Page 7 | Anyone else think Trump will ultimately do more damage to the gender critical cause?

savehannah · 2025-02-20T09:18:37+00:00

I hear lots of gender critical Americans (especially despairing parents of trans-identified children) cheering Trump's changes on the gender front, and on the face of it, things like not prosecuting parents for non-affirmation of transgender status and not allowing schools to secretly socially transition pupils seem like progress. 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. Gender critical people have been trying for a long time to show themselves to be on 'the right side of history' and it felt like this was starting to become realised by more and more people (at least in the UK), that it's not just right-wing nutters that believe in the importance of biological reality. But now gender critical beliefs are being pushed hard as part of hard right-wing policy alongside lots of unacceptable things, doesn't this lend more credence to the idea of the tolerant left being correct, and mean that people who believe tolerance means stamping on women's rights and allowing lifelong medicalisation of troubled teens feel vindicated in pushing hard back the other way? And again conflating LGB with T, something which UK gender critical groups have tried to separate. 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. Rather than people realising in many ways the trans righrs movement is homophobic, 'trans away the gay' etc.

ErrolTheDragon · 21/02/2025 08:45

Chersfrozenface · 21/02/2025 04:09

Also racist is the Trump administration change to the term 'illegal immigrant' - now 'illegal alien'. They are completely depersonalised.

'Alien' is a term widely used in US law, it means someone who is not a citizen or national of the USA.

Title 8 of the United States Code is headed "Aliens and Nationality".

(The United States Code - the official codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States.)

That's quite funny, that PP can't have ever heard the Sting song.
When I lived and worked in the US on an H1 visa 1990ish I, like him, was a 'legal alien'. Obviously if I'd outstayed its term I'd have been an illegal one.

(Mind you, I can understand not entirely trusting a song which claims Englishmen like toast done on one side - wtf?)

genius.com/Sting-englishman-in-new-york-lyrics

Chersfrozenface · 21/02/2025 08:34

Jacquettes · 21/02/2025 05:02

Note that it's his government that has decreed the words 'women' and 'woman' as well as 'trans' and 'gender' have been put on a list of words that , if mentioned in research abstracts, will be grounds for it not being federally funded. So looks like someone is actually banning the word 'woman' after all.

Yes, I read about this. It’s very worrying.A serious but unforeseen outcome.

Show quote history

If you read the full thread, you will see that the PP who posted that, when challenged, walked it back, replying:
""Story here, www.washingtonpost.com/science/2025/02/04/national-science-foundation-trump-executive-orders-words/
wave it off if you want. I'll be honest it's possible they mean it just gets 'reviewed' to check it's not non-u and I could have jumped the gun on that."

Floisme · 21/02/2025 07:38

Alternative reading: Even Donald Trump can see that gender ideology is batshit.

I will ask again:
What do you say to those women in federal prisons or those girls trying to play sport at school?
Are you prepared to tell them they should wait for someone more suitable to sort it out?

Jacquettes · 21/02/2025 05:02

Echobelly · 20/02/2025 12:55

I don't think Trump really gives a rat's arse about trans people, but he knows people around him hate them and they're a good wedge issue.

Note that it's his government that has decreed the words 'women' and 'woman' as well as 'trans' and 'gender' have been put on a list of words that , if mentioned in research abstracts, will be grounds for it not being federally funded. So looks like someone is actually banning the word 'woman' after all.

Add to this that he is empowering every single abusive men, which is hardly surprising given his predilections. For example making it harder to impossible to report sexual misconduct in schools and colleges https://time.com/5836774/trump-new-title-ix-rules/ And I would be extremely surprised if he does not attempt to widen such obstructions to the entire public sphere; we are talking about the kind of man who almost certainly believes that 'false allegations' is at least as bad a problem as real assaults.

So in terms of this being any sort of victory for 'protecting women', it's not looking good.

