Horrifying Republican response to Bishop's sermon

You are seriously confused !
This is giving white men an excuse to only hire white men !

They don't vote Democrat, so why bother with them?

Exactly. Do these people even hear themselves?

Women who say that sex is real and politically salient, that they would like to retain their OWN (hard fought for, btw) legal rights and protections being compared with racists. It's a disgusting and fact-free comparison to make. But it's yet another manipulative appropriation we've heard often from the woman-hating men's-rights activist TRA crowd (a great many of whom meanwhile are busy sending violent abuse and threats to any woman who opposes them, fails to sufficiently pander or even asks questions about their 'movement'. And oddly, TRAs tend to do this in ways that are remarkably and demonstrably incel-like).

Still, I'd have expected nothing better from the sort of individuals who think placing male rapists in prisons with incarcerated women (which goes against long-established global human rights protocols) is not only fine, but the height of progressiveness and somehow the next frontier in "civil rights". While sending children who don't fit rigid old-fashioned pink and blue sex stereotypes enough for their narrow minded, socially conservative sensibilities down irreversible medical pathways to 'correct' them and calling it 'trans healthcare.'

I think a lot of Democratic Party activists have ignored First Nations peoples of the USA (except to leverage their two spirit beliefs).

Humour me - do you think transgender people who are frightened of the future under Trump should be treated with mercy and compassion or not?

But what are they frightened of?

If it's the removal of privileges such as those conferred under the Biden's first day EO then no I don't have so much sympathy. If it's the removal of males from the women's prison estate no, I have none.

I do think that transgender people are more vulnerable in the US due to the fact that they are not protected from discrimination in respect of housing and employment rights and so long as they are not trying to remove women's sex based rights they should be able to live their lives peacefully without facing such hardships.

This whole shit show has resulted from actions and inactions from the Democrats. As others have pointed out they totally ignored the impact of this on women and made an argument that somehow giving women sex based protections would have a detrimental impact on reproduction rights. What a load of rubbish. People have short memories. Obama promised to codify Roe v Wade - if he'd made that a first day EO then they wouldn't be able to use that as a stick to beat women with because the Supreme Court couldn't have overturned it.

The Democrats don't have too much political appetite for women's rights when it comes down to it, only in so far as it props the rights of men. Otherwise they would protect women.

It's a fucking disgrace that neither side of the political debate puts women first.

So now we have Trump coming to the rescue. We know he's no feminist but he saw a gap and took it.

The fact that this EO helps women and we say so doesn't make us right wing aligned.

As for the Bishop's sermon, she should not face abuse but she should have had more sense than to flame the fire.

Wow.
You really do hold women in contempt don't you.

I can imagine the sour-faced Dems googling away to try to find something obnoxious to say about the Lumbee Tribe😂

I know! Actually doing some of the stuff that the Dems pay lip service to.

I really think they are trolling the Dems now😂😂😂

Such an awful racist, <checks notes> recognising the sovereign rights of the Lumbee Tribe...

People aren't all good or all bad. They are people.

No it isn't.

He's signed an order to say you cannot discrimaate based on race.

Which was illegal anyway but many universities and governement organisations were doing it under Diversity Equiyy and Inclusion policies .
He's going to pull their funding if they don't stop.

It's a big shift.

It is true !!

Thank you for that.

So basically, what this EO stops is me being given a job preferentially because I have a vulva? Or someone being given a job preferentially because they are a particular race, or are disabled? If you read our own Equality Act 2010, you will see that we have similar laws that limit such preferential treatment here.

These preferential policies are often a bad idea. In the rare circumstances where they are useful (like all-women shortlists for British Parliamentary candidates were back when we had bugger all women in Parliament), they should be reviewed at intervals with the aim of repealing them in the future. They also don't reaolve structural and institutional workplace problems that discourage women and minorities from applying fir jobs and staying in post. For example, AWS didn't solve the problem that female ministers couldn't take maternity leave, which was a barrier to women taking ministerships: that only got solved by MOMA, and look how much venom-spitting there was about the use of the word "mother" in that law.

I have seen American men complain online about "diversity hires" and women express concern that they will be seen as a "diversity hire" even if they aren't one. It undermines the perceived competence of women and minorities in the workplace if we are hired because we are women and minorities, and that harms us in the long-run.

Shamelessly stolen from El Reg commenter Falmari on that article:

After 60 years Johnson's Equal Employment Opportunity EO is erased on the whim of one man. There should have been no need for the EO, after 60 years Equal Employment Opportunity should have been laws passed by congress.

Emphasis mine.

It seems as if it was only just a few short months ago that posters on this board were unable to state biological reality without posts being removed. TW certainly couldn’t be referred to as men.

Now, the most powerful leader of the most powerful country in the world says it loud and clear.

That really is Truth to Power.

I see.

Hitler, of course, was a vegetarian and failed artist. Do you think all vegetarians and failed artists are therefore Nazis too?

That is how ridiculous you sound. It's pathetic. I've never voted for anyone even slightly right wing in my life. And still never will. I wouldn't have voted for Trump. But this EO was sorely needed.

