The KKK is feeling pretty empowered

[Princessconsuelabananahammock9]

This is what happens when a man like Donald Trump gets in power.

These are the people who feel empowered.

While MN celebrates the " only two genders ", people of colour in Kentucky are scared.

I've seen threads on here wishing the UK had Trump. Is this really what you want?

Is this really the type of people you want in power?

Those that voted for Trump over trans issues, what about shit like this? Or women dying from lack of abortion access? Or climate change? Or the casual revisiting of gay marriage rights?

According to GLAAD all resources referencing LGBTQ and HIV have been removed from the White House website. Gay, lesbian, no results come up in the search.

" Pages removed include WhiteHouse.gov’s equity report (no longer accessible), a fact sheet with information on expanding access to HIV prevention and treatment (no longer accessible), and information about LGBTQ Pride Month (no longer accessible). Agency page removals include Department of State’s LGBTQ rights (no longer accessible), and Department of Labor’s LGBTQ workers page (no longer accessible). "

glaad.org/releases/breaking-trump-administration-removes-lgbtq-and-hiv-resources-from-white-house-and-other-government-websites/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/22/kkk-immigrants-flyers-kentucky

This is scary shit. I don't get how any one envies?

@dottiehens

The important thing is to remember that Trump is only in power for four years. He and his supporters can make if very unpleasant for immigrants during that time. But by January 2029 voters will have had another chance to select people whose views are closer to their own.

A Republican senator has raised a bill today for a Constitutional Amendment - to allow Presidents to run for 3 terms.

Even many MAGA seem to be in some consternation over this news.

It's not that discrimination doesn't matter, it's that a) discrimination happens to many people for many reasons not just the ones you've decided are more important and b) flags don't solve discrimination or actually do anything except possibly make the flag waver feel virtuous.

Do you not realise that women in this country were once the legal property of their fathers and then the legal property of their husbands? Then,as an improvement, we were officially given the same legal status as children. Rape was legal in a marriage within my lifetime, and given the conviction rates you could argue rape is functionally legal in the UK now. Where are the flags for women, if being legal property and being systematic abused both individually and as a group, by the people in your life and by the state, is a criteria for getting your flag on the government building? Did women not fucking earn it? Are women not in fear for their lives for just existing? 2 women a week in this country are murdered by their partner or ex partner. Before we even look at other countries, where women aren't even allowed to speak in public or where jist this week laws have been passed to allow men to marry 9 year old girls.

Plus you clearly didn't read the article I posted up thread by a gay man asking people to stop with the rainbow flags, so I'll quote you a little bit: 'We see well-intentioned people wearing these lanyards like a medal worn by those who did not fight in the wars for gay rights very many years after that would have mattered.' Flags are empty virtue signalling, (or stolen valor from a war you didn't fight as per Dennis Kavanagh), and the primacy of some causes over others, imposed from the top down, has not caused equality or inclusion, just division and alienation.

@Nameychangington Couldn’t double 💙 your post, so seconding it here!

Segregation and discrimination happens all the time. I was adopted by my Iranian family at 4 when my mother married my dad. I’ve been on the direct receiving end of racial abuse as the result of my sari-clad aunties arriving to collet me from school and the consequent years of ‘P@ki’ abuse, physical as well as verbal. Ironically I was actually born in South Africa during aparteid and have a birth certificate that says I am ‘white’ and that both my biological parents are also ‘white’ (a fact they had to evidence at the birth registry), which revolts me every time I have to produce it. but being ‘white’ in South Africa wasn’t much protection - my parents were unmarried, so the unmarried mothers were placed on a special ward away from the married ones. We were given a romantic titles of being ‘blossom babies’ (born out of blossoming love 🤢) to camougflage the fact that, basically, they didn’t want to lose moraled whores in the Blossom Ward infecting the others. Every marital row referenced ‘that bastard’ and every school kid looking to land a punch or a barb had a racist slur.

Now, my kids? They live one foot in the white world, one in the ethnicity of their extended family; they carry the stigma of autism/ADHD and, in the case of my eldest, every step and every facial expression telegraphs her NDity (although, thank fuck, we have recently started new meds and her ability to mask, to pretend to be what society deems normal, seems enhanced); she is also lesbian and gender non-conforming (and was bullied to the point of attempting suicide from the age of 12), brainwashed into thinking she was trans).

My youngest has always been above the 100th percentile for height and weight, so coupled with ASD speech delay and looking 2-3 years older than his peers he has lived with the slur of being a ret@rd/thick/assumed to be learning disabled and been bullied unmercifully outside the private schools I eventually sent both of them to so that they might feel safe, valued and perhaps even get the classroom support that the state education could not provide for their SEN.