Edited

Note that it's his government that has decreed the words 'women' and 'woman' as well as 'trans' and 'gender' have been put on a list of words that , if mentioned in research abstracts, will be grounds for it not being federally funded. So looks like someone is actually banning the word 'woman' after all.

Yes, I read about this. It’s very worrying.A serious but unforeseen outcome.

knitnerd90 · 21/02/2025 04:40

Musk hasn't been a Democrat for yomks.

DOGE is being dangerously careless. Special education students lost transition services because the word "transition" got flagged. In special education that means transition from school, so support services for college/university or job preparation. There's quite a kerfluffle about it. (Then Trump/musk went and cut transition services during their rampage of the DoE. I've got two kids in special education and these services are really important. But this administration is soaked in ableism.)

and frankly, a hell of a lot of people here care more about the jobs being lost, the damage to the economy, and the naked power grab than trans people.

Chersfrozenface · 21/02/2025 04:09

Also racist is the Trump administration change to the term 'illegal immigrant' - now 'illegal alien'. They are completely depersonalised.

'Alien' is a term widely used in US law, it means someone who is not a citizen or national of the USA.

Title 8 of the United States Code is headed "Aliens and Nationality".

(The United States Code - the official codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States.)

MarsScarlet · 21/02/2025 03:52

@TempestTost

It is really not good to use the word racism for things that aren't about race.

It's back to this omnicause business. If someone has some kind of issue with illegal immigrants, or for that matter legal ones, that is not the same as racism. Even if their reasons are stupid. (It could also be anti-outsider. Or just not a fan of the immigration policies. )

Could a person have an issue with immigrants because of their race, sure. But that's not a necessary condition.

Except that by making comments like "They're eating the cats" Trump reduces this particular group of people into a scourge that must be feared and removed from civilised society. It was clearly about a particular group of people (Haitians) doing particular practices (cooking dinner with captured animals). He said these things without any solid proof of his claims. That type of rhetoric is racist.

Also racist is the Trump administration change to the term 'illegal immigrant' - now 'illegal alien'. They are completely depersonalised.

NotBadConsidering · 21/02/2025 02:36

ReadingTeaLeaves · 21/02/2025 01:01

Evidence please.

He's issued approx 70 EOs to date. You say none are 'right wing policies'. I'd love for a list of which ones are not... Please go ahead.

Show quote history

None of his policies relating to sex and gender are “right wing”. The majority of Democrats support the sport EO. The NYT is behind a paywall but here’s an article reporting its findings:

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/articleb6537968-dff2-11ef-b274-9fbf7250bf7f.amp.html

When the 2025 New York Times-Ipsos poll is broken up along political divides, 94% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats, and 64% of Independents or “something else” answered that men should not be in women’s sports.

Mittens67 · 21/02/2025 02:26

I also think Trump does us more harm than good. Not only because of his terrible attitude to women in general but also because anything associated with him is pretty much universally mad. He is not someone I want to “get into bed with” on any level.
Bleugh, have just made myself feel rather sicky with that image!

TempestTost · 21/02/2025 02:11

MarsScarlet · 21/02/2025 01:18

"You know, they're eating the cats. They're eating the dogs!"

Just one from a smorgasbord to choose from.

Show quote history

It is really not good to use the word racism for things that aren't about race.

It's back to this omnicause business. If someone has some kind of issue with illegal immigrants, or for that matter legal ones, that is not the same as racism. Even if their reasons are stupid. (It could also be anti-outsider. Or just not a fan of the immigration policies. )

Could a person have an issue with immigrants because of their race, sure. But that's not a necessary condition.

MarsScarlet · 21/02/2025 01:18

thatsthewayitis · 20/02/2025 17:55

@IwantToRetire And although I think he is both sexist and racist

What is your evidence he's racist?
The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio is Hispanic (Cuban) Tulsi Gabbard is Samoan, JD Vance has brown children (Indian), Kash Patel is Indian, the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent is gay, the Attorney General Pam Bondi is a woman.

"You know, they're eating the cats. They're eating the dogs!"

