Anyone else think Trump will ultimately do more damage to the gender critical cause?

In the medium to long term, the left/Dems will have to ditch Genderism if they ever want to get reelected - see NotBadConsidering's post above. And at that stage, GC views will stop being associated with Trump specifically.

Yes, I agree with this. We're already starting to see it here with Labour, Wes Streeting is not a popular figure among TRAs, and nor is Starmer, even TRA adjacent MPs like Rayner have been criticised for not doing something about it and prioritising their careers.

@savehannah Please define exactly what you mean by 'fascism'.

This is a word that I am seeing bandied about more and more, yet it is increasingly being diluted in its meaning. Therefore, I would like to know exactly what you mean when you use it.

I think it's more the case that the Democrat's abandonment of science directly contributed to Trump's win.

I realise I didn't really answer the question posed by the OP, so here goes:

It may well be that GC gets more associated with Trump in the short term, but there's not a lot to be done about that.
Many people will also think that GC (sex realism, really) attitudes are just correct and won't be bothered about who else supports them.

In the medium to long term, the left/Dems will have to ditch Genderism if they ever want to get reelected - see NotBadConsidering's post above. And at that stage, GC views will stop being associated with Trump specifically.

I do a lot of gaming (probably too much) and ‘chat’ to American gamers online. They are not young males locked in their bedrooms but adults, men and women, with proper jobs. A surprising number switched sides and voted for Trump because of gender issues and the unfairness being introduced into women’s sports. But hey a vote is not forever as once he has sorted the problem out I will vote Democratic next time. Pro trans politics being a headline is not a vote winner in the States.

I don't think you know what 'gender critical' is. Trump is no way 'gender critical'.

'Gender critical' feminists are already regarded as fascist-adjacent, so it's not like TRAs were waiting for an excuse like Trump's EOs to attack us.

It does mean that we keep having to bat away posters - or more often 'ploppers' who plop down an accusation, and then scarper - saying we must love Trump and all he stands for if we agree with one or two of his EOs.
But there'll always be eejits like that, they just have a new false accusation to play with.

As far as lesbian and gay rights being caught in the crossfire from the trans-related EO, it has had the opposite effect at the very heart of lesbian and gay history: at the Stonewall Bar in NYC where the 1969 riots were a crucial moment in the development of a gay rights movement.

It had been taken over by the trans movement, plastered in trans and 'Progress' flags, and the history of the events in 1969 had been rewritten to give a central role to transwomen - anachronistic since transgenderism hadn't been invented in 1969, and the clientele of the Stonewall Bar were gay men, some of them transvestites or drag queens, but gay men.

The EO required the National Monuments website to remove trans references. In this case the '✂T' order has removed one of the most galling cases of the trans movement rewriting L&G history, and the description of the 1969 Stonewall Riots is now historically accurate again.

Agreed. In fact this debate will be more intense earlier than that see the mid terms 20 months away in 2026.

Are Dems going to go into that election saying women don't exist or not? Every candidate will face the question. If we think the gender wars in the US have hit a peak think again 2026 will be crazy. I think a bunch of Dems, not all will suddenly reverse ferret like mad.

The Dems had a choice they could have backed women and JKR there was a chance to back off. Instead they said "trans" stuff is one of our top issues and that undermine everything else they said. Biden did more gender stuff by exec order than many other topics. That was a choice.

Remember Trump himself and most repubs never really focused on this stuff till after women started complaining and then they leapt on the band waggon. Yes religious people had a focus but even for them the priority was abortion.

The 1st Trump administration stopped trans stuff in military, but let men rape women in prison, let schools tell kids their bodies were wrong and let women's sport get undermined. Because Jenner and a bunch of others had influence and there was big profits for corporations.

Trump was forced by women [and decent men]] doing things to start taking this stuff seriously. Now they are pretending it was their priority all along.

The support for the lies of genderism also undermined the Democrats' attempt to get voters to believe their concerns about Trump's intentions were valid or grounded. As they say, if you lie about something so fundamental as sex, I won't believe a word you say about anything else.

