I think the spell is finally broken...

[Daysnconfuddled]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/

One of the few who did, Rosie Duffield, has been driven out.

I try not to go through red traffic lights when I'm driving. My motivation is, realistically, as much because I want to be permitted to continue to drive as it is because I don't want to injure someone else. Self interest is sometimes the motivation for a bit of good behaviour. Trump is not unique in using politics to his personal advantage; we don't have to object when he actually does something worthwhile for a change. We have plenty of opportunities to criticise when he does something bad.

Always looking to rain on someone's parade, Grammarnut! 😀

He's not an idealogue but he is vain and driven by populism, and unfortunately the simplistic explanations, fixes and priorities of populism plus the deep pockets of corporatism tend to end up at the same place as fascism.

I totally understand if he'd happened to hit on a rich vein of disgruntled left wing voters as his path to the White House he'd be fully on board with that agenda. But he didn't. And now that his self image is tied to conservative hobby horses that is what he will ride.

What has TikTok got to do with the price of tomatoes here? In fact, the TikTok thing was a given: it would not surprise me if many of Trump's supporters are TikTok entrepreneurs who stood to lose their livelihood by the ban. That aside, nothing has appeared yet that looks anything like a ban on LGB or women's rights (and remember that abortion rights are the responsibility of states now, so Trump cannot do much about them).

What will this mean for people with DSDs?

Be very wary of him breaking this spell. He’s done it to appease the Evangelicals- they also don’t want women to have any abortion rights.

Absolutely nothing.

It's good - but there's no way he wrote it - ot even contributed to the points verbally.

Could you actually miss the point more?

Anyway. Trump has now signed an executive order rescinding any price controls on by pharma. So people who need insulin had better be rich.

You love someone who is going to support the removal of women's rights over their own bodies?

@Grammarnut you only have to pay attention to what Trump et al say to realise that they are coming for women's rights. Musk is obsessed with the birth rate and increasing it, it's only a matter of time.

Yes I think we're over the top of the bell curve now.

That's not true - there can stll be a federal ban. And if not that, then other restrictions - like federal laws against crossing state lines for the purpose, federal laws against medical personnel operating on anyone out of state, federal laws against fund-raising for organisations like Planned Parenthood etc

You can hope as much as you like, it doesn't change the fact that Trump has made it very clear he will attack women's and LGB rights, and certainly will do nothing to restore the rights that were taken away after Roe v Wade was overturned.

Remember all the scaremongering last time Trump was elected? And then…nothing happened.

i don’t like the guy or what he stands for but tbh errs literally no evidence some of the wilder claims of what he’s going to do, on here, are likely to come to fruition.

He's rolled back on gender ideology to appease people with common sense.

Trump has made it very clear he will attack women's and LGB rights

I wouldn't trust a word that came out of his mouth, but what exactly has he said on this topic? He may have expressed the view that abortion rights should be settled at State level (an opinion quite widespread in the US), but beyond that?

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

This report to the UK parliament is based on a Swedish study which states
‘male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was
true regarding violent crime.’

It obviously makes sense that patterns of offending are retained. Male and female patterns of offending are a) vastly different and b) consistent across cultures. When I first paid attention to this I was startled by how different male and female patterns of offending are. At www.sexsegregation.org.uk/by-country-jurisdiction there are helpful stats such as 99% of sexual offenders are male and 88% of those offended against (and 97% of those subjected to rape) are female. It makes it clear how very much human biology relates to who commits, and who is a victim of, violent and sexual crime.

Seen a lot ad hominem attacks here, rather than people just being brave enough to say why they don't want to see a rolling back of gender ideology.

The courts etc did a good job of stopping him. There's little to no guarantee the same will happen. Why? Because Trump and Co have had four years to reflect on this problem and to reduce the same happening this time. Potentially with the threat of violence which the Capitol riot at the end of his term set a precedent for.

The fact that trans-exclusionary feminists are thrilled with Trump says it all really about trans-exclusionary feminism.

It's brilliantly written.