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

This.

@Chersfrozenface

Why "inseminated person"?

The poster had an issue with 'inseminated person' - specifically that the word 'mother' wasn't being used. The image gives that reason. With ICSI and/or surrogacy, they may not indeed be the "mother".

It is no about 'hatred' it is about common sense and about understanding the nature of material reality. Any sane person of sound mind understands that males are not females - and that women and girls have dignity and a need for privacy, and for fairness in their own sporting categories.

It is only the political tribalists who identify strongly as being 'progressive' who pretend otherwise. After Trump's win it wasn't long before a Democrat senator spoke out to agree that males should have no right to be in categories created especially for women and girls. Most people, when honest, understand this.

For the spouse yes. This isn't a problem for anyone who doesn't hate same sex marriage. The inseminated woman might be straight or might be a lesbian, so now the law covers all cases.

The problem is "inseminated person," yes? Clearly a biological male can't be inseminated. The problem occurs when a trans man is inseminated. As is, the law recognises the change. So the legislature has two problematic choices: write woman and then risk a court deciding the law doesn't apply to a trans man, because legally he's a man; or use the awkward gender neutral person. I have to say I look at legalese rather differently from popular and newspaper writing on this issue.

I think you have to give more people credit for some intelligence and independent thought, though it is true that those who identify themselves as being 'progressive' are going to be committed to their predictable stable of beliefs; and those who firmly identify as conservative are going to share broadly the same values as each other; but most don't firmly identify with any particular political party or set viewpoint. The rejection of gender ideology is just plain common sense.

Spouse is a gender neutral term though, so it fits. A husband is woman's spouse. A wife is a man's spouse. Spouse just means married partner. There is no gender to it. So spouse should be enough.

Hard disagree. They wouldn't be Democrat if Republican backed them. Transactivism is definitely not to be confused with conviction politics, they goto whover will have them. As Trump isn't a career politician, I'm far more inclined to assess his beliefs as genuine (for good or ill) than what is expedient, knee-jerk opposition or fashionable in certain circles as practised by AOC and others.

As someone who currently lives in a liberal part of the US: trans activists would still not be pro Trump, and if Trump didn't hate trans people, at least in public, he would have no political career. To be quite honest, I suspect Trump's policies on both abortion and trans people are not about sincerity, but about what is necessary for his career. At the moment he is being quite a bit more than a run of the mill crap politician. They don't usually announce that they can ignore the legislature and the courts and rule by decree.

Meh. If Trump was pro-trans they'd be all over him but as he isn't he has to be shown he's the devil incarnate (which he isn't, he's just a bog-standard crap politician). Transactivists have no problem schmoozing with the worst of UK Conservatives, Blunt for example. The cries of Right!!! Wing!!!! Fascist!!!!!!!!!! at any woman who dares to think she has rights is literally just because of that reason. There's no other way it can go: transactivism (inc non-binary activism) is based on narcissistic Main Character Syndrome so if you're not 100% support animal you're whatever their insult du jour is.

Well first off the law is clearly being written to allow for same sex couples, since "husband" gets rewritten as "spouse." And at the moment, the law does recognise trans men. Who do get inseminated. If they wrote woman it would create a loophole. I don't see any way to fix this law independently. As much as I think the de-gendering of everything surrounding pregnancy and birth has gone too far, you can't separate the laws like that.

This won't have been drafted by a legislator either; they actually have legal professionals in state legislatures to do the wording.

How does that make it any better?

Why "inseminated person"?

"Person" encompasses any human. Indeed, that is very much the point of using the word, in order to include both men and women

Men, i.e. biological males, cannot be inseminated for reproductive purposes.

The only reason for using "inseminated person" is to pander to women who say they are men or of no sex. Which they cannot, in fact, be.

Ergo, it comes under the heading of "genderist claptrap".

@WillIEverBeOk

Quite, it's never going to happen, at least in the next 12 to 15 years. Even Martina (Navratilova - huge Democrat supporter and 'terf') said the Democrats have learned nothing from their defeat. And here's the PROOF they've learned absolutely butt fuck all NOTHING: I just read (on Martina's twitter) that Democrat Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has introduced a bill that will change state law to replace the word "mother" with "inseminated person."

I betcha anything father will still be father.

Inseminated person. That is what we're (If Evers gets his way) reducing women to now. And some of you still can't see how malicious, malignant and misogynistic this Mens Rights Movement is.

Inseminated person? FUCK OFF! The more this goes on, the more I really am starting to hate trans people. For real.

This part of the Bill actually refers to ICSI/artificial insemination - not all pregnancies. Did you read the relevant section of the Bill?

We'll see whether one gets tabled then, won't we?

Again. It doesn't matter. What people voted for in states does not stop their federal legislators from voting for a national ban, which would override state constitutions.

In the cases I've referred to, it's not a matter of what their voters think, it's how their voters voted.

Those ballots weren't opinion polls,

Their results amend the constitution of each state, with the effect of protecting the right to an abortion.

Wow, you're quite aggressive!

Do you understand that the legislators who want bans don't care what their voters think?

If their cunning plan includes banning abortion everywhere, it's not working.

Certainly not in Trump-voting Arizona, Missouri, Nevada and Montana.

Which, to labour a point, passed measures giving rights to abortion on the same day as they voted for Trump as President.

Oh for goodness sake. Did you forget his first term? Can you not use a little common sense to also understand that he’s the front man for a long term plan the republicans have been diligently putting in place.

Tbh, I found the OP fairly incoherent, but it seems to boil down to nasty old GCs being Trump- adjacent.
Luckily another poster has given the best response
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.

Again, yes. Because it wasn't as popular as they thought it would be. It turned out that when they get a chance to vote, people don't like the reality of abortion bans.

Right now, Trump says he won't push through a federal ban. But he isn't in sole charge of everything, and there are people in his party who do want it. Trump doesn't have the best record on truthfulness, to say the least. His whole campaign was how he never heard of Project 2025, wouldn't implement it. Once he took office he started implementing it exactly as written. So I hardly have faith that he meant what he said. (I don't think Trump particularly cares about abortion. I think other people in his party do, and that's their price.)

None of that saves the women who are dying. Go read abortion articles on ProPublica, or the New Yorker articles that have covered this.

then when he ran for reelection, he kept very quiet about it, because it turned out that a lot fewer people liked the consequences than had liked the idea.

Trump has left decisions on abortion law at state level.

Simultaneously with the Presidential election, ballots were held on abortion rights in 10 states - and the measures passed in 7 of them.

Including Arizona, Missouri, Nevada and Montana, which Trump won.

In Arizona and Montana the measures which passed even allow abortion up to foetal viability.

Well some women DO only care about the trans issue. Numerous posters on here over the years have said that this is the ONLY thing that matters to them.

No. He's been doing it for years. He campaigned on ending Roe v. Wade and he did it. His judges were handpicked by the Federalist Society. And when they overturned Roe, he bragged that hE'd made it happen.

The data is extremely clear: abortion being illegal kills women. It's so clear that states are trying to bury the data.

then when he ran for reelection, he kept very quiet about it, because it turned out that a lot fewer people liked the consequences than had liked the idea.