It is and was the left (except for the Communists) which cast support for women's rights as a right wing policy position. The right just said ta very much and stuck the ball in the net.
You reap what you sow.

Trump didn't invent sex realism or women's rights. I can't stop the Democrats trying to pretend that he did.

Like a pp, I don't believe Trump is anti-gay. Speaking as a non-citizen it seems to me it's only a particular grouping of the Republicans - the religious right - which is fundamentally and virulently homophobic. And therefore big fans of transgenderism itself.

Project 2025 sounds ghastly and I am disgusted with the Democrats for placing more importance on getting male people into women's toilets than on beating Trump - if they were so against Project 2025. Taking a supportive position on Women's rights would have been an easy win, not to mention a morally right and scientifically sound policy position, for a party that prides itself on its goodness and rationality. But Genderism is and was everything to them and in my cynicism I see Project 2025 as the new "abortion rights".

If Project 2025 is coming about, it's as much on the Democrats as on Trump, and I cannot see why or how giving up women's rights to fair sports, or privacy for example would prevent execution of the other policies.

My concern is that it will further polerise the two sides (which imho is American politics' fault anyway) so that embedded into people mind will always be that trump = bad therefore all his policies are bad, even the good ones. No one needs to think deeply about anything (as per bloody unusual) because they will support their team and that's it.

I think it would have been immesurably more powerful for the Dems to support women but now I think because trump has taken on this position they are now far less likely to.

The fact that the liberals are in power in the UK and we are still seeing the tide turn and there is far less general group think in both parties on this issue means that we are in a far better position to stop it, indeed we ARE stopping it. It might take another decade or two but the momentum and bloody hard work of thousands of women (and some men) would have had no hand holds in the climbing wall if we didn't have at least SOME variation in binary political tribalism.

I agree that if the GC gets inextricably linked to whatever else Donald Trump gets up to that could be damaging. Only time will tell. Trump didn't have any anti gay policies as far as I know although Project 2025 is anti gay marriage. It's currently not clear how close to Project 2025 Trumps presidency is going to be.
This article in the New York Post mentions some gay appointees. (Seems a bit of a puff piece but it's surprisingly difficult to get information on this) Obviously, despite the headline there are no Ts involved.
nypost.com/2025/01/18/us-news/trump-is-tapping-members-of-the-lgbt-community-for-top-spots-in-administration/

No.

Because to reverse his executive orders a Democrat Presidential candidate for 2028 will need to convince the voting public why he (and it will be a he, the Democrats won’t go with a woman again):

a) wants to allow men and boys back into women and girls’ sport again

b) provide federal funding for this

c) provide federal funding to re-start the sterilisation and surgical mutilation of children

d) allow males to assume a legal woman identity and enter federal building single sex spaces.

One of two things will happen with the prospective 2028 Democrat Presidential candidate when he is inevitably asked about these things. He will either:

1. agree that these things need to stay, have a chance of being elected and have to keep them or
2. commit to reversing these EOs and kiss any chance he has of being elected goodbye, and the new Republican candidate will just perpetuate them.

Remember some of these EOs are the most bipartisan-supported decisions ever taken by a president. Democrat voters support the sport one in record numbers. It is not a right wing policy. It never was. None of his EOs are.

In another 8 years those who support men in women’s sport and sterilising children now will be quietly pretending they never did. These policies are here to stay regardless of other things he may do on a global scale with respect other matters.

I’m slightly more concerned about the damage he’s doing to the world

Trump hates trans people more than he hates women, that's all it is really.
I am GC and it horrifies me that other seemingly GC people are cheering Trump along.

I think though that his views are allowing people to be a bit more gender critical without being immediately shut down.

In answer to your question though - I don't know!

"However, since Trump is also anti-homosexual, anti-abortion and anti-reproductive (and other) rights for women, I feel this will just lead to even more of a backlash."

"Trump hates them all and wants to take away their rights so they are all a marginalised minority and need to fight together against the fascism."

Evidence please. There are definitely gay men in his administration, and I hear these other claims often repeated but rarely backed with evidence. These claims mostly seem to be the usual hyperbole from people suffering from TDS.