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?

All embryos are male or female, depending on whether the sperm carries an X or Y chromosome. You're on Mumsnet, you think people here don't know how babies are made?

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.
Which begs the question of , if the majority of us are so irredeemable, why are you here?
Or are you here to 'educate' us nutters? Very gracious of you, I'm sure.

Hardly - XX or XY are present at conception, depending on whether the father has passed on the X or Y chromosome, ie the sex of a foetus is established at that point. On a scan all foetuses only appear to be female in the early weeks as the physical markers of sex don’t develop to later in the pregnancy…

Have you mixed up the developmental pathway where all embryos ‘look’ the same but then follow their coded pathways after that very first stage with embryos being exactly the same and being ‘female’?

Because sperm is coded with either the coding to develop into a female human or a male human. Therefore the sex of a human is set at conception.

cross posted I see.

Yes she thought she'd make a "clever" soundbite and knowing what she meant is irrelevant. She said what she said and hasn't got the grace to admit it was actually wrong. Whatever your views on trans issues are the fact remains that women who have had a hysterectomy are still valid as any other woman.

No I meant to quote you. You cann say what you like about mo one says but look at what I said about saying a woman without a uterus has no valid opinion is damaging to people like my friends who had breakdowns after hysterectomies and who would feel that sort of statement confirms their feelings.

At a basic level do you agree that no uterus means no valid opinion and if you do can you explain why a woman who has had surgery suddenly has no valid opinion.

Then I've no idea why you're angry with me about what another person said.

I said women who have had hysterectomies are still women, which nobody has (and I strongly suspect nobody will) disagreed with.

I'm sorry your friends had breakdowns about their hysterectomies. Counselling after major surgery can be helpful, I believe.

I think the issue with diverse panels is you have to pick and choose which diversity you're representing, or else have 20 interviewers which isn't practical. So you get an interview panel with one black person or one disabled person or whatever, like that individual somehow represents all non white male able bodied people, and that's just tokenism and so we're back to square one. Plus how does for example a black man who went to Haberdasher's then Oxford represent disadvantage black candidates? Or a woman from the landed gentry who was injured on a polo field represent people born with cerebral palsy?

I don't know what the answer is , and I think it's worth trying to correct for bias and prejudice, but how we do it is a different matter. I suppose that's partly why taking the knee and rainbow flags are so seductive, especially to businesses and public bodies, in a way - they're a way to show you are 'inclusive' without actually doing anything that's hard or costs money.

Gosh... a previously banned poster has now made this thread into Swiss cheese.

The original question has long gone.

What was the intention of the original question, do you suppose?

My own interpretation of the original post was that the question seemed to be that UK posters on MN actually wanted Trump to be PM of the UK?

I believe that some people expressed that they approved of his support of the EO that May Mailman produced about prioritising sex above gender when in matters. I don't believe that there is anywhere beyond even a handful, if there was even that, of people who genuinely want Trump to be leading the government in the UK.

The title was about the KKK but then the OP went on to point fingers at feminists. It read like the OP intended to build a guilt by association style accusation, as if feminists should simply shut the fuck up about the EO about prioritising sex above gender because of other issues.

Then there was a change in focus to highlight the changes to the Whitehouse.gov pages. The bit in the OP about the administration removing resources is frankly misleading.

Last time that Trump got into power, that website was also completely modified to reflect the Trump administration's focus. From what I can see from archive content, when Biden got into power, his administration completely changed much of the information on that site as well. To reflect Biden's focus.

The site is a resource for what the current administration wants it to focus on that is relevant to the administration's policy. To expect it to be a 'reference' site for particular political groups seems to be misleading.

The current 'issues' page is weak and reads like a government that has little to offer by way of policy. But to leverage the changes, that should have been anticipated by the way as a normal change in administration, to raise fear, well that doesn't seem to be a responsible approach by GLAAD.

Did the OP want to discuss the KKK's actions? I didn't see any sign from them that they did. All I could see from reading this thread was the usage of the abhorrent actions of the KKK to some how try to establish some kind of link between feminists approving of one EO, and from what I have seen mostly stating that Trump himself is not supported, Trump's other Executive Order's and the actions of the KKK.

I could very well have interpreted the intention of the OP incorrectly and would absolutely love to have it confirmed that there never was any intention to shame the people who approved on the one EO produced by May Mailmen through an attempt to build guilt by association .

I don't care if people on here are thrilled about the EO.

What I object to is people saying they want a president like Trump.

A president who puts their country first.

I don't think those saying that understand the ramifications of what that means.

The idea that a rapist president who helped ban abortion supports women's rights?

It's not a win, it's a way to keep people happy while he systemically removes other rights from them.

While there's this mass of celebration women are now going to be hired less along with every minority.

Why would anyone hire a women who is pregnant? Or is of an age to get pregnant? Or someone with disabilities? They can just hire a man and not worry about accommodations.

