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?

Thank you for actually asking me what I think.

"imas far as detransitioning goes, the EO states someone cannot change sex or alter their legal documents. Therefore I assume all trans people will have to revert back to their previous gender/sex and pronouns on all of their identification. That doesn't mean they will have to change their names back too, perhaps they will, perhaps they won't. But if any one tries to deny that dictating a trans woman bust go back to being Mr Williams with male on her driving licence etc. and is not allowed to refer to herself as Miss Williams and be seen as a woman in society then that is humiliating and reducing her to nothing more than a man in a dress in societies eyes. Can you not see how that is cruel?"

I understand that groups in society would view this as being 'cruel'.

I believe that no person should ever have been allowed to change their identification documents to reflect a philosophical belief that that person has about their sex category. I know that allowing this to happen has allowed female people and children to be harmed something that some people cannot acknowledge or discuss with any level of willingness to engage.

Has the EO dictated that names have to changed? Not that I can see. And people can refer to themselves any way they wish. What they cannot do, and should never have been led to believe they should be able demand is how others view them and what pronouns and honorifics to use when someone has a gender identity. So, I don't believe anyone should be dictating that your example of Mr Williams should be only referred to as 'Miss' Williams or 'Mr' Williams.

You consider people using sex based pronouns and titles for someone who wishes to be referred to using pronouns and titles of the other sex as humiliating. There are valid reasons and occasions why people may choose not to do this. But you have displayed absolutist thinking in other posts, so I assume you will take an all or nothing view here. For instance, I would never expect a rape victim or a victim of a crime to refer to the person who committed that crime against them using preferred titles and pronouns. Do you believe that they should be forced to?

And if not in that situation, why in other situations?

"reducing her to nothing more than a man in a dress in societies eyes"

This is just emotionally manipulative. For a start, if you believe that there is a stigma to being considered a 'male person wearing a dress', do you think that there should be some investment in campaigning to broaden the acceptance of non-conforming male and female people? Rather than telling those people that because of what they choose to wear, they are the opposite sex?

Yet, little investment has been made in this.

Correction: I just DONT feel the need to label myself to do so, nor do I feel the need to include a sub group of male people in my efforts, especially when there is evidence that that inclusion is harmful.

that piece of legislation referred to women, ex service men, disabled people, black people, gay people. It is not outdated. the people who insist that it is and just want applications on 'merit' work on the assumption that white men are all suitably qualified for jobs whereas other types of people aren't and that white men never have favours done for them, just the others. No, we will just return to a nod and a wink exclusion.

Oh, and by the way, apparently the main beneficiaries of affirmative action and DEI policies are white women.

But the EEO has not been changed by this EO.

There really appears to be a lot of confusion as to what the EO does and doesn't do.

I was responding to the poster who feels that 'merit' will ensure that everyone is treated fairly when it is clear that 'merit' will be used to shut doors in people's faces and will be used to place white men as the default example of merit.

That is not entirely true. It will place wealthy, well connected white men as the default.

Looking at politics as a good example given the thread subject. Two candidates. One is a working class white bloke who went to a polytech for two years after school at 16. The other a woman from an upper middle class family, finished school at 18, had a gap year then four or five years at uni.

Which one do you think is likely to get support and funding from their local political party of choice to be put forward as an MP? Which one is likely to have the capital to put themselves forward as an independent?

Of course the more educated person would be the preferable option for an MP. But what's the obsession with being an MP?

MPs are not hired, they are elected. You cannot be discriminated against by a voting cohort, you just didn't get their vote. Discrimination is when a hiring manager doesn't choose someone for the job because they are black/female/gay whatever.

Not having opportunities available to you because you are poor is not discrimination it is a disadvantage.

If a poor white person is not qualified for a job it is not discrimination against poor people not to hire them, they are simply not qualified, because they are from a disadvantaged background. If a qualified black person is not hired for a job they have been discriminated against because they weren't hired due to being black, as they were suitable for the job and had the required qualifications.

Diversity and inclusion policies aren't about rectifying social disadvantages, they are about preventing discrimination.

