compromises a person ’ s right to a dignified experience , consequentially compromises a person ’ s right to reproductive justice .
Based on the claim that the Impermissible Sacrifice Principle is not enough to guarantee reproductive justice , I believe it can be rendered unsatisfactory . It seems gender minorities would be caught between two situations that could both potentially perpetuate the oppression they face . Continuing to carry a child exacerbates their oppression as it encourages transphobia and gender-based pregnancy discrimination , but what is the alternative , when terminating a pregnancy may also exacerbate their oppression ? How could an individual choose which sacrifice to make and , how could it possibly be just to ask them to make such a choice ? It seems nonsensical , that the Impermissible Sacrifice Principle states that the oppressed group should not be required to make sacrifices , yet both options would require gender minorities to make a sacrifice .
Conclusion
Removing the Feminist Proviso with another specific to gender minorities , while ensuring transmen , non-binary and gender fluid individuals can access abortion , would mean restrictions back in place for cisgender women . It also , as I discussed , requires gender minorities to choose between the trauma of abortion or carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term . Both options compromise their reproductive justice . While its inclusion of all women may make the argument may seem progressive , it would benefit from further modifications to provide reproductive justice for all , regardless of gender identity .
So , does the Gender Based Defence guarantee reproductive justice for all who can bear children ? I conclude it does not , due to the exclusion of gender minorities such as transmen , non-binary and genderfluid individuals , even with considerable revisions . To show this , I first outlined Markowitz ’ s
37