He's basically handing this " win " ( which frankly still doesn't address how this is managed. Will people have to detransition? Is their ID no longer valid? Do they even fucking exist in the US anymore?) , as a way to shut women up while he removes their rights.

My sister would have died when she had her miscarriage in South Dakota had abortions been banned at that time.

This is nothing more than a way to keep women distracted while he systemically harms them.

It isn't just straightforward racism/bias though. There is also status quo bias - if everyone on the panel so far has been a white male and has done a decent job of it you are more likely to pick the white male even though you genuinely don't think women etc are lesser. If every MP in your area was a woman for the last 100 years you might naturally go for the woman (unless you were desperate for a change in which the opposite effect happens). Its not a deliberate attempt to discriminate - its more that the higher stakes the choice looks the more the brain wants to "play it safe". I think that's why height seems to matter so much for US presidents but less so elsewhere in the world. Plus, once people started saying "its almost always the tallest candidate that wins" that maybe tempts people to choose a taller candidate at primaries. I don't know. But the height thing with American Presidents is very obvious.
There are ways round it other than quotas - doing recruitment in groups rather than individually. People are likely to select a more diverse group if they are selecting 10 people at once. If they select people one by one they are much more likely to select the same each time. But quotas or woman only short lists can be useful in very limited circumstances to break that effect where its really ingrained. I don't have a problem with its use in those cases - but it has to be very limited (time and extent).

Incidentally, understanding status quo bias also gives you a massive advantage in winning games of rock, paper, scissors. To the extent you can convince small children you are a witch.

I don’t know a single living person living in the UK that would like him as President of the UK. FFS.

We all agree he is a nasty piece of work for all the reasons you list. He is not ever likely to be so I’m not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist over a few random posts by non US people saying that they would. They are in the minority and, frankly, are being imbecilic.

I am more concerned about the constitutional and political potential of having Farage as our PM, which is - I think - what a few people mean when they say the might like a leader a little more like Trump. As far as I can tell, that is an isolationist/Britain first leader, but there is a small contingent ( as small as the KKK ) whose fervour for Farage is deeply rooted in racism, and an unhealthy dose of misogyny. I also don’t personally know more than one or two people who support that either.

I’m sorry but I refuse to think the world is ending because he has another 4 years in role. It didn’t end the last time, did it? The Houses have to agree, scrutinise and pass all the relevant legislation and serve as a check and balance on presidential power - which is not absolute. He is not a totalitarian leader but the nominal head of a system which requires others to implement his ideas. Again, they kept him reigned in last time. Even with Elon Musk, global laughing stock involved, little can happen without congressional and senatorial oversight - and most of the egos elected officials there won’t let anything happen that will impact their reelection prospects.

Most laws take a few years to get through senate and congress and can be reversed within 2 and a new sitting of the house of reps. Often the most impactful laws in the US are made at state level, which is where people need to be pressurising governors and senators … and is so far removed in its impact upon me, in little on England, that I can watch on in horror or support but without any real fear.

I am more concerned about the tariffs and the knock on impact this will have on inflation/cost of goods here in Europe and the UK, I am concerned about the potential fall-out of his meddling in Gaza and Ukraine, I am concerned that harsh/brutal immigration policies could set the tone for those in Europe (thought the sight of children in concentration camps 4-8 years ago seems to have little impact here), I am concerned about what politicking he will get up to re China and the fall out for us here too.

I am concerned, though not personally impacted, about women’s rights, child marriage which I had no idea until recently was still legal in some states, and I am concerned that children are not allowed to be maimed and medicated in the name of gender ideology, and I am concerned that the backlash of adhering to it undermines years of progress made for gay, lesbian and bisexual people. I am concerned that the legacy of the BLM movement and the antipathy towards mash illegal immigration means people from all ethnicities, those who have legally migrated to countries in Europe, are no longer safe and no longer feel valued and included within the UK and our neighbouring countries. All of these last issues concern me because they influence the opinions of people outside the US where we are engaged in ongoing-battles to maintain, defend and embed long fought for and relatively newly established rights in law.

Am I shitting myself about Trump? No. He’s not my President. Am I watching and appreciating that what his re-election tells us that people are deeply unhappy with the way the world has become? Yes. Can we learn from this that there is no ‘ideal’ leader, no ‘perfect’ party, just as we are realising Labour/Starmer are not really much better the the Tories were before them? Yes.

Other than that, no, I don’t want to be lectured at by a Canadian on how I should understand the impact of a US presidential election. And I won’t be mocked, called racist or stupid etc because I don’t agree with everyone on this thread, either.

There is literally a thread on here talking about wanting a president like Trump.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5256240-is-it-really-that-wrong-to-want-for-your-country-what-trump-stands-for

Thanks for confirming.

How many women have you seen on MN stating that they want Trump as the leader of their country? How many have said that they want a leader who would have supported that EO as the leader of their country.

I don’t disagree with some of your concerns. I do disagree with how you have made linkages as I just said.