Just one from a smorgasbord to choose from.

ReadingTeaLeaves · 21/02/2025 01:01

NotBadConsidering · 20/02/2025 09:41

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:

agree that these things need to stay, have a chance of being elected and have to keep them or
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.

Evidence please.

He's issued approx 70 EOs to date. You say none are 'right wing policies'. I'd love for a list of which ones are not... Please go ahead.

IwantToRetire · 21/02/2025 00:56

Sort of related but WoLF are keeping a list which gets updated as to which of Trumps EO are being challenged by court cases etc..
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/trumps-executive-orders-head-to-the-courts

sankacoolrunnings · 20/02/2025 23:31

I agree there is definitely a risk of people (politicians) wanting to distance themselves from any Trump policies. There's also the risk it gets mixed up in the public perception of Trump's madness. But as others have said long term hopefully it's beneficial as it makes it all the harder to reverse. It's unbelievable how stupid the Dems are to not have realised the impact of this issue.

TempestTost · 20/02/2025 23:16

MarieDeGournay · 20/02/2025 16:04

I've just found another example of scaremongering about women being 'removed' by the LGBTQ+ related EO.

For instance it was reported that the Rubin Observatory had removed any mention of Dr Vera C. Rubin after whom it was named, because of the alleged diktat to remove any mention of women in science.
In fact, the observatory website has a whole 'Who was Vera Rubin' page.

It looks like a lot of people are disseminating scare stories, and a lot of people are not applying the necessary pinch of salt...

Ugh, I feel like I am making too many posts here, but I keep thinking of other things that seem important.

I really think it would be a good idea for people to turn around these questions.

I am friendly with a lot of American conservative women - some are very very conservative.

It is in part things like this, these very obvious lies, that convince these women that the left are dishonest, stupid, and have nothing to offer them. Now, they mostly know that not everyone on the left is like that, most are more centrist. But they are now convinced this shit is baked into leftist thinking - (and some were on the left themselves at one time.)

So maybe what the OP should ask herself is - will the continued association of gender ideology and the left stop people from considering the left wing thinking a reasonable political ideology?

TrainedByTerfs · 20/02/2025 23:15

Given the damage Biden and Harris did to womens rights it’s hard to see how things could be damaged more than that by Trump. Yes he’ll cause some damage but Biden was disastrous for women’s rights

TempestTost · 20/02/2025 23:06

MarieDeGournay · 20/02/2025 15:50

In the corridors of NASA buildings across the United States, ... pictures celebrating women in science are being taken down.

I don't know about the corridors of NASA buildings, but their website is full of pictures celebrating women in space, including at least one woman wearing a hijab! Lots of the photos of astronauts in space include people of colour. And the video on their recruitment page features a woman astronaut.

So although NASA have removed text about gender, race, etc., from their recruitment page, their website demonstrates diversity and inclusion in action.

The US Air Force was reported as having immediately removed all mention of the WASPs and the Tuskegee RedTails from their material. This was revealed to be completely untrue.

There has been a lot of scaremongering/untruths about 'removing' women, people of colour, disabled people etc. NASA continues to use historically accurate images of their diverse space crews. Historical facts about women aviators, African American pilots in WWII, remain because they are part of history.

I think this reflect the fact that for a lot of the Democrats who support this stuff, they actually don't understand that there is a difference between DEI, and identity politics approaches, and being anti-women, anti-gay, or anti-anyone who isn't white.

They seem to think that if NASA has a picture of a woman on their website, it must be because DEI told them they had to put it there. It's not possible that there might just be women in NASA doing NASA stuff.

These are the same people who keep repeating that Florida now has removed any mention of slavery from school texts. Because obviously anyone who isn't immersed in critical race theory doesn't believe slavery is part of history, or something.

TempestTost · 20/02/2025 22:44

No, I don't OP.

The people who think that way already believe that gender critical ideas are inherently fascist and bigoted. Genderism is part of their core beliefs - so long as it is defined as progressive.In ten years if that changes they will believe something else.

