This is why so many women voted Trump

[BabyLlamaZen]

I’m not saying it’s right, I’m not saying it’s worth the horrors of the Trump administration (and what other women’s rights will be abolished). However, I can also empathise. Books like this are everywhere in baby sections of bookshops in USA. My american friend is naturally more conservative than myself although hated Trump and didn’t vote for him previously (she abstained and then she went Biden although she says she seriously regrets) and this time she voted Trump. She said this stuff is now everywhere and it’s constant. She also showed me a baby’s ABC book which included B for bisexual (and literally then described it as people who are sexually attracted to either gender). For babies.

This is Megyn Kelly explaining why women should vote for Trump.
She makes a final interesting and often missed point that most women care about men. Women don't just vote for themselves they vote for their families.

The democrats made the mistake of thinking 'women' is the same as 'feminist'.

But most women don't identify as feminists.
Most women are interested in women's rights but they don't necessarily subscribe to the framing and prescription from the feminists.

It's the same schism between GC feminists and sex realist women: you have to subscribe fully to their framing or you're not pure enough.

The republicans provided a bigger tent for women: more varied viewpoints on abortion and trans can be expressed and tolerated

But the Dems viewed women as a monolithic vote on unrestricted abortion and TWAW. Any dissent is facism.

Big mistake.

Haha!!

I mean, I wouldn't mind, but it's us women, who have had to brief the media about this issue for about 10 or 15 years.

It took so bloody long for them to pick it up, because, like you, they buried their head in the sand.

Fortunately enough women made enough noise, along with the help of powerful women like J. K. Rowling. And the media started to listen.

Then of course, operation let them speak really took hold. And before you knew it Isla Bryson had brought down a government.

The media, I'm afraid, have been behind the curve every step of the way.

I don't have a deep understanding over American politics, but it's my understanding that the Democrats could have ratified the right to abortion in the constitution but they haven't.

Why is that?

In theory the right to an abortion could be made a constitutional right but in practice not a chance:

The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. In order to prevent arbitrary changes, the process for making amendments is quite onerous. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. In modern times, amendments have traditionally specified a time frame in which this must be accomplished, usually a period of several years. Additionally, the Constitution specifies that no amendment can deny a State equal representation in the Senate without that State’s consent.

www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/

Can we ask that is always important at this point:

How many women is it acceptable to harm to accommodate a male fantasy?

Well it seems quite a few Democrats are now coming out and effectively saying that don't buy the gender stuff either; but as Democrats they're not supposed to say so.

People who adopt such identities exist, of course they do, but these identities are real only to them. You cannot change sex.

That's why to provide a country-wide right, Roe vs Wade was an interpretation of the Constitution that a constitutional right to an abortion had from the start been "hidden" in the Constitution in terms of it being a sort of privacy right.

I cam across this piece in the New Statesman, in which Janice Turner reviews Mary Harrington's book 'Feminism Against Progress.

I thought this passage particularly interesting in the light of the Democrat astonishment that more women did not come out and prioritise the abortion access issue, above all, when it came to their vote. Interesting, because i think it hints at the image that was conveyed to many by positioning this issue as front and centre.

"Motherhood, the ultimate surrender of personhood, is even less prized. Harrington notes that if only paid labour has value then motherhood becomes invisible, rendering it ever less attractive (but legitimising the financial transaction of surrogacy). Moreover, the reproductive rights movement, she argues, has tipped into “anti-natalism becoming the feminist position”. Abortion is valorised, pregnancy demonised: “Parasites don’t have rights,” said one pro-Roe vs Wade,pro-abortion rights placard in the US. Each generation of women finds pregnancy and birth a visceral shock. But I’ve noticed how current liberal feminist writing on motherhood bears a surly indignation, a joyless “How dare this thing need me” tone. If you prize “agency” and abhor “biological essentialism”, the leaky postpartum state is an existential as well as a physical affront.

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/book-of-the-day/2023/03/feminist-case-against-progress

I do wonder if this is also a turning point for surrogacy.

