How is it possible to have *most* of your opinion pieces about women's bodies be written by men?

Can we lefties ditch the 90s-style identity politics? I always understood the point of that type of argument to be that if you're not a ____ then you don't understand the subtleties of being a _____, and therefore you misrepresent the issues.  We all lived through the problems of applying that kind of "qualified to speak for" logic.

So skip the identity bit and hit them on the weaknesses in their argument: what subtleties are these op-ed men missing?  Who are they misrepresenting?   What new or compelling points in defense of abortion rights are being missed (see example below)?  Is the point here the dearth of women editorialist as an indicator of women's participation in editorial conversation?  Is it the insinuation that men are jury-rigging the debate so they don't have to deal with women they agree with?  What's the message here?  And apropos of the blogospheric debate about female op-ed voices 6 months ago, who should be stepping up to replace them?

For my own (unqualified male) part, I'd suggest that the country's op-ed boards need people like Randi Rhodes or Molly Ivins - liberal women with a strong populist streak.  I would steer very clear of the academic feminist scene, as that group's track record is abysmal when it comes to formulating messages the public connects with.  And boy do we desperately need a new formulation of pro-choice messages.  I'm a solidly pro-choice man, and I'm bored to tears by the stuff I get on NARAL's mailing lists.  As an example of new points, I'd say that people like Jane Hamsher have done an awfully good job hammering home the point that pro-lifers like to call abortion "murder", but when push comes to shove, they can't really defend giving the rights of a child to an embryo or a fetus or prosecuting a woman or a doctor for "murder".  A chicken ain't a duck, no matter how you dress it up.  So by all means, push for the NYT to include more compelling defenders of abortion, but let the identity issues follow, not lead.

I always understood the point of that type of argument to be that if you're not a ____ then you don't understand the subtleties of being a _____, and therefore you misrepresent the issues.

With all due respect this argument suffers from straw man, delectroniceric2.  EJ never claimed that the writers should be exclusively female or even majority female.  She's only pointing out that the type of adults who in a free society would arguably be the only people making the final decision on whether to have an abortion should not be a tiny minority of the writers. The opinions of men on this topic are important but the Times behavior makes no sense given that no man has or ever will have to decide whether to abort a human being living within his own body.

But these are still two diferent arguments. You can have an argument about who should be selected to speak on an issue, or an argument on what position the Times is representing or should represent. But E.J. (and  Garance) should pick one or the other of these, not muddle the two up into an illogical mess.

Why publish women's voices on this issue? They'd just say they think women have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies and blah blah blah. Same old boring crap. It's like asking someone whose face you're kicking in what they think about it - they always just whine that it hurts.

</resigned sarcasm>