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 don't think anyone on this thread is arguing for laws to deny women single sex spaces, are they?

I would agree with this. I don't think anyone can claim they stand for the rights of women and children without having a consistent stance across the major issues. Single sex spaces. Rights to contraception and abortion. Maternity rights etc.

KJKs support for Trump makes me question whether she supports the right to abortion.

This keeps getting posted KJKs support for Trump, but what support?

Those who keep saying KJK supports Trump, can you show where / how KJK is supporting him?

Thank you, this puts it really well for me. It's not about being "pure" but it is about actually caring about the welfare of women and girls. Not only about single sex spaces (although that is very important) but also reproductive freedom and freedom from sexual violence. I find a support of Trump incompatible with these tenets.

ETA - I don't know is KJK supports Trump by the way, my post is a reaction to pps saying they can't see why it would be surprising (for someone who is meant to centre women and girls) if she did.

When you can't define what a woman is, there are no other rights women explicitly have.

It's what she has said for about 6 years now.

I'm sure the curators of her twix feed missed this this morning...

When you can't define what a woman is, there are no other rights women explicitly have.

Agreed but for me it is a necessity but not a sufficiency for being someone who cares about women's rights.

Defining what a woman is is integral to abortion and other feminist rights. It's not sufficient by itself.

As is so often said, the Taliban know what a woman is, TWAW types who want a baby by surrogacy know what a woman is, rapists know what a woman is but all of those things are hugely damaging to women.

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.

She was invited because some of the children of the women involved were being brainwashed into the ideology. The women were petrified, desperate and traumatised and KJK was reduced to tears when talking about 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.

Of course she bloody doesn't. And she doesn't stand anywhere 'ideologically'. She'll talk to the devil himself.

She's not representing you, or radical feminism or even feminism.

Get over it.

Saying she'll talk to the devil himself, she doesn't care what people think, she's not a feminist, is all a direct result of people trying to constrain who she talks to and where she goes.

For Gods sake, the bloody woman fiddled with the zip on her jumpsuit, which was meant to be a secret white supremacy signal, because her detractors pushed so hard on the 'she's a neo Nazi' bollocks.

She's actually had to deny being a white supremacist and a nazi!

No wonder her response is I don't give a flying fuck what you think.

Of course it’s a left wing ideology. When did it properly take hold and by whom?

Maybe 2015ish? Who were the groups who started with the “transwomen are women” chants, the concept of 124 or so genders and everyone pretending that no one knew each other’s sex?

If it wasn’t the left-wing’s baby, then why do they accuse anyone who doesn’t believe that men are women of being “right-wing”.

This is what I'm still waiting to hear about.

We're arguing around a conditional statement.

Where's the evidence that she supports Trump (actual evidence, not my friends sister said she said.... etc. Or a retweet about something unrelated).

Nope. She wouldn't know who I was. She posted something transphobic that made me wince is all. You must be confusing me with a different poster.

This is what really pisses me off about a lot of her detractors (not all, obvs, there are some interesting and relevant points being made).

Criticise what she's actually done if you like.

It's unfair and looks like smear tactics to criticise what "someone said she might have done but you've forgotten where you saw it but it definitely happened".

I think it mostly is too

Look at government in Canada, NZ (now changed), Aus, and so on. Look at who opposes it

Then the media. There’s a reason The Guardian and co are more TRA aligned

And organisations where it’s taken hold

This was a top down takeover, not a grass roots leftie human rights mission.

Everything about this turns everything on its head.

Which is why political purity spirals are not the lens on which to look at it.

There is a difference between right wing and far right. My problem is her associations with/appeal to the far right.

"If people say that association with far right wing people is damaging to the gender critical cause, you’re telling far right wing women that they themselves are damaging to the gender critical cause."

Yes. Fair assessment. People on the far right should consider what it is they are standing for.
Similarly it would be nice if KJK reflected in why it is she is so popular with the far right.

