KJK supports Trump

[NefertitiV]

After the Trump verdict today, KJK retweeted three supportive tweets to her timeline, including one from US ex-Fox host Megyn Kelly that says "Guilty on all counts. The country is disgraced. Alvin Bragg should be disbarred. They will rue the day they released this lawfare to corrupt a presidential election."

Another tweet makes fun of President Biden's stutter.

This is someone currently up for election herself. Given her recent remarks about barring rentals to all trans people, and the fact she has received funding from US conservative political groups, does this concern you?

I remember her saying something about how if one of her kids was caught up in the trans trend, she'd work with the devil himself if he could stop her kid from harming her or himself.

Wouldn't you?

The difference is that she's not political as such. Bindle is extremely so, Helen Joyce not so much with her women's rights work on this which is why she doesn't talk about it in this context unless asked.

Think of it this way. Say you were convinced that some common food item that was really popular was very dangerous for children, and you had a campaign to raise awareness. Would you restrict yourself to only talking about this to people on the political left? Would you worry those people would not take you seriously if you talked to people on the right too?

Would you refrain from campaigning to bad people? Racists, extremists, conspiracy theorists? Their kids just need to suck it up? Would you go on their podcast to talk about how the ingredients in said food caused cancer 10 years down the line?

@Trumpetoftheswan2

A search for Posie Parker and 'the devil himself' might lead you to these discussions. That''s who she said she'd work with to get her message out btw.

Again, her choice and her right to do so, but this was/is troubling to feminists who would have liked to maintain some clear blue sky between gender critical beliefs and the far right.

KJK met with the Heritage Foundation in the US a couple of years ago. The HF is a right-wing think-tank and conservative lobby group. There is a video of Kellie on going in saying, "I'm aware of who the HF are and what they represent. I know what some people might think of me coming today, but I just don't care." I'll have to find that again and link it.

Perhaps she doesn't care, and like this thread shows, a core amount of her supporters may not either. However, she does need to make clear where she stands ideologically, as some of these associations don't sit well with traditional feminism.

Perhaps she doesn't care, and like this thread shows, a core amount of her supporters may not either. However, she does need to make clear where she stands ideologically, as some of these associations don't sit well with traditional feminism

You are completely missing the point no matter how many times people point it out.

She doesn't need to do any of that. These demands to be politically pure are not her concern. She is not a feminist if this is what feminism demands. She will work with whoever it takes. She puts herself into the firing line no matter who is trying to shut her down.

There has been thread after thread after thread picking apart this bad thing, that bad thing and every other bad thing and the one thing that each one is completely missing is that she has been clear that she will work with anyone if it helps get this vile ideology gone.

Don't like it, don't vote for her. Don't like it, don't watch her stuff. Or start your own campaign. Start your own party. Go snipe where she can respond. Do something yourself instead of constantly slagging someone else off.

I don't agree with everything she says, many people don't. But I do admire her walking into a violent rabid crowd and changing the face of women's rights in two countries on the other side of the planet. I'm not going to begrudge her activity because I don't personally agree with whoever put her trip on their insurance for example. I don't care. I care that she got insurance and could get over there and I care that she got back safely. That's what I care about.

However, she does need to make clear where she stands ideologically, as some of these associations don't sit well with traditional feminism.

Why does she need to make it clear? The goals are single sex spaces, recognition of sex and stopping the medical transition of children. Why does that need to “sit well” with “traditional feminism”?

Can “traditional feminists” only support these goals if all associations with these goals “sit well”?

If two people have opposing beliefs on other things that normally wouldn’t “sit well” as an association, do their co-existing goals cease to be valid?

Why are “right wing” associations automatically bad? At least half of the human race is “right wing”. Are billions of people bad? How right wing does one have to be before it’s bad to be associated with?

What about the left wing of politics is so good that associations are deemed acceptable? What about the extreme hard left? What about those on the hard left currently spouting antisemitism? What about communists? Are they acceptable to be associated with?

Is there a range of the political spectrum that falls within your acceptable range of acceptable association?

