Biden will address your 'gender identity' rather than your sex.

I'm starting to think that Biden is dimmer than I previously thought. Either that or he's a career politician without any values or principles of his own. I'm increasingly picturing him as a doddery old man who relies on his advisors for his every move and has neither the strength of mind or character to come up with any ideas of his own or forge his own path.

Advantages that older people can often offer, such as wisdom, moderation, the experience of years, the ability to unite, seem to lacking in Biden.

I hope I'm wrong.

Anyway, Trump is now about to give his departure speech, the final event of his presidency. Let's see whether he aims for legacy, to stir up his base to cause further polarisation, or something else.

It should be happening shortly but Trump is not well known for his time-keeping.

But it gives all those of the True Faith something to cross themselves over and say a prayer of thanks about.

Yes. Personally I can't think of a more stupid or potentially divisive "first move in office" than to focus on identity politics with such a contentious issue too. It makes Biden look out of touch to a lot of ordinary people who aren't part of the religion.

I suspect it will be the opposite. Trump was a convenient bogeyman. Now that he's out they have to keep the manufactured moral panic going. The general media and political pundits have expanded the narrative to turn him into some evil nemesis with hoardes of white supremacists at his beck and call lurking around every corner. Everyone is a white supremacist now (apart from those making the claims of course). Considering the sheer volume of people who voted for Trump, this poses an inconvenient conundrum. How to resolve this? Maybe some introspection to decide they might have been wrong on some issues? No! Just expand the definitions and narrative even further! Now there's a new villain in town - 'multiracial whiteness'. 😂

One significant achievement by Trump was to trigger a responsive reaction of polarisation on the progressive side. The progressive side now has its own quasi-religious belief systems in which extraordinary behaviours are permitted and alternative (fake) facts. The more progressives operate in a reactive mode, the more they bolster Trump's cause. Trump might be very stupid in some ways but in some key areas he has a brilliant intuitive sense of how to define and control the larger conflict.

In afraid that I think some of them really are that zealous. AOC, for example - she wants people put on lists and sent for re-education: she gives me the shivers.

SunsetBeetch, that's not what I said.

In my view, Trump has become a figurehead. Anything that he does the Left automatically hates and his supporters automatically applaud. If Trump stood up and said the sky was blue, the Left would argue otherwise.

The issue is that people aren't looking at the arguments - they just see that Trump is against transgender people using facilities designed for the opposite sex and will automatically take the opposing view. Politics has been unhealthily partisan in the US for years (look at the Tea Party) , but it's become markedly worse since Trump took office.

My hope, perhaps naively, is that with the figurehead gone, people can start to look at actual policies rather than being pro- or anti-something based purely on whether or not they like the President.

I can only hope that with Trump out of the way, nuance can start to return to this area of politics

Seriously? You think the problem this whole time has just been with Trump?

"Buckle up Dorothy, Kansas is going bye bye" 😯

One of Biden's priorities and first acts - to be enacted on his first day in office - will be to allow transgender access to toilets and sports.

Spiked article on Biden and wokeness:
www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/19/joe-biden-is-promoting-wokeness-on-steroids/

If Rachel Levine is even moderately competent as a medical professional they will understand the crucial importance of sex and should explain the science to Biden.
It is unforgiveable not to include sex, particularly as males are less resistant to Covid than females.

[quote BraveBananaBadge]Lisa Nandy praising Biden as a ‘woke guy’ has made me cringe myself inside out this morning.

Why would trans rights be so prominent in this intro, I wonder? Ahead of everything including Black Lives Matter?

I’m not anti-Biden on the whole, but am certainly concerned about the issues raised in this thread.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/20/bidens-inauguration-is-a-source-of-hope-says-labours-lisa-nandy?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other[/quote]
"She said she believed UK voters would not be drawn easily into febrile conspiracy-fuelled politics and that the US election showed there was a “ceiling” for the amount of disruptive politics that voters would tolerate in a pandemic."

