Can Kamala protect women?

[WandsOut]

Seems to be a lot of support for her from female friends but then what about her support for men in women's prisons...

How influenced is she by the current Biden administration? Will she be listening to Rachel Levine? What will she actually do for women if she can't define what a woman is?

No. Is the answer.

Does she even want to?

Not sure she knows what a woman is. We're between the devil and the deep blue sea.

It’s a binary choice between her and Trump. There is no world in which she could possibly be worse for women than another Trump presidency. Trump is on camera saying that he thinks women who have abortions need to be punished, there’s some truly terrifying stuff for women in the project 2025 plans. JD Vance believes the natural role of the post-menopausal woman is as a carer for grandchildren. They are weird, creepy little misogynists who have no business being anywhere near the levers of power.

That’s leaving aside Trump’s links to Epstein and the fact that he was found liable in court for sexual assault.

I don’t believe anyone could look at Trump and Vance and then decide that Kamala Harris is the riskier choice for women.

This. She is infinitely better than the alternative.

She put men in women's prisons. She hates us.

But beyond the binary choice - her alone, her administration, what can she do for women if she cannot define what a woman is?

I don’t agree that Trump is significantly worse for women or vice versa. They are both bad for women in different ways.

Kamala Harris and Tim waltz have supported all sorts of horrendous misogyny, from destroying the sports and funding of girls sports to promoting child gender harm to putting violent men in women’s prisons. They have no feminist cred at all.

Clinton and Epstein as well.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67865190

nypost.com/2024/01/06/news/inside-bill-clintons-close-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein/

He had contact all over the place, it seems. Most parties likely better off just not mentioning him at all.

It's like Labour here making speeches about protecting women but if we can't define what a woman is the misogyny act will be used against women by men in dresses.

How can Kamala protect women if she classes men as women?

In her speech she referenced moving on from the divisions of the past.
In his speech Obama started saying 'we should listen to each other and we might learn something' but then in an incredibly patronising way said we give leeway to older people in our families who express views that have not kept pace with progress and should give that same leeway to others that don't agree with us.
I am listening out for adults and hugely impressed by what the Democrats are doing in terms of this campaign, but think they don't yet see the problems let alone acknowledge them.

No she can’t. She doesn’t have a Definition for women so how she can help US women I’ve no idea.
Nevertheless, it’s her or Trump. For me it’s a case of either is shit, but she at least isn’t (as far as we know) a sex offender, tax fraudster or other type of felon.
Also I am not in the US or American so I am almost beyond giving a shit about them - such is the level of craziness there.

Given her support for rewriting title IX I doubt it,

This is utter horseshit.

A jury decided that Trump was civilly liable for raping a woman. He wants women criminalised for abortions, whilst also removing access to contraceptives. He thinks that sexual assault is fodder for fun locker-room banter.

Anyone who undermines the campaign of the only person who can keep him out of office hates women and is happy for them to live in a Handmaids Tale dystopia. Women are dying because they can’t access reproductive healthcare as a result of the last Trump presidency, before the Supreme Court had ruled he has immunity.

Anyone wittering on about “whether she knows what a woman is”, clearly isn’t living in a deep red state where the impact of Trump’s presidency on women’s rights is very real and not a philosophical exercise.

Clinton is not the democratic candidate.

I don't get the impression she's even thought about it. I'm glad I don't live in America. Even so, I'd be voting for her if I did because Donald Trump is a vile man baby who has no respect for women at all. I'm also deeply concerned at how anti democratic he is. The ongoing battle for women's and children's rights with regard to trans issues can be fought with the Democrats if they stay in power. I do think trans issues are going to stop people voting for Kamala but I don't think there's much awareness of those issues among the general population so not enough to influence the outcome of the election. I was very disappointed by Michelle Obama's support for gender ideology in her speech. It makes me shudder how middle aged cross-dressing men's need to be 'validated,' as women has led to an entire industry focusing on the mutilation of unhappy children in the space of two decades.

Wittering on?
Asking questions is not wittering on.

I would be voting for her too if I was there (lived there for several years)
But on her own merit what can she do if she's blind to this issue and the subsequent consequences.

I've been so disappointed by Biden and then by SNP and Labour here.

What can she do if she can't define a woman? If women cant be defined how can reproduction rights be strengthened if a man can say he's a woman and then determine policy by being on women's boards for example?

I’m sorry, but questioning whether she’s really the candidate for women when this guy is on the other ticket is wittering on.

The guy who thinks that raped women and girls should have to carry pregnancies to term.

I don’t believe that anyone who really cares about women would have any doubt about who is better for women and children in this election.

I'll repeat I'm asking about her - not the opposition. It's not a hard question. We are allowed to question individual candidates.

We had Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland decimating women's rights during her administration. I'd vote for Sturgeon over Trump in the either/or game but that doesn't make it wrong to question Sturgeon!

We are allowed to not blindly cheerlead to the point of ignoring creeping issues that can undermine the democracy we prize. It's called anticipating future issues.

It isn’t wittering on

both candidates could be shit on womens rights but have other reasons to vote for them (no idea what trumps would be mind) so its a perfectly valid question to ask

Are you in the states? I’m not but do teach American politics, so have a reasonable grasp of the political system there.

These sorts of debates about policy are the kind to have when the parties are selecting their candidates but the conventions have now happened, each party’s nominee is now set and it is a straightforward choice between Trump and Harris.

In that context, I just don’t see how you can be surprised that women are supporting her. Trump is an existential threat to American democracy and women’s rights. Of course women and anyone who cares about women will support Harris.

I'm not surprised that women are supporting her, I'm asking about how she can protect women if she supports males in women's prisons and males in women's sports and changing rooms.

It's the same as here - how can Starmer defend women if he can't define one?

In a way what good is the right to abortion when women have no other rights- the democrats only seem to care about the right to abortion but not the right to stop your child mutiliating themselves, no right to single sex care, to safe spaces, to single sex prisons, to women’s sports , scholarships etc. I have a deep mistrust of Kamala when it comes to women’s rights. Wasn’t she recently fawning and squealing over men in dresses at the White House?