wrong because it basically forces a woman to have sexual intercourse with a man she doesn't desire- yes, it's technically consent, but almost always comes out of desperation, so it's not really freedom. I think there's clearly a reason, for example, that we penalize rape as one of the worst crimes- sex is something deep that, if forced, can be extremely traumatizing. And that's amplified with how terrible that whole industry is.

Meanwhile, I don't view giving birth as similar. The woman merely rents her womb- she usually doesn't even provide the egg. Personally, I don't see any problem with it.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Alright, so I've just read a Facebook post of an Israeli surrogate mother. The short version is, it's a heavily regulated process in our country, with psychological checks, medical and legal advice, a myriad of checks and double checks with professionals to make sure the risks are minimal and be certain that the surrogate is fully aware of everything and is not in it just because she needs the money. It's definitely a clean process that prevents exploitation, unlike in third world countries.

So, I ask everyone who voiced opposition to any law allowing surrogacy in Israel, to gay people or generally- what do you think about that? Wouldn't you rather Israeli couples go for this process rather than search for their parenthood in another country, where it might be less ideal than here? Mostly directing this to Averroës and DC Al Fine, who implied that it's good that the law doesn't include gay couples becasue it restricts surrogacy for at least *someone*. But also to anyone else

[America Needs R'hllor]

If a woman has problem giving birth in her own what's wrong with paying someone to do it? If someone doesn't have a car they can pay someone to drive them with Uber and Lyft. Same principle.

I think the problem (and I'm not necessarily opposing it here) is that surrogacy could have some unfortunate implications due to the power imbalance. Let's say surrogacy becomes popular amongst the infertile, gay men and even women who simply don't want to go through the unpleasant nature of pregnancy (which as much as we romanticise it, is a huge burden on a woman's health and life with lingering aesthetic effects afterwards). This would largely be service for the rich, and for the most part would be done for the poor, because of the aforementioned investment required would not be desirable for most. This presents a lot of problems: let's say you're a poor woman in a poor country, and a rich couple from the West ask you to carry their baby with an amount of money that could help your family survive and maybe educate a few of your siblings as well: you'd be immensely pressured to take up the offer. Extending it further, what if it is just "the done thing" amongst the elite to avoid the lingering burdens and lasting stretch marks of pregnancy and just as a matter of course pay for surrogates; and what if it's the done thing for all poor women with no other options to automatically go into the easiest option? At the very least, people should be informed that surrogacy is not an easy source of cash.

There are several horror stories (off the top of my head, one particularly disgusting one was an Australian couple who realised that one of their surrogate twins had Downs, and so abandoned him in Thailand and asked for a refund (?) ) but that might be solved via regulation.

You're right- the poorly regulated surrogacy in developing countries is a problem. But from what I've read, many of the surrogate mothers in Israel aren't even poor. There's extensive and effective regulation that protects, before anything else, the surrogate, and makes sure she's not treated as inferior.

Second, surrogacy is not only for wealthy couples. Not at all. There are many couples who save money for this purpose, just like others save money to buy a home. The desire to be a parent is deep and strong both for the rich and the poor. I can assure you that I'm not rich, but I still hope to someday get a child for me and my future partner with a surrogacy process, and that I'll be able to do it here in my own country so that I can meet the woman personally, be there with her for all of these months and make sure she's fine.

[America Needs R'hllor]

You're right there (and an interesting argument would be that legalising such practices in the west would eliminate the much much more problematic practice in the developing world). Ultimately personal autonomy should win out in the end: if someone has a desire to carry a baby for someone else, they shouldn't be stopped (incidentally in my country surrogacy is legal but only "altruistic" surrogacy, which kind of carries its own odd little debates), but I hope regulation is sufficient that there isn't a wild west of womb renting.

I totally agree. About altruistic surrogacy- in Israel it's also considered technically altruistic. The money given to the surrogate mother isn't considered a salary or payment, but rather compensation for what she went through.
And I do think that by making surrogacy illegal, western countries basically force gay couples and others who need a surrogate mother to search for it in the east. This is both unfourtunate because it likely makes it a process for richer couples who can afford the travel and is thus unequal, and because it might cause exploitation for women in developing countries. This reinforces my criticism for the Scandinavian countries (where Sweden, for example, made all surrogacy illegal)- it seems to me like these countries love to feel morally superior while actually doing harm (e.g. Denmark wanting to make circumcision illegal, constant virtue-signaling against Israel from their safe perch up in northern Europe, the surrogacy issue in Sweden etc).