I wonder, as I write this, what a flag ever did for them? Every DEI indoctrinated person we dealt with was obsessed with my observance (lack thereof) of preferred pronouns but frankly did eff all to address the social, psychological and educational needs presented by the intersection of my childrens numerous needs. And the thing that causes the most distress for my kids now? Ironically, it’s the fact that they are middle class and went to private secondary schools - you would not believe the hate/derision/abuse they both have both observed in a classroom setting for those demographic indicators. Neither admits it publicly in their state colleges. They keep their heads down in economics and sociology, and my DD comes home and cries. Cried because of choices her parents made to protect her against discrimination, which is supposed to be what DEI was about?

All DEI has done is create conflict and division. I can’t wait to see it gone.

Trump standing up for women’s sex based rights

🙄Like access to a safe and legal abortion?

People here are so obsessed with the trans issue they can't see clearly.

If his actions have a positive impact on women, is that a bad thing?

Err...what?

I actually think that we have seen the danger of this focus on flags played out on this thread. Any mention that the arguments used to support the selection of these two groups might have flaws is immediately categorised as hate or ignorance.

Any mention of another group is categorised as an ‘all lives matter’ approach. Whereas, no, the point raised around flags is that a government building is supposed to be representing ‘all’ constituents in that region.

There needs to be a huge amount of work to reduce deaths by police. And absolutely there needs to be focus on particular groups to remove the causes of those deaths. But it is not just the group who feel represented by a particular political activist group, it is a significant issue for First Nations people as well. Now, work by the Black Lives Matter group is important and I would expect their contribution to be sought and given a great deal of thought. And no doubt their recommendations will probably benefit many people.

However, other groups need to be consulted to formulate an over arching policy to also ensure those groups specific needs are met. And pointing this out is not based on hate or ignorance. It really should not be controversial.

And as you say, the argument about ‘earning’ the right to fly a flag because of recent changes to overcome discriminatory laws and policies, when does this policy lapse? As in is there an official time limit on celebrating policy successes with flag flying? And as I keep saying, who is the arbitrator of this?

Or should it be a policy of no special flags flown at all, and celebrate through special events, actions and public campaigns that deliver results? In my mind that should be all part of the remit of departments working within that building.

The ‘symbology’ of flying those flags have not just positive aspects but have negative connotations too.

Has pointing out that there should be discussion about whether a legacy initiative is actually the most effective means to still deliver results been twisted to being a denial that discrimination of that group exists?

I think you might be mixing me up with someone else.

Harassing? Say what now?

Its a discussion board, I can respond to whatever post I like.

And why are all the threads about the Oscar nomination being pulled? 😵‍💫

This post is quite difficult to parse. But what I think it's says is that people who think transwomen are men deny that anyone is discriminated against. Which is clearly silly.

Transwomen are men. They are male bodied people, people with XY chromosomes. That's what a man is. Some people argue that the categories 'male' and 'female' shouldn't mean what kind of body you were born with or what chromosomes are in your cells, but should mean what set of stereotypes you feel you fit into. Changing the meaning of the words men/women from a factual statement of biology to a statement of feelings/identity. Most of the world wasn't asked about this change of meaning of commonly used words, and the ramifications of it (such as no more single sex hospital wards and no more lesbian bars), and don't agree that the meaning of those words have changed.

Thinking knowing that transwomen are men doesn't cause me to deny that different groups of people in society are discriminated against, why would it? I don't believe that men who just change their clothes and name (as is the case for the overwhelming majority of transwomen) are discriminated against (unless you think not being allowed to access stuff that isn't for you, like a women-only rape crisis centre, is discrimination, which I don't); that doesn't mean I don't believe discrimination exists. That'd make no sense.

I don't agree with the poster upthread, that the best person always gets the job on merit. I think prejudice, eg that women will just go off on maternity leave, or disabled people will have loads of time off sick ,or older people won't be able to keep up, is real and is a problem. However, I don't think this is solved by flags, or by promoting one cause above the causes of other groups which get discriminated against - how many wheelchair ramps could have been bought, with the money spent on painting pedestrian crossing in the progress flag colours? How many learning disabled women didn't go for a smear because they didn't know 'people with a cervix' meant them? Virtue signalling doesn't address discrimination. Sometimes it even inadvertently causes it - if you say 'oh yes of course transwomen are allowed in the women's gym', now Muslim and Orthodox Jewish women have no gym they can use. Thinking that all minority groups matter, isn't 'putting other groups back into their place', unless you think some groups place is not equality but primacy.

For all those reading along who are concerned about the impact of the EO relating to DEI initiatives, I just saw this posted on another thread.

Maybe it will be helpful as a place to start in beginning to understand the impacts of the EO. As always, I personally encourage reading widely to work out what is the most accurate outcomes of a decision like this.

https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/trump-administration-revokes-eo-11246-prohibits-illegal-dei-what-eo-ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity-means

I'm so glad you posted this. It gives me faith that there are still decent, thinking women on MN. You're going to get the usual nutters on here, gaslighting us, but I'm hoping we have the majority sane people on side.