I've also had material-reality based feminist views all my life too. Because unlike you, clearly, many of us here understand very clearly the long history of women's rights and legislation. And that all of it, every single piece of that legislation that protected women, was based on our SEX, not some nebulous inner identity. In fact, you'll find most of the left once did, before some of the more privileged ones who felt they didn't have to worry about such lowly things as material reality or evidence and didn't really give a shit about the lower orders decided in around the late 80s that postmodernist queer theory, which had zero to do with women but had started becoming popular on US college campuses, should replace a more materialist class analysis. The EO does indeed largely align with the same principles as the reality-based feminism which many of us have been familiar with for most of our lives.

Are you seriously telling us that all feminist activists for the last 100 years, all those women who fought for women's rights and changed legislation and social attitudes to women, changed women's lives, were actually "fascists", Nazis, "far right bigots", Trump-aligned, or any of the rest of the historically illiterate claims you appear to be making here?

Trump was HANDED this on a plate by the failures of the Dems due to their obsessive pandering to men who identify as women and failure to listen to women and girls who were having their rights dissolved as result. Despite being warned that it was unpopular with most people who actually cared about fairness and women's historical rights. Not to mention the funding from the extremely wealthy trans lobby in the US (oh, and the entirely capitalist pharmaceutical industry who are helping push it. Onto children whose parents seem incapable of coping with the idea of gender nonconformity, or indeed that their children might turn out to be gay. See parents of "trans kid heroes" such as Kai Shappley, for instance- who beat him for not liking "boys things" due to their fear he was gay. Or those around Elliot Page, who not only struggled with sexual abuse, being objectified and Hollywood STILL not really accepting her being a lesbian - not to mention her own religious mother, who has made it very clear she prefers a "trans son" to a gay daughter. Just read Elliot's book.)

You are deluded if you imagine what you're championing isn't one of the most backwards, conservative ideologies there is. That you haven't been championing the dismantling of many of women's legal protections in the US, not to mention your support of gay conversion therapy. On MINORS. Shame on you. And shame on you for lying about and smearing those women who have been fighting against this regressive, bigoted bullshit for years. Your claims are false. Like pretty much everything claimed by adherents of this ridiculous ideology. It is people like YOU who I am holding entirely responsible for Trump and everything else he and the evangelical right - who are certainly NOT our allies - end up doing as a result of the Dems' idiocy over this issue. Own it - it's your fault.

Of course he's lapping it up. He knows it'll be popular and he knows it's been a massive blind spot that a lot of people, of all political persuasions and for different reasons, will support.

Exactly, and here we are witnessing Trump grifting that grift, and proving that he is very good at it.
Bishop Budde is a bishop in the Episcopalian church: an authority in the most middle class, leafy suburban denomination in the USA.
It has the least penetration into working class, migrant, black, and hispanic communities of any denomination in the USA.
In order to become an episcopalian bishop she will have to have received an education that most people in the USA can't afford (or, if they do try to afford it, they begin adulthood in a cycle of debt that they never recover from).
People who share her social class, her education, her cultural perspective will look at the scenes in the church as Budde speaking truth to power. I accept that this is one way of describing the situation - Trump is, after all, the president of the USA. Bishops are not to be sniffed at, sofar as status goes, but they don't have political power in the USA.
But for people who aren't in Budde's social class - people who Trump is interested in attracting - that scene of Budde praying a rebuke of Trump while he is unable to speak up in his own defense will bring to mind all the times that they are shamed and belittled by the authorities, by the elites, and they cannot speak up for themselves.
Of course Trump is ridiculously priviledged, incredibly wealthy, but he is a master of painting himself as the man of the people, struggling against the disapproval and disparagement of the elites.
My suggestion is that Trump anticipated what sort of thing Bishop Budde would say and do if she was leading the service and thus instigated, or at least permitted, her doing so.

I think either jessawoo has forgotten its the sex and gender board and not politics or does see women who oppose gender ideology as trump supporters.

What threads do you refer to? MN threads? Or the threads of discussion on this thread?

Because if you assume that 'most active posters on this board' have participated in Trump threads recently, then I suspect you are using a self selecting group that may or may not be supporting Trump to the degree you have stated and that may not be 'most active posters on this board'. I certainly have avoided most of them and flicking through them over the past months, so have quite a lot of others.

Just be going on this and another current thread that you have participated on, the over riding opinion of Trump seems to be 'I don't support him on anything but on the promise that he has made about this EO and his attempts to protect female sports categories and children'.

I must forget them immediately, because apart from last night I don't remember me talking much about DEI. Perhaps you can provide link to some of these many threads I post on. But I'm guessing not.

Sure you only have to post a different viewpoint for posters here to fall back on their belief that other feminists are posting in bad faith.

Didn't we do the 'Goody' thing to death several years ago?

Nobody cares about LGB they just get on with their lives, it's the TQ nonsense that he wants to put a lid on and thank goodness for small mercies. Leave the children alone and leave our spaces alone, that's all most women want and it seems what most Americans want.