Apparently, when considering this number, if we ever get it, we have to keep it in the context that it is out of 335 million. Apparently, we need to understand that until the numbers reach a certain threshold, all those female people harmed - all those women and girls- are to be dismissed because they are so tiny as to not count.

I suspect that unless we could calculate the numbers to reach, say 0.5% of the population seems to be the pivot of importance, some posters will just continue to dismiss it.

It is like ALL women and girls apparently will have voted based on abortion, even when their own areas have legal abortion. Logic!, maths! Thrown away for hyperbole.

Everything in that kids’ book is factual and accurate. Debatable whether it would make much sense to a small child but it’s no different from having books aimed at young children talking about race, disabilities or many other subjects.

It’s deeply concerning that people think a children’s book they don’t like is an excuse to vote for Trump.

https://x.com/salltweets/status/1855166048493773235?s=46

If anyone wants to understand just why it is very conceivable that people who are part of the Democratic Party think they can rightfully deny that issues around gender identity most certainly were not significant for voters, this is a good example.

When people face this sort of reaction when they attempt to discuss it, why do these people
denying it is a significant issue think people discuss it with them?

I haven't read the whole book, but the images in the OP include sentences that are not factual and accurate. They are highly controversial and misleading.

The problem is that wouldn't be enough either. As a certian Russian leader, who was a double Nobel Peace Prize nominee (1945 and 1948) once said: 'A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is just a statistic'.

So I suspect we would just move to: A million women harmed is just a statistic - so we still don't need to care how many women are harmed.

"Some people are girls, some people are boys. Some people are neither. Some people are both."

A girl is a juvenile human female of or denoting the sex who bear eggs. A boy is a juvenile human male of or denoting the sex who produce sperm.

Perhaps you could say what your definition is of a girl and a boy, which means a human can be both or neither?

It’s only factual if you believe that there are 72 genders, or however many there are.

For people who believe that people with ever-complex “genders” are just describing their personality, then it’s kind of a crappy book, isn’t it?

Everything in that kids’ book is factual and accurate.

Disingenuous and untrue.

Thanks for the explanation. So it's because it wouldn't have enough support? Is that right? Does any party routinely propose an amendment?

it might be very useful for my 5 year old actually. She is quite fixated on gender stereotypes atm - girls are like “x” (e.g, pretty, like unicorns , wear dresses etc) and boys are like “y” (e.g. naughty). I challenge these- eg some girls can be naughty , some boys can like unicorns, etc., but she doesn’t seem to be at all convinced. I think the book explains things in quite a useful way- we give people the label “boy” and “girl” (almost always) based on genitals, but that doesn’t actually tell us much about who a person really is.

She already has a book about race which she is very interested in and has been since she was about 2! My partner thinks some of the content is age inappropriate, but personally I think kids do start noticing and forming unconscious ideas about social categories very young , and it’s ok to discuss it with them.

-I think the book explains things in quite a useful way- we give people the label “boy” and “girl” (almost always) based on genitals, but that doesn’t actually tell us much about who a person really is

You’re right, it explains their sex, but nothing about their personality

Humans can only be a girl or a boy, unless the words girl and boy means something other than their sex.

Obviously if it means wears dress, or is naughty, that's something that needs putting right. A girl isn't someone who wears a dress.

Of course the books can be considered factual if you understand that gender identity is only philosophical belief. And that no one has to comply with that belief.

The issue is when some people believe their philosophical belief represents material reality. And that laws and policies should prioritise their belief over the proven sex based needs. And that children and vulnerable people should be told that their bodies should be changed to fit their philosophical belief.

It’s so obvious that gender ideology is based on deeply regressive stereotypes. And here’s a real life TRA demonstrating this!

It explains that “girl” and “boy” are labels (words) that are assigned to a person based on their genitals.
Exactly as it says. This is true.

But what does the label mean? does it mean has a penis? Or has a vagina?

Because how can a child have neither, or both?