No Uterus, No Opinion. Is this a fallacy?

With the recent abortion ban in Alabama, lots of women have taken to the web to blog about their opinions of this new law. Most of the articles I have read talk about the "25 white men" who voted for all of Alabamas women. In this specific article, the author says "Not your body, and especially if you're a male, not your choice", as well as "No Uterus, No Opinion. Sorry, Not Sorry".

Does this seem to be a fallacy, maybe Ad Hominem? What do you think? Thanks!

I agree with Abdulazeez's conclusion regarding the fallacy.

Just to add something to the reasoning of the argument presented: It was the men and women of Arkansas who elected these men to represent them. This is how government works. The people of Arkansas are far more pro-life than pro-choice<>, so the politicians appear to be doing their jobs (as much as the rest of us might cringe). The implied proposed solution is absurd... that any time women's issues require a vote, men must abstain from the vote, therefore, failing to represent their constituents. However, it should be pointed out that 31% of Alabamian's <>(right word?) support the kind of extreme ban suggested, which indicates that the politicians are NOT representing their constituents well. Perhaps it could be argued that even pro-life women are more sensitive to the rape/incest exception then men are, but I have not seen data on that.

One more thing, national polls on Abortion from Gallup&lt and Pew&lt show that there is NO statistically significant difference between men and women's views on abortion, which destroys this whole narrative. The two major factors that influence someone's proclivity to take away women's choice is religion and political party. The clear enemy of women's rights here is religious conservatives, not men.

Yes, that's the identity fallacy<>. It is when the arguer's gender, race, social class, etc is used to judge the truth of their statements. Surely, specifics like the gender or ethnicity of the arguer have absolutely no bearing on whether or not their conclusions and statements are right or wrong. As much as I am against abortion ban laws, I would not want to argue against them fallaciously.

It could be an Ad hominem (Guilt by association), but on its face it's just an opinion about who gets to have an opinion. Which, of course is nonsense.

Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)
argumentum ad hominem

(also known as: association fallacy, bad company fallacy, company that you keep fallacy, they’re not like us fallacy, transfer fallacy)

Description: When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.

Logical Form:

Person 1 states that Y is true.
Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is a moron.
Therefore, person 1 must be a moron too.
Example #1:

Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work. This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support. Extremists like Delores should not be taken seriously -- at least politically.
Explanation: Making the assumption that Delores is an extreme feminist simply because she supports a policy that virtually every man and woman also support, is fallacious.

I have been seeing a lot of women on facebook post their opinion that all men should get vasectomies. If I told these women that they don't have a choice because they don't have seminal vesicles then I would be committing the same fallacy. I think it's reasonable for women to have opinions about vasectomies just as men can have opinions about abortion, but saying you are wrong because of your gender is a fallacy. What I have learned from studying fallacies is that people very often have stupid reasons for believing in good ideas. Feminists blame men for these bans on abortion, when they should be blaming conservatives, religion, poverty, and ignorance. There are better things to blame than men for the abortion ban.

This is wrong for a few reasons. First: You are wrong because you are a man--is the bulverism fallacy, which is a combination of the identity fallacy and genetic fallacy.

If you apply an "argument to the consequences" there are more problems. If it is true that you cannot have an opinion about uteruses if you don't have a uterus then you can't have an opinion even if you are a man who is hip to the most feminist ideas about uteruses. There are some women who don't have uteruses, those who have undergone a hysterectomy. I wonder what feminists say about them.

Man: "Men should not make laws controlling women's bodies."
Feminist:"You are wrong because you don't have a uterus!"

Feminists would not disagree with a man if he agreed with a feminist, but this is the fallacy of special pleading.

Feminists: "If you are against abortion you can't have an opinion because you don't have a uterus but if you are for abortion then you can have an opinion even though you don't have a uterus."