GC feminism in US election

[theDudesmummy]

How are they voting? I sometimes follow a US feminist YouTube channel, IHIP news, and one of the presenters (a straight woman) was talking today about standing in the queue to vote and seeing some friends there Four were lesbians, she said, and they hugged her and "knew I was a safe place" for them, or something to that effect. Then her "transwoman" friend came and hugged her. She is voting Democrat for all these friends, she said.

How is she squaring the rights of the lesbians with the rights of the man who is pretending to be a woman and presumably feels entitled to be considered by the lesbians as a potential sexual partner?

Now if I was an American I would vote Democrat because of everything else but would feel unsettled as I did it because of the trans rights issue. How are the GC women there voting?

Roe vs Wade was never considered a strong legal decision, including by the justices who made it. People complain that it being struck down by the court was a political judgement, but it was similarly a political judgement by a deliberately stacked court in the first place - and tat's not a stable situation.

Knowing this, it would have behooved the Democrats to try and pass federal legislation so they didn't need to rely on a decision that might well be reversed.

What you are calling the constitutional right to abortion, was based on an interpretation of other, more basic constitutional rights - in this case the right to privacy.

It's not written in the constitution, as I'm sure you know, that women have a right to abortion. It's pretty certain that no one writing it was even thinking about abortion specifically, and for much of the history of the country, no one thought it was a constitutional right.

What changed, both with RvW, and when it fell, was the interpretation of the court. If it weren't possible for this to happen, there would have been no such constitutional right in the first place - it would have remained as it was.

Surely you understand that if a court can make a decision about such things, that doesn't magically freeze in the form that you wanted. New cases and new legal judgements can always change the situation again.

If you want to make something more grounded and lasting you need to legislate (though that can always be subject to legal challenge too.)

For someone accusing everyone else of not understanding the American system you seem quite confused yourself.

You assume everyone on here is British
You assume everyone on here lives in the UK
And you assume everyone who puts any alternative point of view to yours is a bot.
You make a lot of assumptions.

If there was literally no problem with abortion rights right up until Roe v Wade was overturned, how have we heard about abortion being an issue every single time anyone discusses USA politics?

It is literally the one thing that is a constant issue that is gone over again and again, year after year. For decades.

The democrats have had so many years in power and they have done nothing about it so I have no idea why you think Harris is going to be any different.

It is going to be pretty impossible to 'sort the trans crap' with the Pritzkers so woven throughout the Democratic party and their funding.

Agree with others on here that a vote for Trump is an act of extreme self-sabotage, not just for women’s rights but also potentially democracy itself. Sadly, key results seem to be going his way. Re: the trans issue, it’s far more helpful when it’s not framed as left v right but instead as a basic safeguarding right for women and children (which it is).

Democracy?

Anyone who thinks that modern day elections are in any way 'democratic' I am afraid you are living in la la land.

The Labour Party are in power in the UK with how much percent of the national vote?

Most modern countries are run on behalf of non elected organisations and businesses with their own agenda that don't give a shit about how they get a tick in the box. The only option is to vote for the least worst. There is no 'best' option.

It's a choice between a dog shit sandwich and a cat shit sandwich. Either way, you get no ketchup and fries with it.

Trump's victory speech a number of minutes ago presented a very different picture to his rally speeches. Far more positive, gracious and optimistic. I don't think he'll be the ogre that everyone has been expecting.

Much more articulate than he was on the campaign trail as well - interesting. All the praise of Vance and Musk was a bit chilling. Musk's purchase of XTwitter has paid off for him.

Musk is basically the President. Thiel is the VP. Trump is in the front office.

I think Dobbs should be yoked with economic injustice. Putting it with ' the threat to our democracy ' didn't work. Fell between two stools.

Vance is no idiot, not by any means. He may well end up being the one who has the most influence on policy. I suppose it will depend on the degree to which he's prepared to sacrifice his ego to Trump.

I think he may well end up being the most interesting person in this administration.