I also think that the UK and the US have largely peaked on gender ideology. Most people aren't really supportive and there is no going back. The ones digging in their heels are immune to argument.

So it will keep getting pushed back.

I also, like others, have never seen any evidence Trump is homophobic. Somewhat the opposite actually, he seems to me not to care at all. I don't see any evidence either that he's a racist, or that despite his personal behaviour with women, that he has a problem with them in work roles. People keep repeating these things like they are obvious, but it all seems to be based on people saying it again and again.

Hairyesterdaygonetoday · 20/02/2025 22:32

NotBadConsidering · 20/02/2025 09:41

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:

agree that these things need to stay, have a chance of being elected and have to keep them or
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.

Oh, how I hope that happens. Trump is bad news in so many ways. But the dismantling of women’s rights is such a massive disaster, and the longer it continues the harder it will be to put right.

The UK government hasn’t legalised gender self-ID, but it’s routinely allowed even by the police and courts, so the law is just a pathetic joke. If Trump is successful in rooting out this toxic ideology in the USA, I think it will will have a big effect internationally.

Merrymouse · 20/02/2025 21:53

SionnachRuadh · 20/02/2025 21:01

Of course Hillary says everyone is a Russian asset. She said it about Bernie himself. It's been the go-to smear for the DNC for about the last decade.

Are you following what Trump and Musk are saying? At the moment the United States is a Russian Asset.

SionnachRuadh · 20/02/2025 21:01

Of course Hillary says everyone is a Russian asset. She said it about Bernie himself. It's been the go-to smear for the DNC for about the last decade.

Merrymouse · 20/02/2025 20:59

SionnachRuadh · 20/02/2025 20:31

Tulsi resigned as DNC vice-chair - which, okay, was a decorative role that they wanted a young, good looking, non-white woman for, as long as she didn't have any of her own opinions - she resigned from that role to support Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary.

That's when Hillary Clinton and her people started putting it about that she was a Russian asset. Nobody's ever tried to substantiate that. By constant repetition, it's just become something "everyone knows".

And then Bernie, who agrees with a lot of her antiwar politics, turned around and voted against her in line with the party whip, because that's just the kind of prince Bernie is.

Show quote history

I think the 'Russian assets' are rather higher up in the food chain.

Talkinpeace · 20/02/2025 20:37

Tulsi Gabbard went to meet Assad without clearance and then spoke up on his behalf.
Tulsi Gabbard regularly parrots Kremlin lies

SionnachRuadh · 20/02/2025 20:31

MarieDeGournay · 20/02/2025 19:42

Tulsi, RFK jr, Musk and even Trump were all Democrats. Even if you personally don't like them, they are very popular appointments.

They might all be absolute charmers and excellent company, thatsthewayitis, but I don't judge politicians on whether on not they are personally likeable, but on what they stand for, and whether or not they have at least an adequate grasp of geopolitical and other facts relevant to the job they are doing.

Their appointments were popular with Trump's party, but weren't their confirmations opposed by all the Democrats + one Republican, which isn't exactly 'very popular', surely it's just 'popular along predictable party lines'.

Tulsi resigned as DNC vice-chair - which, okay, was a decorative role that they wanted a young, good looking, non-white woman for, as long as she didn't have any of her own opinions - she resigned from that role to support Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary.

That's when Hillary Clinton and her people started putting it about that she was a Russian asset. Nobody's ever tried to substantiate that. By constant repetition, it's just become something "everyone knows".

And then Bernie, who agrees with a lot of her antiwar politics, turned around and voted against her in line with the party whip, because that's just the kind of prince Bernie is.

fromorbit · 20/02/2025 20:09

Trump and his officials will do their thing.

In ongoing terms the important thing to watch is what the Dems do. Some prominent ones like Buttigieg are shifting positions
https://www.foxnews.com/media/pete-buttigieg-slams-democrats-portlandia-approach-pushing-diversity