I find it shocking that a feminist is trying to share the responsibility amongst people who did nothing for an act of misogyny, by a convicted sexual predator, just because he has submitted an EO you approve of against trans people in a bid to make him what? Not look as bad so that supporting his policies isn't as shameful? Or so that you can pretend what he did was for women's rights and not just anti wokism to make you feel better about agreeing with him?"
Thinking more about that entire post and what might be the thinking behind it.
Firstly, the particular EO was ultimately about reprioritising sex over gender for instances where sex matters. An obvious impact is federal prisons for instance. It centres women and I believe it is dismissive to describe it as ‘against trans people’. In fact, parts of it will still directly support female trans people, something that some posters keep forgetting in their focus to refer to feminist efforts as ‘being against trans people’ or whatever accusation gets made.
Secondly, why would feminists feel the need to do as this poster suggests? Why would feminists feel shame for approving of this EO while not supporting many or any other decisions Trump, or his government makes?
Who genuinely believes that people who work with a government to influence a decision and enact change, and approve of that outcome, then must be said to support all that government’s decisions?
Or is it that people who approve of a decision a government makes needs to never publicly approve of that one decision because that declaration of approval of that one decision will somehow give undue support to that government overall? So approval of decisions and outcomes must never be mentioned.
If either of these suggestions are true, then activism from some groups would only ever happen when a party they fully support is in power. Or if they secretively influenced a decision under a government who they opposed, they would never disclose their involvement because they would be told they should be ashamed of that support.
All because those people who think in absolutist terms dishonestly misrepresent the support for that one decision to be full support.
Even worse. If a group didn’t agree with the current leader of a political party they supported because that leader was from a different faction of the party, they would refrain even then from their activism or never speak of their influence success.
The current narrative which I suspect is the accurate interpretation of the post I responded to, is one that I have seen used on other platforms and other threads. However, it falls apart at the very first analysis. Because it is simply not workable in the extreme idealism that looks to be underpinning it. If this is what is meant by that post, it is facile and incoherent because it lacks even basic critical analysis.
So, feminists or people stating they approve of that EO shouldn’t feel shame for approving of the EO. TheIr support should not be falsely expanded by people with absolutist thinking.
And it is false to claim that a person stating that Trump is not solely responsible for the overturning of abortion rights does so to ‘minimise’ Trump’s responsibility in the decision of the court to overturn Roe vs Wade. And it is dishonest and false to claim that discussing the wider responsibility for the loss of the protection of Roe vs Wade is done to minimise that ‘shame’.
I believe I have already said on this thread, Trump is an abhorrent man but it is also important to accurately discuss what he has and what he hasn’t done.
But I am open to clarification. So please clarify the post to ensure I have understood what is the thinking behind it.