As far as trying to push votes for Harris with abortion, that's pretty foolish when most Americans know she's not got a lot of power around that. Especially without Democratic control of Congress. It comes off as another attempt at manipulation. If activists were serious you'd see them proposing what are likely to be popular, moderate laws at the state level.

Why do you think was it chilling? JD Vance is his running mate.

During his last term in office I saw a different side to him. He was conciliatory, positive and affirmative of people such as Musk, and others, who he views as geniuses who have much to contribute to the U.S.

So many groundbreaking developments come out of the U.S, and I can imagine there will be more to come when it comes to dealing with climate change...even if he permits oil extraction to continue in the short to mid term. Tesla was a groundbreaking technology.

I always wonder about whether his campaign speeches are being presented by the media so as to make him appear less coherent. He speaks in a very odd way regardless, but is it as random as what we see on TV, I am really not sure.

When Vance was named as running mate I read Hillbilly Elegy. I found the 'pull up the ladder Jack' tone discordant, and feel it promises a hard time for poor Americans. Musk is chilling on every count.

This. I've 'educated myself' and there may well be many voters who got to vote to secure abortion access / pro choice in state bills (that will have far more immediate impact on women's rights and health than whoever the president is) but still voted Trump.

It's a bad decision to try and convince people abortion rights is a reason to vote Harris because a fairly cursory look at the evidence suggests it's unlikely to be the best way to protect women and it clearly didn't work.

Plus the fact previous dem presidents did nothing. Now I know more about it I can concede the president can't just create a pro choice law overnight but they could have prioritized women's biological reality. Instead they focused their energy into ensuring male rapists be locked up with vulnerable women and put a man who wanted to remove age limits to sterilisation for distressed children in a position of power. And did not remove him when the total lack of medical evidence of benefit was revealed. Why on earth would we believe anything's going to change? Such a bizarre strategy.

Really I think the Democrats lost this presidential election. Should have been easy against Trump but they've managed to alienate so many voters and worse can't seem to understand why though it's not rocket science unless you're too much of an ideological zealot to be able to listen to other points of view.

Should have got rid of Biden sooner, not just appointed Harris. So many mistakes. Just have to hope Trump isn't too bad.....the world didn't collapse last time so fingers crossed.

Agree

I read Hillbilly Elegy too, though I cannot say I'm sure what you mean by its "pulling up the ladder" tone?

What women have died Over trumps abortion ban? @Pallisers

It was the Democrats. There was constant sniping that the pro-Trump vote (and Brexit and the possible loss of the EU vote in Moldovia just lately) was influenced by the Russians. I remember it very well.

If the trans issue is about safeguarding women and children why does Harris not say so?

4 years ago Lord Sumption (former UK Supreme Court judge) gave the BBC Reith Lectures. He said judges are becoming guilty of overreach and usurping the role of democratic debate. He cited Roe as an example: it prevented the debate on abortion in the US from running its course and settling on the position arrived elsewhere. I thought that was speculative, so I'm interested that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had the same view.

Roe was based on the US constitutional right to liberty, which does seem weak.

Unfortunately it's becoming a lot more normal for judges to meddle and interfere rather than simply decide cases, and the result is this.

This is something else people find discordant about the Democrat narrative on this - the idea that the Republicans, against all tradition, stacked the SC to get Roe out.

Well, yes, to some extent, but not against tradition, that's how the judgement was made in the first place, and political progressives and feminists seemed very happy with that approach.

It's a very, good when it works for us, because we are on the side of the gods, kind of thinking. Bad when you use it because you are on the side of the devil.

Which I think points to a lack of real respect for the political process. There is an argument for the very speculative kinds of interpretations of the constitution the left likes. And also an argument for the more limited types of interpretations conservative judges are willing to make. These are both serious legal approaches with serious legal scholars in favour, or against them.

But what I find really hard to respect is saying legal challenges are ok when I like the results, but shouldn't be allowed when they challenge my beliefs. That's not law, and it's not democratic. It's just arbitrary authoritarian right-think.