I don’t necessarily agree that the structure of the previous programmes for decreasing discrimination were working. However, in saying that it that EO doesn’t look to have changed the equal opportunity laws just the programmes that were being used. And there are legitimate discussion points against the system that was in place.

As far as will people have to ‘detransition’? Why should their IDs have ever been changed when sex cannot change? The agenda behind allowing a legal fiction about sex has been reduced to philosophical belief being the only commonality between those people that have a transgender identity. What other group’s philosophical belief has been allowed to enact legal fictions with identification documents?

Why is it that we are told that no one denies their sex, yet they have to have passports and identification documents that reflect their gender identity, not their sex?

The changing of identification in the first place created loopholes that have allowed female people to be harmed.

“Do they even fucking exist in the US anymore?”

Yes they ‘exist’. This question reflects hyperbole and catastrophising that is a tool of extreme activists who don’t seek equitable solutions, they only seek to emotionally manipulate people to give them what they want.

And this:

“This is nothing more than a way to keep women distracted while he systemically harms them.”

is more absolutist tribalism. It assumes that feminist groups are not working on multiple fronts and are easily distracted from the job at hand.

Particularly since, I personally believe, that neither parties have cover themselves in glory because neither party secured robust abortion legislation when they previously were in power. But apparently, the blame is wholly and solely on the Republican Party.

Agree Namey. Within the pursuit of ‘diversity’ on such panels, there seems to be an underlying accepted belief that there is no empathy or appreciation of internal bias unless you are held to account. Really you shouldn’t need a black person on a panel to ensure that a black candidate of high calibre is not overlooked due to one panel-member’s bias; similarly should you really need to have a woman on the panel to ensure that a female candidate is not sidelined? Proper protocols, feedback forms, oversight by HR should all make this possible. In effect, we have a climate of fear where everyone is afraid of making decisions for fear they be scrutinised through a DEI lens and found wanting.

And 60% voted the OP was being unreasonable… so what precisely is your point?!!

yes. 'LIKE' Trump.

I believe it is important to consider the part of the OP that says:

"Is it really so wrong and bad to want to go for what his core message is? Why is the far right label used so liberally and will we ever see a government in this country which can tackle this madness"

I interpret madness as meaning 'issues'.

Still ... that OP has not said they want 'Trump' as the leader of their country. They are saying they want specific issues addressed. Their point in both of their posts on that thread is also pointing out the tribalism that is now so often seen where people declare that anyone who they don't agree with politically is 'far right' and how overused that term is now.

Stop talking sense, OP wants to hand wring about trans people being forbidden to exist!

In fact, it is more interesting to actually engage with the posters who might be saying more extreme things than you are comfortable with to understand what lies as the foundation of their opinions.

Simply declaring someone is 'far right' when some of their points are concerns shared by the majority of the country, they just have more extreme views on other issues then the majority is a meaningless interaction.

I don't believe any reasonable person feels they have to agree with somebody politically 100%.

You didn't bother reading the link Helle posted earlier, did you? I'll copy a bit for you:

The EO does not change existing law regarding discrimination in contracting, employment, or otherwise. Rather, it signals the Administration’s focus on targeting organizations that violate existing anti-discrimination laws in their employment practices. The key message (which is not necessarily new): Employers should focus on ensuring their DEI practices comply with equal employment opportunity laws.

Rights are not being removed. The law has not changed. The EO requires employers to stop using illegal practices. Hyperbole about hiring less women and minorities is just that, hyperbole.

Banning of abortion is a state level law. It is not in Trump's power to ban or allow abortion in the USA, that is not how their political system works. The Democrats could have chosen to try to make abortion legal across the country, but didn't. Are you blaming them for your sister's non existent death? Trump cannot remove women's right to an abortion because due to how the US system works, women don't have that right.

And all this 'will people have to detransition, will they exist' is just silly. Of course people will exist, they just won't be able to have official documents changed to show wishes, they'll have to show literal facts. I'm sorry for people who will be upset by that but the state should never have allowed people to have official documents with lies on in the first place.

You seem to have formed strong opinions while not actually understanding what has been enacted and what it means.

How on earth does removing rights to abortion and even necessary medical procedures "help women"?

How does a man getting into power who has been proven untouchable by the law despite him clearly being guilty of numerous crimes "help women"?

How do policies including no maternity leave, no healthcare and next to zero paid holidays "help women"??

How does a dedication to centuries old, backwards thinking about "rights to bare arms" resulting in any nut job being able to get a gun and shoot up schools "help women" ??

I think there is a whole lot of fear and uncertainty being spread, and frankly the OP of this thread was just another one doing this.

But apparently, some posters are to be demonised (particularly by a previous banned poster who some posters seemed to fully agree with) for pointing out that maybe things are not quite as they are being portrayed as.

There seems to be very little willingness to actually engage with the issues, just constant repetition of misrepresentations from all over the internet.

For instance, the very fact that GLAAD posted about the changes to the Whitehouse website as if that change was not expected and what previous administrations do upon taking over is just ludicrous.