Just saw this short interview with Kara Dansky on GB News. It is a good 4 minute run down on the EO defining sex and she, of course, keeps the framing on women’s rights - where it should be.

x.com/gbnews/status/1883608476804366693?s=46

You do realise that MPs have to be selected by their party before they stand in an election, don’t you? That many are selected - or not - precisely because of the demographic they represent? Ie many are discriminated against - excluded from even running - before the electorate gets to have their say? Because they are poor, white, working class? This is not ‘disadvantage’ it is discrimination because they are disadvantaged.

You are very certain - and likely quite wrong - that discrimination does not happen to white working class boys. Yet all the evidence shows that poor white boys are the demographic most likely to be on free school meals, to be excluded from school and the least likely to take A Levels or be attend university. That is not ‘disadvantage’ that is systemic discrimination of the same scale that sees young black boys more likely to be stopped and search by the police. If a poor white person doesn’t have access to the outreach programmes, like the Sutton Trust, that are geared to getting young people into university, to ensuring they have the opportunity to get the qualifications they need to progress, then they too are being discriminated against, surely?

You do understand that it is possible for people of all colours to be discriminated against simultaneously in a complex and multifaceted society, don’t you, and that it’s perfectly possible (reasonable, even) to consider the needs of white working class boys along side those of black boys?

all the evidence shows that poor white boys are the demographic most likely… to be excluded from school

I don’t think this is true at all. Im pretty sure the data says that certain ethnic minority groups - particularly black Caribbean , black mixed and Roma children- are several times more likely to be excluded from school than white pupils.

Furthermore data from recent census on child poverty by ethnicity:

“Indian and White British children were the least likely to live in low-income households; 17% of children living in Indian and White British households were living in low-income families, three percentage points lower than the national average.
The Other (36%), Mixed (33%) and Black (30%) high-level ethnic groups all have a higher percentage of children living in low-income households than the national average. This may be, in part, because these ethnic groups have unemployment rates higher than the national average (4%), at 8%, 7% and 9% respectively. In addition, the Black and Mixed ethnic groups were the most likely to have gross household income (the income that a household has available for spending after taxes and benefits are taken into account) of less than £400 per week.”

So basically you are talking shit.

Just because you don’t want to believe it doesn’t mean it is not true

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cd15de640f0b63329d700e5/Timpson_review_of_school_exclusion_literature_review.pdf - wc boys and exclusion)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-54278727 - wc boys and university

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/12881/default

I could post links to govt papers all day… but the fact is wc boys are the most under-represented in many areas of life and this is a result of being discriminated against. It doesn’t mean that other minorities aren’t also, simultaneously discriminated against but denying that these boys are is pretty disgusting. I have no axe to grind on behalf of this demographic. Am from a multi-racial, multi ethnic middle class family choc full lesbian/gay highly ND family members. Bit I can fight our corner without being dsimissive of or empathetic with the acute levels of discrimination experienced by poor white boys - from the moment they enter the education system at 4, acc to the govt evidence…

No, you are wrong, i just looked it up. This is the most recent data direct from the source. Black carribbean, Roma gypsy and black mixed children have significantly higher exclusion rates from school than white pupils.

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/absence-and-exclusions/permanent-exclusions/latest/

Also the first source you posted says exactly the same thing in the very first paragraph of the executive summary!

Proportionately - wc boys are underrepresented, as are W/c black and afro-carribean boys vis a vis their middle class counterparts parts. In fact it is their working class status that impacts all of these demographics, including traveller/gypsy/Roma populations - that intersectionality thing that people seem to acknowledge only when it suits them.

The demographic for gypsy, traveller and Roma is tiny and many effectively self-exclude because they regularly move locations and in many locations there are no school places. For anyone regardless of their demographic. They would not get places in those schools if they were middle class either because there are none. If they were provided places because they were Roma (ie positively discriminated for) etc where there are extensive waiting lists, then LEAs would be discriminating against the other demographics that are already on those waiting lists, no?

The point about wc boys is that they are in the system already and are still failed - they are disproportionately under represented in 6th form colleges on academic pathways and at university.