What about the Suffragettes? Some of them were very left wing and some of them were very right wing. They helped get the vote for women. Should the left wing women not have associated with the right wing women to get the vote for women?

This thread is almost full and these questions still can’t get answered.

Right wing women are women too.

The children of right wing women and men, also have rights.

How leftie do you have to be to think that half of humans don't deserve the right to an opinion, or to have sex based rights?

That's a pretty far right attitude I'd say.

Oh the conundrums when you live by purity politics.

there a range of the political spectrum that falls within your acceptable range of acceptable association?

It's like some of you just don't read or hear what we're saying. It's not our personal feelings about KJK that matter, it's about convincing others to care about children being harmed by gender ideology and to care about women's rights under gender ideology. To do that, there are many strategies and frankly, using KJK is not a smart strategy for moderate or leftist women in the US. This thread is about KJK's support of Trump. Not helpful to American women nor our rights. Right-wing women in the US don't need convincing! The current government is Democrats...we need to change THEIR minds because they are in power.

Gender ideology was spawned by the left. They are responsible for it. It’s naive to think that if gender ideology is just challenged in the correct way, in a way somehow acceptable to American left-wing women, then they’ll just give what they have created.

it's about convincing others to care about children being harmed by gender ideology and to care about women's rights under gender ideology.

I do hear what you’re saying, I just don’t understand why it’s the responsibility of anyone on the right, or anyone right leaning, or anyone who once shot a furtive glance at anyone on the right, to convince people on the left about the harm of gender ideology. Why is this KJK’s job?

If people on the left want to convince other people on the left about these harms then they can. If people on the left don’t want to listen to people like KJK about the message of the harms of gender ideology because of what they perceive as negative associations, then more fool them; they’re prepared to dismiss people guilty of wrongful association on the basis of that association without actually listening to what is being said.

using KJK is not a smart strategy for moderate or leftist women in the US.

Don’t then [shrug].

This doesn’t make sense really. You are don’t want KJK, ok she’s not demanding you follow her.

All these threads and posts help put her in the spotlight. Can you talk about a suitable advocate instead? Can you name who you want to speak for you?

I doubt KJR cares that much about politics in the US, but vilifying her for NOT supporting the party that is doubling down on this gender ideology nonsense is an unusual approach.

I agree that is her goal, and it's the right one. She has been remarkably successful in reaching women the likes of Julie Bindel and Helen Joyce never will.

But, and this is a big but, I think that her clear flirtation with Trump could damage her ability to do just this. Trump is a fucking maniac, and no friend to women. Whilst he may say he did not dismantle Roe Vs Wade, he stacked the Supreme Court with the judges that did this. Women and girls, regardless of circumstance, cannot get legal access to abortion in many states, and this is a direct consequence of Trump's presidency. This is an act of horrific brutality against women that he is directly responsible for.

I agree she can't be held accountable for who shows up at her rallies. But she can be held accountable for her words and deeds. Her signalling support for Trump could, in my view, limit her ability to cut through. I simply would not believe that anyone who cares about the rights of women and children would have any time for Trump, and this would have me wondering what her real motivations are. Is she just a massive transphobe like the papers say?

KJK has formed her own party. How on earth can anyone claim that she isn't political?

No-one has said that right-wing women shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. No-one. Why can't you argue against what people have actually said instead of making things up?

I'm not sure that anyone has vilified KJK for not supporting Labour, have they? Labour, with a few notable exceptions have been appalling on gender ideology.

If you think that the far right-being attracted to her events in the UK, US and Australia, her support of Trump and her transphobia aren't a problem for how gender critical views are perceived and which organisations leverage them to support their own ends that's fine.

Re the suffragettes, there were plenty of divisions and differences in approach between them. But what is remembered is that they won women the vote. I hope that our grand daughters will see this historical period in the same way regarding women's rights to single sex spaces, access to abortion and contraception, protection of children.

I don't know whether the papers say that she's a massive transphobe, but in one of her recent videos she advised viewers not to rent property to trans people and not to employ them because they're lazy and their primary concern if their activism not doing their job.

