> Your definition of misogyny is far too narrow then, if you're focusing entirely on the concept of individual agency, yet ignoring the larger structural inequ

> Your definition of misogyny is far too narrow then, if you're focusing entirely on the concept of individual agency, yet ignoring the larger structural inequalities and power dynamics that constrain women's choices and perpetuate exploitation. There's a long history of imagined threats being used to take away people's rights. At the end of the day, you're saying that you know better than individual women what is best for them, and implying that you wish to take away their right to choose in ways that are inconsistent with your views. It's the pro-life argument, just in a different context. > Just because there are some regulations in place doesn't mean that exploitation doesn't occur. The fact remains that surrogacy often involves financial transactions where women's bodies are being used as a means to an end. It is not at all misogynistic to critically examine this. The problem with your argument is that there's ample evidence of successful surrogacies, with all sides walking away very happy. Your argument rests on some tortured process of explaining to people that no, they're actually super unhappy, they just don't know it. Which is nuts. Anecdotes from third world countries without adequate legal protections for surrogates are only useful for making the point that we need strong legal protections for surrogates, which I totally agree with. Ultimately, I do believe you're coming from a good place. I disagree though, profoundly, that banning surrogacy will in any way elevate or protect women. It will not. It will mostly harm same-sex and infertile couples. Many of which contain women. (It will also lead to many, many instances of people choosing to be surrogates anyway, except with no legal protection or framework.)