In summary - there are LOTS of demographics that are ACTIVELY discriminated against (including travellers etc). We need to stop talking as though there is a hierarchy and as though one group’s rights trump another’s. Women’s shouldn’t trump working class boys; black/afroCarribean/asian boys should trump the rights of their female counterparts; gender ideology shouldn’t deprive women and girls and lesbians of their sex based rights and allot them to males identifying as women. Unfortunately DEI has created a hierarchy and it is well past time that hierarchy was dismantled and a balanced and proportionate approach to individual rights was reestablished.

Proportionately - wc boys are underrepresented, as are W/c black and afro-carribean boys vis a vis their middle class counterparts parts. In fact it is their working class status that impacts all of these demographics, including traveller/gypsy/Roma populations - that intersectionality thing that people seem to acknowledge only when it suits them.

You are trying to do some interesting mathematics / manipulation of stats in your dissection of categories there. of course if you compare working class white children to middle class black children, other factors will come into play.

But in terms of the impact of ethnicity- your very own source (and the government data) says that when controlling for other factors black Caribbean and mixed black children are excluded from school at disproportionately higher rates than white children. Furthermore , these groups are more likely to come from impoverished households. So please - enough of the discrimination against white boys nonsense.

Your claims about university are also misleading- I have to get the kids to school but will share the actual facts shortly.

So basically you are talking shit.
What a way to respond to someone who has put together carefully-thought-out responses to a post!
No wonder Social Media has such a bad name.

Unfortunately DEI has created a hierarchy and it is well past time that hierarchy was dismantled and a balanced and proportionate approach to individual rights was reestablished.
Yes, DEI has created a hierarchy of grievance. And some people make a nice living out of it.

White pupils are less likely than any other broad ethnic group to go to higher education [Note the use of "broad" here]. Pupils from Chinese, Indian, and Black African backgrounds have the highest entry rates. Black Caribbean pupils have particularly low entry rates to more prestigious universities.

Black students are more likely to drop out from higher education than other ethnic groups and least likely to achieve a first or upper second-class degree. In contrast, White students are least likely to drop out and most likely to achieve a first or upper second-class degree.

White graduates have the highest employment rates of any ethnic group. Chinese, Black and graduates from ‘Other’ ethnic groups have the lowest. Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black Caribbean graduates earn the least, whereas Chinese, Indian and Mixed White and Asian graduates earn the most.

Furthermore, while ethnic minority pupils are more likely to go to university these results do not contradict recent evidence suggesting that ethnic minorities are less likely to receive offers from selective institutions than their equivalently qualified White British counterparts.

Thanks @Sausagenbacon I was not looking to derail the thread to become one about the iequities of the UK education system - simply trying to point out that DEI has obfuscated facts and negatively impacted policy. I do see that travellers are the most discriminated group before white working class boys, but waht I should have stated as that the POINT of my comment but foolisgly didn;t was that: white working class boys - who make up a considerable portion of our voting electorate in the Uk and also in the US where they also comprise the bulk of the KKK, are in reality heavily discriminated against. Unless western governments address this, the conflict and social tension and desire to support other minorties groups will wane.

We need to stop being arsey and citing stats at each other (myself included) as we all know that stats are often manipulated by the compilers and reader such that it is hard to know which are accurately reflective (even the ones listed here by me and produced by the government)… and work together to bring every minority group up. DEI has worked to create a competitive and acrimonious climate in which minorty groups trample on the rights and needs of other minority groups to get themselves to the top of the heap. It is this climate that gives rise to the Farage/Trump/BNP/KKK groups. If we want to extinguish their allure, we need a return to a balanced and fair approach to education, services, housing, employment etc

I am now out of this thread as it has strayed so far beyond the OP’s original question and concern. And I don’t need to be told I am ‘talking shit’ when I am just basing my opinion on exposure to different data. Anyone can feel free to disagree but the sneering insults are unwarranted. There is no place here for respectful dialogue without slinging abuse and I am pretty much done with this site on that basis.

Apologies it was first thing in the morning (before morning coffee!) and I was more blunt in my language than I needed to be.

Another Trump bashing thread, they voted for him, that's called democracy.

when I am just basing my opinion on exposure to different data.

we are all looking at the same data. No manipulation - it’s from the ONS, www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/absence-and-exclusions/permanent-exclusions/latest/