I'm really worried about Farage getting in because of US influence/interference and the money that can be spent on social media brainwashing.

“the best person always gets the job on merit. I think prejudice, eg that women will just go off on maternity leave, or disabled people will have loads of time off sick ,or older people won't be able to keep up, is real and is a problem.”

I tend to agree with you. Although, in saying that if for instance a CV has names, age, sex etc removed I see this as one way within a much broader programme to address the ‘best person gets the job’ issue.

What cannot be ignored is that issues in dealing with discrimination are ongoing. Some initiatives have not worked and have had some adverse outcomes. As you say discrimination is real and the programmes to address discrimination needs to be constantly reviewed and modified. New initiatives should be considered, and if that initiative has no knock on harms to other groups it should be trialled. If it improves outcomes, it should be implemented widely, then, monitored and reviewed.

I wonder whether we will move away from interviews altogether at some point and even anonymise CVs? They could be done like exams with an individual number but no name/age/sex/race markers accordingly. I believe many graduate employers are unable to see which uni was attended at the screening phase now, so it’s an extension of this. UCAS applications are almost done that way, although having to list your school can reveal socioeconomic class so perhaps we no longer need that either? CVs could simply be qualifications, details of experience and a personal statement if your application ticks the initial screening spots. References could be provided that state more clearly issues over attendance, punctuality, observed team skills etc, perhaps in a tickbox format like people use for appraisals anyway.

I appreciate that not having interviews means you don’t really know who/what you are getting until they have been offered and accept a job, but that would be the point access needs and accommodations would be discussed with HR. Again, like they do for most universities now - no interviews, just a personal statement and references.

So many jobs, even where you’ve interviewed, lead to poor hires where people are gifted at interview but crap at team and technical skills. And vice versa where you miss out on great candidates because they haven’t had interview training. You can boot a person for no reason before 2 years atm, so it’s not as if an employer can’t terminate a candidate they are a poor fit but you could tighten up the law around this to ensure prevention of this being on any grounds of discrimination.

It means no discrimination as you know nothing of a candidates race/sex/etc.

It would be a bit clinical, but there’d be no need for DEI at all then…

I'm in the private sector and find public sector interviewing to be another universe.

Apart from my first grad scheme job, every interview I've ever had has been basically a chat (to assess fit) and perhaps a piece of work presented to demonstrate ability.

So I can't imagine how this would work in my industry.

Yeah, I think that’s the issue. The only way to eliminate discrimination is to have ‘blind’ screening (as I think it’s called). It might work for junior hires/initial career entry screening in some industries but issues come into play as you get to get higher up where interpersonal/soft skills are essential when dealing with clients or managing teams.

I’m kind of in the camp that diverse panels should be used to filter applicants and hold interviews (which is what happens at my DH’s work) so that individual biases are held in check by the presence and participation of others. I don’t feel DEI adds anything to this that simply having blind CVs at the initial candidate screening by HR wouldn’t resolve. In fact, I think DEI muddies this and means that best candidates are often excluded because ‘we can’t hire another white male’. My DH often does positively discriminate at the final stage, between two equal candidates, on the basis that ‘the team is a bit male heavy’ or ‘it’s dominated by US members’ so the female/Nigerian/Indian/European candidate is thought to bring a fresh perspective to global projects and stop a team becoming blinkered/stuck in group think (which I obviously think is both a good thing and the way ant-discrimination legislation was intended to work).

I think you said what you said. You said if you didn't have a uterus you were excluded if that wasn't what you meant maybe you shouldn't have said it.

You literally said no uterus no valid opinion. You are backtracking now as you realise what a ridiculous comment that was.

No I don’t. It was changing what someone else said and you’re being dramatic, you know exactly what it meant.

She literally said no uterus no valid opinion. My friends who had hysterectomies felt that and comments like saying they have no valid opinion are damaging to women like them. Why do you think my opinion isn't valid just because I've had a particular surgery? If you don't think that then surely you can see that comment was plain ignorant.

Come on now. We know what she meant. It was, perhaps, a little crassly put to achieve a ‘soundbite’ pithiness and had she said it in an hysterectomy thread it would have been deeply insensitive. But in context it was simply - if you are a bloke, butt out of discussions on women’s reproductive rights. (Not sure I entirely agree, but I do understand the sentiment.)

He defined sex by sex at conception, which is bizarre since at conception all embryos are sort of female. Has he transed all men?

What on earth are you on about? Did you mean to quote someone else?

This is not correct. Your reference to 'sort of female' might have clued you in to that. What would that even mean?

Sex IS determined at conception, but the processes that will eventually lead to the creation of sexual organs are not yet underway. But the embryo is already programmed to go down one path or another.