"Trump is the only hope for the world. I hope Americans can see this."

[crimplepop]

KJK going off on one again. Can you see it yet?

KJK's potential as a leader of this movement was strong. Really strong. I remember when I first heard of her video (linked via another site, not MN) and she was responding to that little twat of an actor (Harry Potter) who had just publicly denounced JKR when she posted her essay some years back. She was so relatable, so easy to understand and her indignation against that little twat replicated my feelings precisely. God, I loved everything she said, even if I didn't fully understand the UK legal situation with Self-ID.

I've always worked in a careers where language and persuasion is a focus, so I had grand hopes for her. If you look through my old posts from years back, I suggested she get PR help. I have also personally reached out to KJK for collaboration and advice, hoping she'd be open to it as we had, I thought, similar goals.

I get that this is a me and a US-centric problem, but I have personal frustration that she can't be what I want her to be. I've been a feminist for a long time and I just need to focus on what I can do in my world and try to forget that KJK feels like a missed opportunity that went off the rails.

However, I absolutely appreciate all the MN FWR women here...whether we agree or not on everything.

Can anyone remind me, who was it who first 'worked behind the scenes' by arranging the first meeting at Westminster, one that the likes of Jo Cherry wouldn't attend?

Gosh it's coming to me...what's her name...Carly something.

Oh, I wish I had mentioned that one group who has been absolutely silenced and ignored, as if they don't even exist - the trans widows. From the recent documentary, we learn that this issue impacts wives/girlfriends/partners across cultures, politics, income brackets and belief systems.

I don't care if an American trans widow is right wing or votes for Trump, and if her situation is highlighted by a Republican-led government, I will rejoice for her. But, I think this issue is much bigger than that. It needs a cultural shift and it needs us all; it doesn't need KJK telling us how there's only one way to vote.

What is Kamala going to do for Trans Widows then?

A lot more than Trump if she's left without his income or health insurance.

Such as?

Expansion and preservation of the Affordable Care Act (my own family benefited from this as we'd previously been 20k in medical debt built up over the first decade of the 2000s) in case he leaves his job and she'd relied on his employer-paid healthcare.

Abortion protections in case she decides raising a child with a sexual pest is too much.

If she decides to leave him but doesn't know how to afford a home on her own, under Harris she can apply for $25,000 in down payment assistance, or can take advantage of her proposed $40 billion in affordable housing programs by local construction.

She can take a child tax credit up to $3,500/ year or $6,000 for a newborn under Harris.

She can expect lower grocery costs under Harris's push for the FTC to stop food companies from merging which drives up pricing.

If she has diabetes, under Harris her monthly cap on insulin would be $35 despite Republicans stripping this provision in 2022.

At the time the old law was struck down, the expectation was that there would be a new law put in place. Most people expected that, regardless of their political affiliation. The judges did too, regardless of their political affiliation.

The idea that you see among some Liberal and NDP supporters that they would prefer no legislation was not common at that time. But it was a political minefield for any party to actually try and address.

Additionally, the Republicans want to cut rental assistance. They also propose cuts of $4.5 trillion to social security (devastating to her if she's relied on his earnings over the years), Medicare (if she's over 65 or has a disability) and the Children's Health Insurance program (if he up and runs from his childcare responsibilities).

It's so much more than either party virtue signaling about who they think is a woman. It's real life economics. Material reality of one's bank account.

I have no idea who you are talking about.

I think the idea that we don't legislate against immoral acts because they are uncommon pretty bizarre, as I think most would, and what's more, I doubt you believe it either - I 'd be surprised you'd be blase about the legal implications if someone committed a rare but immoral act in other contexts.

Love it!

No, not necessarily. The late term abortions were illegal, but would not be in places where there was no such law, as the poster I was responding to advocated.

If you read back, her argument was that no mother would ever make such a choice and no doctor would be involved even if she did, and it's a very sad situation when such things do occur, so it's unnecessary to talk about regulating late term abortions.

This clinic operated for many years with a full staff, which rather suggests that it's not outside of the human capacity for being shitty.

Exactly so. The list of terrible things he did while in office is long. Imagine how emboldened he'll be if he wins again, and what he'll do regarding Project 2025.
Nobody (given they have full knowledge of what he is about) who really cares about other human beings would support that monster.

Nope, not true. I was active in the NDP at the time, and there was no widespread feeling that a new law should replace it such as you suggest. Keeping it out of the criminal code altogether was the goal.

You can't win with people who are so narrow they think that way. The type of people on the left or right who will avoid anything they perceive as being on "the other side" are not convincible. Especially when it is very evident that this is a cross-political issue. They don't believe left wing people could think that because they don't want to. A lot actually seem to be embarrassed by the whole idea they might agree with certain people, which is a terrible motivation.

Breaking down this idea that the left and right are totally opposite with no overlap, and are about pre-determined check-boxes of good and bad views, or that everyone on the other side has evil motives, is the only freedom and the only way forward politically.

By trying to cut out the "bad" GC people so the "movement" isn't tainted just reinforces the problem of people being unable to listen to anything anyone with a different political label says, no matter how sensible. That is deeply dangerous and not just on women's issues..

Well, we will have to disagree. I would say that the general sense among legal people was that it would end up with something similar to the UK or European laws. Though I am not surprised the NDP would be the ones most likely to think that no legislation would be the best approach. They've always had a tendency to think removing boundaries, or at least the ones they see as "traditional," is the way forward.

Anything but Reddit!

What? What kind of lunatic reports limericks?
Perhaps it's the same ones who report cake recipes.

Ones who are offended by a limerick directly about them. It's a personal attack and I'm bored of it.

It's not possible to gate keep to this extent and also you are less likely to get change if it's only left wing, older activist women

Oh, there was a mean one about you?
My policy on personal attacks is to let them stand, because then others will be forewarned about that particular poster.

Ha! its a business model that guarantees both ends paying. And publicly haranguing other GC women for not being pure enough to fight the good fight is just the icing of extraordinary hypocrisy on the cake.

I cannot believe I went against my bullshit detector to preserve unity - and defended her - vehmently🙄
Never again.

Yeah, I tried that. It doesn't fully work, just leads to a bit of a pile on.

Nothing about being able to annul the marriage or anything specific to trans widows though?

its a business model that guarantees both ends paying

What are you referring to here?