That's transphobic. Not to mention the wider point of discrimination against a whole group of people just because you don't like some of them.

OP mentioned it in her first post.

Although I don't think transphobia is her 'real' motivation. I think she is motivated by wanting to protect children and the rights of women to single sex spaces, but I think compromising women's rights to contraception and abortion massively undermines the broader feminist cause.

I simply would not believe that anyone who cares about the rights of women and children would have any time for Trump,

you're saying that right wing American women don’t care about their children?

KJK has formed her own party. How on earth can anyone claim that she isn't political?

No one has claimed this. It’s not just not clear why a) people don’t want to ask her what her political ideology is and b) why it needs to fit with “traditional feminism”.

No-one has said that right-wing women shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. No-one. Why can't you argue against what people have actually said instead of making things up?

If people say that association with right wing people is damaging to the gender critical cause, you’re telling right wing women that they themselves are damaging to the gender critical cause. You’re essentially saying “shut up right wing women, you’re ruining it for everyone else”. Right wing women need to be quiet and not tweet anything or retweet anything or the left wing people might dig their heels in over gender ideology which is somehow bad. That sounds like a reduction in rights to me.

If you think that the far right-being attracted to her events in the UK, US and Australia, her support of Trump and her transphobia aren't a problem for how gender critical views are perceived and which organisations leverage them to support their own ends that's fine.

Perceived by whom? Idiots who can’t think for themselves and think that women meeting and getting gate crashed by far right idiots means those women were complicit? I mean who are we trying to convince here? Why do we need to convince these people of anything? There’s this weird obsession with needing to “convince” people who won’t budge. The vast majority of the entire world agree with GC positions and biological reality, they’re not going to suddenly stop thinking that way because of perceived “bad” associations.

Re the suffragettes, there were plenty of divisions and differences in approach between them.

Yet the cause united them.

KJK has formed her own party. How on earth can anyone claim that she isn't political?

The reason she's done this is that political parties are able to get a message across to the public / electorate in a way she, as an individual, cannot. Remember the billboard hoo ha in Liverpool? They couldn't have removed that if it was put up by a political party. That's the reason she's done it. It's about getting the message across.

Anyone who supports laws that deny women access to abortion, I think has other priorities than the rights of women and girls.

So unless you’re trying to solve all of feminism in its entirety then you can’t focus on one particular thing - single sex spaces - that just happens to be a cause of feminism as well?

So anyone who is pro-life/anti abortion instantly is of no use or is damaging to the cause for single sex spaces and protecting children?

One of these posters up thread said KJK had a clear eyed focus on the rights of women and girls. She does say she stands for the rights of women and girls.

I suspect she doesn't. She stands exclusively for the rights to single sex spaces, and for children to be protected from transitioning. Other important womens rights issues seem to be of no consequence to her.

I don't expect her to "solve all of feminism" but it is totally inconsistent to say you stand for the rights of women and girls and show support for Trump.

Single sex spaces occur within a political and social context. Afghani women have plenty of single sex spaces, but they haven't done much for women's rights, have they?

One minute there's a middle who needs convincing, now they are 'idiots who can't think for themselves'.

I happen to think that anti-abortion stances are hugely damaging to the cause of women's rights, perhaps actually the most damaging thing because if women don't have the rights and means to manage their own reproductive health they're living in a profoundly anti-women social and political context.

KJK is clear that she's not a feminist to be fair.

Anyone who supports laws that deny women access to same sex spaces , I think has priorities other than the rights of women and girls.

Was the sexologist and paedophile John Money a leftie?

Or the billionaires who shovelled money into the biggest law firm on the planet to develop the Denton's Document to strategies how to get this embedded across the globe? A leftie?

Or the pharma companies who needed a market for their drugs?

Or the man who put Puberty Blockers into the standards of care?

Or the organisations who gave money to universities across the globe to turn Women's Studies courses into Gender Studies?

All lefties?

Have you got evidence of this?