"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?

This is really a stretch.

More than 50% of women aged over 30 in the UK have had an abortion. It's a really uniquely female experience which is not impacted by how people "identify".

There are barely any adoptable babies in the UK and adoptive parents are very rigorously screened. It's really on the outer realms of possibility that "genderists" would ban abortion so there are more babies for TW to adopt

It's far more likely that a religiously influenced government would ban abortion due to the foetus' right to life, as viewed by their belief in God. Exactly the risk facing US women right now.

Abortion rights are in the hands of individual states in the US since the removal of Roe v Wade, so, No. I am pointing out that the erasure of woman by trans ideology affects all women's rights and is thus more dangerous than specific attacks on specific rights.

I think you under-estimate the reach of transrights.

But this is disingenuous.

Trump has made it very clear what his plan is and what his views of women are. He's actually said very little about transgender issues, apart from nonsense about operating on aliens in prison.

Posters pointing out that a vote for Trump is demonstrably bad for women are not on a "purity spiral".

And I personally find it very hard to engage in a debate about Harris that is "she wants to mutilate children!" It's extremely hyperbolic - no one wants to mutilate children. It's so emotive it makes me think there is little truth to it. If it were true, people would be able to make factual statements not emotive statements.

Posters pointing out that a vote for Trump is demonstrably bad for women are not on a "purity spiral"

But this is disingenuous. That’s not what I said, is it? Posters who think KJK should be condemned and anyone who supports her is supporting Trump is asking others to purity spiral. There’s a difference. HTH.

Why don’t you start a thread about how Trump is bad for women, Cassie? You’re a genuine poster, unlike the OP of this thread and any potential purity spiral about agreeing with KJK can be taken out of the discussion then, can’t it? Be aware though, that some Americans don’t like British based people offering an opinion on voting in an election that won’t affect them. Still, I think you’re the best option to do it, given your strong interest in left wing/right wing politics.

No chance! I'll get pasted! Thanks for the compliment though, I appreciate it.

Posters who think KJK should be condemned and anyone who supports her is supporting Trump is asking others to purity spiral

Which posters do you think are doing that?

Posters who think KJK should be condemned and anyone who supports her is supporting Trump is asking others to purity spiral. There’s a difference. HTH.

Yes.

I think the 'purity politics' is entirely misdirected. voting for socialist politicians is voting for reduction in austerity and an increase in social welfare etc. women are disproportionately affected by poverty etc etc (we all know this, I don't need to turn it into a lecture). and that is what the uproar has been about LWS/JKJ welcoming alliances with right wing people. they only align on this ONE issue in terms of women's rights/safety/welfare etc

the JKJ crowd insist on purity around gender. and calls for disregarding ALL other issues that affect women and girls. to the extent that we are seeing now, advocating voting for a rapist/sexual abuser because his thoughts on gender align.

they have become as emotive and illogical as the TRAs

Yes that's what I perceive too.

the JKJ crowd

Her name is Kellie Jay Keen, why do you repeatedly call her JKJ?

this would make sense if the GC was a promoter of women's rights. but voting entirely on the basis of gender in case it escalates to a point which is logically possible but hugely unlikely...and voting for a candidate who is already at the end point of the 'logical but unlikely' project, for different reasons is...I don't know what it is, but it definitely isn't voting in the best interests of women and girls. I can see that alot of people really believe it is though.

I'm going to leave it here as I have stuff to do

they only align on this ONE issue in terms of women's rights/safety/welfare etc

Well you can see the logic, can’t you? If it enshrined in law, at any meaningful level, that a man can be a woman and cannot be excluded from any women’s place or service, then every single women’s right or service ceases to exist. They become services for women and men who say they’re women.

So what do you do? Support for the people who might make this happen and try and persuade them not to? Or support for the people who definitely won’t allow this to happen? Even if you don’t agree with the tactic, it clearly has some logic behind it.

It’s not dissimilar to how everyone in the UK with an interest or knowledge on this topic is now holding their breath waiting to see what Starmer will do.

Edit, cross post. Yes, it’s a tactic that has pros and cons.

this would make sense if the GC was a promoter of women's rights

Whether you agree with individual gender critical women or not, the gender critical movement as a whole is about women's rights. Odd comment, and quite revealing.

It's also about other things, like protecting children from ruining their lives before they are old enough to grasp the consequences, but women's rights is one of the key concerns.

*GC candidate

Trump isn't "the GC candidate", is he? women who might vote for him are doing it as the lesser of two evils, not because he's a feminist.

This is what I just can't get.
On what planet is a proven sex offender, who says he wants to be a dictator, who is misogynist, who wants to remove womens rights to health are, who enjoys projecting the "strong man" patriarchal image, "the lesser of two evils"?

It's really striking to me that the anti-genderist language has moved to focusing on "mutilation of children". I think that's because those supporting Trump know full well that he will be horrific for women's rights and they can't hope to make a persuasive argument on those grounds, so they are focusing on children instead.

I can't see any realistic version of the future where Trump is "the lesser of two evils". Unless you are a rich man.

^every single women’s right or service ceases to exist^
Untrue. Abortion services for example are always going to be exclusively for females.

I'm GC but this argument doesn't fully hold water for me, it's overly simplistic and reductive.

The fact of the matter also is that Trump, like the Conservatives here, was in power while this self identification nonsense took hold. He didn't legislate to stop it last time so why does anyone have any faith he will do it next time?

My interpretation with him (sane as the Tories) is he's happy to cynically use the issue to win votes but has no intention of doing anything meaningful as it would be almost impossible legally and politically.

Even so though, the Republicans are showing they aren't capable of running a country in my opinion,by selecting a sex offending, convicted felon, lying misogynist as their candidate.

This is what I just can't get.
On what planet is a proven sex offender, who says he wants to be a dictator, who is misogynist, who wants to remove womens rights to health are, who enjoys projecting the "strong man" patriarchal image, "the lesser of two evils"?

There's no point asking me Cassie, because I don't think that. I'm saying that some other women do, because rightly or wrongly they are single issue voters on combating gender identity ideology.

Well. Personally I think they don't think he's "the lesser of two evils" - I think they want to vote for him and that's their line to justify it.
Why do they want to vote for him? A multitude of reasons - they are deeply loyal Republicans, they don't trust the Democrats, they like their local candidates, they don't like immigration who knows. I don't know enough about the nuance of US politics to guess. But I don't believe many people truly believe Trump will protect women and girls on any level.

Might be worth looking to see if Caitlyn Jenner is still endorsing him.

And to get back on topic, I'm really confused 1) why a womens rights campaigner would endorse such a nasty misogynist and 2) why criticising her for that causes such hostility.

I'm with messina - that odd video makes me think she's part of his comms strategy. There is no reason at all for a UK based GC womens rights activist to see that video as a "pivotal moment".

I see the Pesutto/Deeming case is in court. That's going to be interesting. Both sides have spent £££ on fees so far apparently

Then I guess you don't understand what misleading vividness is. It's blowing up a problem to be larger than it actually is, using language designed to create a strong emotional reaction.

And yet the purity spiral crowd don't even see themselves doing it, right before our very eyes.

What about "sterilising, mutilating, and indoctrinating an entire generation of children"?

Who are "the purity spiral crowd" and what are they doing in your opinion sam?

What I observe is women putting in place their own boundaries and being clear about those. Not "purity spiralling". But perhaps I've missed something.