I think we all know what that ceiling is.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/15/understand-trumps-support-we-must-think-terms-multiracial-whiteness/

NonnyMouse I agree with you except:

Now there's a new villain in town - 'multiracial whiteness

I afraid to ask - but will do. What the...is that???

I can only hope that with Trump out of the way, nuance can start to return to this area of politics.

I suspect it will be the opposite. Trump was a convenient bogeyman. Now that he's out they have to keep the manufactured moral panic going. The general media and political pundits have expanded the narrative to turn him into some evil nemesis with hoardes of white supremacists at his beck and call lurking around every corner. Everyone is a white supremacist now (apart from those making the claims of course). Considering the sheer volume of people who voted for Trump, this poses an inconvenient conundrum. How to resolve this? Maybe some introspection to decide they might have been wrong on some issues? No! Just expand the definitions and narrative even further! Now there's a new villain in town - 'multiracial whiteness'. 😂

I rarely see evidence of moderate liberals having the courage to stand up against the highly illiberal 'progressives' or whatever people want to call them. They haven't been able to do it so far, so what are the chances they will discover a backbone this late in the game?

No, it will come down to ordinary people, as you say, bringing court case after court case and suing everyone they possibly can. Fingers crossed the strategy works.

Why not sex?

To have the first female Vice President - possibly first president as Biden is the oldest President - and yet we have this - women left with no protection in law.

I don’t think she is as dim as Biden. How can she not see the obvious consequences of this. She could do SO much for women and girls.

You couldn’t make it up.

It will be an utter disaster.

I can only hope that with Trump out of the way, nuance can start to return to this area of politics.

Perhaps I am hoping for too much.

And, as I've said before, Americans need to start suing and hope the legal system hasn't been captured. It's the only way to get anything done over there.

I absolutely want trans people to have the same level of protections as anyone else. But women and same-sex attracted people deserve to have protection too. Which requires recognising biological sex. I find it so shocking and don’t understand how equality can ever be achieved by deliberately omitting ‘sex’. Sex is not gender, never will be.

Lisa Nandy praising Biden as a ‘woke guy’ has made me cringe myself inside out this morning.

Why would trans rights be so prominent in this intro, I wonder? Ahead of everything including Black Lives Matter?

I’m not anti-Biden on the whole, but am certainly concerned about the issues raised in this thread.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/20/bidens-inauguration-is-a-source-of-hope-says-labours-lisa-nandy?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

How can they omit biological sex as a category?! For many people in so many different contexts it will be their defining characteristic. What about diversity and representation and protection and equality for women?!

BBC have written an article on diversity in Bidens appointment, not mentioning gender issues just make vs female appointments. It’s not OK to laud female appointments as showing any kind of commitment to diversity if those in power won’t or can’t actually discuss or repress biological sex in policymaking. Women appointees will be read as being about biological sex representation and representing the lived experience of women... not about femininity stereotypes representation:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55080344

Has the FWR thread on Bidens nomination of transwoman (Dr Rachel Levine) to a health post been pulled?

Rachel Levine’s Twitter account says nomination is not confirmed into an appointment as yet:
mobile.twitter.com/SecretaryLevine/status/1351647580086743043

It's become simplified now into "good vs bad"

I agree. I think in a horrifically divided country the focus should be stitching it back together not finding new ways to label and separate, but it is what I was expecting and I didn't want to be proven right (I did really), this is a big problem for women in the US. I hope they are getting ready.

I also hope the Republicans are considering all this and how they shed the Trump obsession and ready to challenge all this because Biden/Harris are just getting started.

I have no issue with the US feds NOT discriminating on the basis of gender identity - why would they? I don’t want them to. I don’t care if Biden guarantees he won’t discriminate on the basis of rising sign or enneagram type or Hogwarts House or favourite Pokemon. I do have an issue with the omission of sex as a basis on which they guarantee not to discriminate. Why not tell the public you won’t discriminate on the basis of sex?

I guess all we can do is focus on UK institutional capture.