All those who believe that KJK is catching cooties from the big bad right turning up at open events because they agree that men cannot be women, and is therefore tainting the GC message; do you really think that the political left are incapable of seeing the issues of believing TWAW will have on single sex spaces? That they will somehow be unable to apply any critical thought because they won’t be able to see past the fact that someone with differing politics is supporting something then that something must be ‘bad’?

Do you have so little respect for those on the left that you’d believe they’d be this dim?

My personal opinion is it's a men's sexual rights movement which was sold to the left (and right to be fair) on the basis of 'inclusion and diversity'. And the Trojan force of the erstwhile gay rights movement.

Add in a couple of US billionaire cross dressers, and the means for pharmaceutical companies and doctors to cash in and Bob's your auntie.

Left wing women can obviously see the issues, but left-wing politics still wants to hold onto it. Hence the conflict.

Maybe the women on this thread genuinely do think that Posie is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But that's because she's not wedded to politics in the same way.

I'm not positive, but I think she (along with many other women), are also of the opinion that fetishist cross dressers make up 99% of the cohort, whilst inventing the 'trans child' to back them up.

Which drives another massive wedge between her, and those who still believe there is any kind of EDI ideology at play.

This is just not true.

She said that she personally, uf she were a landlord, would not rent her property to a trans person.

She did not 'advise landlords'.

She also did not say, as people here keep claiming, that she said 'all trans people are lazy'.

She said of the people that she personally knows who do work with trans people they are activists first and employees second (I'm paraphrasing).

Now you might not like those statements. Feel free to criticise them.

But please don't say she said things she didn't - that's the akin to saying JKR hates trans people and criticising her on that basis.

I'm not defending the things KJK said in that particular video, which do seem extreme.

I'm defending everyone's right to only be criticised for their actual words and deeds, not what we think/wish/heard that they've said.

It's an important element of free speech.

If we don't stand up for truth and accuracy, we damage public discourse.

The OP propagates these inaccuracies, as did the other thread, which is why it does not come across as a genuine good faith criticism.

I expect I'll now be accused of splitting hairs and that it doesn't matter exactly what she said because we know what she really meant.

But words matter. Specifics matter.

Otherwise we're not adults having a discussion, we're children shouting 'waaa it's not fair, you smell'.

The other thing thing to bear mind is that she has been attacked physically and genuinely thought she'd lose her life, her entire family including her children and grandparents have been targeted, doxxed, threatened, etc. She requires security at all her public appearances (and even this is targeted when it's not paid for by the right kind of people).

She rarely specifies the forms these threats take, but she did once, and it was so disgusting, involving the death of one of her children, that even if you're used to it, it would've taken your breath away.

She gets threatened, relentlessly, by AGP men. And you can imagine quite how graphic that is.

if you have the opinion that this is a mens sexual rights movement, and your every contact with it just reinforces that opinion, being accused of transphobia will be utterly meaningless.

Her trip to Australia was funded by CPAC, an American right wing organisation that is very pro Trump.
Party of Women Nominating Officer is Paul Duddridge, a resident of LA who is very pro Trump.
She works closely with American members of Moms for Liberty, a Republican organisation that's very pro- Trump.

My inference therefore is she is pro-Trump. That's too many financial and organisational ties to claim its just her not minding.

Did you watch the video? (Source because first hit on Google and cropped to the statement in question)
https://x.com/LGBwiththeT/status/1793346401897779511/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1793346401897779511&currentTweetUser=LGBwiththeT

Are there any left wing organisations funding disruptive but approved women with this kind of focus on threads and posts?

Where are those threads and names?

@AstonScrapingsNameChange

Where's the evidence that she supports Trump (actual evidence, not my friends sister said she said.... etc. Or a retweet about something unrelated).

You don't think a retweet is support? Even when it is several tweets?

Good Lord. And not only that, she shops in Waitrose.

No.

Her insurance was paid by CPAC. Because she couldn't get insurance from anywhere else. And no insurance, no visit.

What checks have you done on all your insurance companies in your lifetime to check that none of them had ties to anything non left? I'm guessing none.