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

President Obama sacked over 550 military officers including the Joint Chief of Staff, he wanted military whose politics aligned with his. It's within the power of the Executive.
President Trump has done similarly, firing those who imposed DEI and don't agree with his principles, which won him the election.

But don't worry we have a fab Attorney General in Pam Bondi and Kash Patel is in charge of the FBI and Tulsi Gabbard in charge of National Intelligence.
Are they female enough and or brown enough to please you?

This happened to day.

Gen Brown was the second black officer to hold the post, the holder of which advises both the president and the secretary of defence on national security.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had previously said that Gen Brown should be fired because of his "woke" focus on diversity, equity and inclusion programmes in the military.

Later on Friday, Hegseth announced the firings of two additional senior officers: Chief of Naval Operations Adm Lisa Franchetti and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen Jim Slife.

Adm Franchetti was the first woman to lead the US Navy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyr2xvn4dpo

And the way it was announced amounted to saying they had got the positions they had not through merit but by being falsely promoted by DEI initiatives.

By the way I think Trump is so lacking in ethics or consistency that it is just as likely he went along with these sackings to ingratiate himself with some of the more lunatic fringe of the Republican Party than he actually cares.

In some way that is worse ie that he will sell out anyone to keep himself as the winner.

The spin you are putting on it is really inappropriate IMO.

I haven't put a spin on it.

You have decided I am in the wrong because (without in fact saying whether I agree or not) I have said what I understand Trump to be saying.

And also you aren't right about the UK.

Fair enough.

Thank you!
This is very useful

Are you actually reading my posts? I’ve said that I’m gender critical and I’m concerned that Trump is not going to be a long-term benefit to our cause and have explained why. Obviously, you can disagree with that and it’s fine, but it’s abundantly clear that my concern is for women’s rights and spaces. A convicted sexual abuser and felon who is in part responsible for the removal of women’s reproductive rights, that has resulted in women’s deaths, is not likely to do our cause any good in the long-term. Or the short term, let’s be honest.

When its convenient to you. But just not womens rights to single sex spaces.

Europe has long known that it was likely that America would pull out of Ukraine at some point.

However, Trump actively supports Putin, repeating his taking points.

Re: constitution, giving Musk control of expenditure decisions that need approval from congress.

Trump is selling you what you want to hear in the same way that he has sold fake university courses and dodgy business deals. He doesn't care about the outcome, as long as he can take some cash and extract himself before it all goes pear shaped.

That old chestnut, or just care about women’s rights?

Absolutely, I know I modulate my speech depending on the audience. I think the giveaway is when it doesn't sound natural. Like hearing Biden speak to black audiences, and his speech is peppered with "ain't" and "y'all" when he never talks like that otherwise.

Republicans have their own version of this, but it's usually people from elite backgrounds trying to sound working class.

I think audiences can pick up on when it's fake. Though they might tolerate the fakeness from a politician who can do stuff for them.

Are you willing to die in Ukraine or your children? How about coming for a visit while missile and drones are dropping? This has been going on for 3 years.
A peace deal is a good thing.
Please state exactly with the articles where the Constitution is being subverted.
It's amazing when Clinton or Obama fired workers or generals as President it was a legitimate exercise of their executive powers.

And to be honest I don't think he thinks much about either Putin or the constitution. It's all just a TV performance.

Siding with murderous dictators like Putin. Openly trying to subvert the constitution.

Good Luck America.

I think this is a misunderstanding about what the real argument is in the US.

Id Pol, and affirmative action, have gone in a really different direction in the US (and Canada) than the UK.

In the UK you can't discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics - that's not a one sided thing. You can't put out a job advertisement for white people only, nor one for blacks or Asians or whatever.

That's not at all the case in the US, programs are not just trying to encourage women, or others, into sectors or education where they haven't been common. They are doing things like accepting candidates with lower qualifications, or race quotas, tying funding to race.

A heck of a lot of people in the US have a problem with this and want it firmly squashed. And that's not just white people who benefit from the patriarchy or whatever you want to say - in fact these policies are most popular with white people, and especially white women. Black and Hispanic people don't especially support them.

The spin you are putting on it is really inappropriate IMO.

I've heard a few black Americans in the last year or so criticize the way Obama talks to black audiences, using a fake accent and language. I think one even suggested that he practices in the mirror.

I am not sure that's 100% fair about either of them, most people unconsciously change their speech with differernt groups. And Harris in particular when to a black college so if she is the kind of person who picks up speech patterns she might well have done there. Obama though, it seems less likely, he was raised by a white mum outside the US to a large extent.

Yes, it was a crazy statement about a group of immigrants.

The issue was they were immigrants who, according to the story, were not able to buy food as they had no jobs, and so were eating pet.

That is not a racist claim, any more than it would be racist if it was a group of Polish people.

It seems like you don't know what the word racism means.

I know supporting free speech, stopping mass migration, trying to broker peace bringing down the 2 Trillion dollar debt will make a lot of the elite class abroad very unhappy.

Also THIS! 💯

Agreed op. He's all about hate and bigotry. There are plenty left wing GCs who don't want to erase trans people, they just want to protect the rights of women & girls.

I'm not going to applaud his bigotry for one second!

As 'progressive' American women voluntarily give away their right to be defined as a class, it's not surprising that America lags behind other countries when it comes to maternity and birth control rights.

Also, I have no problem whatsoever with 'de-gendering', but I think the removal of sexed words does the opposite.

Particularly when used in a medical or legal sense, 'Mother' and 'Woman' are necessary gender neutral words that simply refer to an adult human female and her relationship to her children. Similarly 'breast'. These words should not be confused with stereotypical expectations of behaviour or dress.

This might be different in the US/UK.

In the UK 'mother' in this sense has a specific meaning - the person who gives birth. It defines her legal relationship with the baby.

If you're rewriting legislation to cater to women who believe they're men but are also aware enough of their female biology to use IVF to get pregnant... that way madness lies.

Some old legislation might need rewording to take account of lesbian couples, but I can't imagine this is being driven by lesbian mothers clamouring to be designated as "inseminated persons".

If the person is inseminated, they are a woman. Thus mother. Only a female ie mother, can be inseminated. Its not a man being inseminated.

Its a woman. And if that woman has a baby, she is a mother. There is no other alternative.

I suggest it would be better to be less concerned with what people think about you, and being overly focused on Trump as a personality - and more concerned with speaking the truth and standing up for reality and for the dignity of women and girls.. Whatever you do, or don't do, those who are firmly embedded in their tribal way of thinking will still consider you to be a 'right wing fascist'. You can't pander to their bigotry and prejudice.