Anyone else think Trump will ultimately do more damage to the gender critical cause?

[savehannah]

I hear lots of gender critical Americans (especially despairing parents of trans-identified children) cheering Trump's changes on the gender front, and on the face of it, things like not prosecuting parents for non-affirmation of transgender status and not allowing schools to secretly socially transition pupils seem like progress.

However, since Trump is also anti-homosexual, anti-abortion and anti-reproductive (and other) rights for women, I feel this will just lead to even more of a backlash.

Gender critical people have been trying for a long time to show themselves to be on 'the right side of history' and it felt like this was starting to become realised by more and more people (at least in the UK), that it's not just right-wing nutters that believe in the importance of biological reality.

But now gender critical beliefs are being pushed hard as part of hard right-wing policy alongside lots of unacceptable things, doesn't this lend more credence to the idea of the tolerant left being correct, and mean that people who believe tolerance means stamping on women's rights and allowing lifelong medicalisation of troubled teens feel vindicated in pushing hard back the other way?

And again conflating LGB with T, something which UK gender critical groups have tried to separate. Trump hates them all and wants to take away their rights so they are all a marginalised minority and need to fight together against the fascism. Rather than people realising in many ways the trans righrs movement is homophobic, 'trans away the gay' etc.

That's it!

Proof Trump always knew what a woman was.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-banned-word-list-b2701535.html

I am not sure why you would be surprised that people would think that kind of cultural propaganda should be repudiated. Or are you suggesting you don't think it's real - because it absolutely is, and if you haven't read the books that promote it, maybe you should familiarize yourself before implying people are making it up.

Cultural differences is not racism. Nor is every problem between people of differernt races racism. You can see immigration issues where there are people of the same race - even sometimes the same religion and substantially the same ethnicity - that are deeply bitter. Do people like Trump or Vance believe that all black people eat pets - there's no evidence for that and quite a bit of reason to think not. So whatever they are implying about Haitians, it's not about their race.

Do you think maybe there are other relevant differences between the Haitians in question and the Canadians?

The shift in black voters is not huge so far - particularly among women, I wouldn't call it a shift at all.

But he doubled his votes among black men under 30, and I think there has been a real sea change in the discourse among that group. It's not at all insignificant that it's younger men.

But he doubled his votes among black men under 30, and I think there has been a real sea change in the discourse among that group. It's not at all insignificant that it's younger men.

LBJ is famously supposed to have said, when pushing the Civil Rights Act through Congress, "I'll have those [n-word] voting Democratic for 200 years." Historians dispute this, but it's exactly the kind of thing LBJ would say.

In fact those sea changes work on about a three generation cycle, so maybe 70 years. After the Civil War, African Americans who could vote (in Northern cities) were very loyal to the GOP. They began shifting in big numbers in the 1930s, when slavery was no longer a living memory for most, and the Depression was pushing them towards a Democratic Party that was still segregationist. Even then it wasn't immediate. Black voters went for Herbert Hoover in 1932. Roosevelt won big with young black voters in 1936, but the older generation didn't move much.

I think it's similar to how Congress could dominate India for three generations, until the independence struggle was no longer a living memory (and Congress had become a corrupt shell), and then its dominance broke down quite spectacularly.

So maybe we're at the early stages of a similar sea change.

This is a really facile article. All it is saying is that if you are loud enough and use enough hyperbole you are right.

You only have to think of Boris Johnson to know this is total rubbish.

People who promise the earth knowing they cant deliver are obviously con men. eg Boris and Farage

People who promise the earth but are actually too stupid to know how to do it, or dont know enough about the earth, are delusional megolmaniacs.

There are any number of policies that people would agree with. But how they are delivered is the crunch point. eg there may have been a valid arguement as to why the WFA was means tested, but the crass and uncaring way it was delivered means that forever Labour will be tarred as hating old people.

The real issue is why so many people believes someone who rants and raves and tells untruths will actually deliver.

I dont blame voters being disillusioned, but the recent US election and the UK one showed this.

But thinking someone who is totally uneducated about politics, and has been molly coddled throughout his life by yes men, is capable of taking balanced decisions is like having a death wish.

Trusting a man who seems to have been educated by trash tv is a threat to all of us.

“Don’t assume that Trump knows basic facts. John Kelly eventually figured out that Trump didn’t know who had fought on which side in World War Two.”

“In an Oval Office meeting, he insisted that we bomb Mexico with B-52s, so that it would make craters in the coca fields. It had to be explained to him that they actually don’t grow coca in Mexico, and that we were cooperating with the Mexicans on counter-narcotics. But he kept insisting in strong language that we bomb the Mexicans.”

“The other occasion was in the cabinet room. There was an excellent presentation on <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/kjP38/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39645640" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">MS-13, a really dangerous Central American gang that causes a lot of mayhem in the US. A senior federal prosecutor was there to give a presentation to senior congressional leaders and the press about why the problem was so important, but Trump started threatening to shut down the government if spending wasn’t approved on some unrelated project. The meeting went totally off the rails.”

“Trump <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/kjP38/news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-proposed-using-a-nuclear-weapon-against-north-korea-and-blaming-it-on-another-country-book-claims-12785223" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">proposed a nuclear strike on North Korea. He said we could just deny that it was us. It had to be explained to him: ‘Sir, there are radars and satellites designed precisely to see where ballistic missiles are launched from, and there are forensics on radiation – God forbid if it ever happened – so they would know it was us.”

https://archive.is/kjP38

And by the way I think it is just as bad that people have conspired to cover up just how unqualified Trump is to be a politician let alone a President, I think it is really bad that Democrats went out of the way to cover up just how badly Biden's health had become.

But he doubled his votes among black men under 30, and I think there has been a real sea change in the discourse among that group. It's not at all insignificant that it's younger men.

There has been loads of research that across the world young men are becoming increasingly right wing.

One of the biggest swings was young men of Latino heritage. Only time will tell if trusting Trump to allow them to flourish in the US was the right thing to do.

Sorry meant to add this link:

In the US, Gallup data shows that after decades where the sexes were each spread roughly equally across liberal and conservative world views, women aged 18 to 30 are now 30 percentage points more liberal than their male contemporaries. That gap took just six years to open up.

https://archive.is/e57Za

@TempestTost

Cultural differences is not racism. Nor is every problem between people of differernt races racism. You can see immigration issues where there are people of the same race - even sometimes the same religion and substantially the same ethnicity - that are deeply bitter. Do people like Trump or Vance believe that all black people eat pets - there's no evidence for that and quite a bit of reason to think not. So whatever they are implying about Haitians, it's not about their race.

This is another confusing statement from you. Trump made a pronouncement about Haitians, not black people in general. It was a specific unverified statement about a group of Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, and was designed to ignite fear and anger. It was designed to paint that group as uncivilised and the rest of society - ie. white Americans - civilised. That is racism in its purest form and I'm not certain why you're going to such lengths to say it was something else.

Do people like Trump or Vance believe that all black people eat pets - there's no evidence for that and quite a bit of reason to think not. So whatever they are implying about Haitians, it's not about their race

You know perfectly well that Trump repeated that knowing it was racist as it would be a sure fire vote winner amongst racist voters.

He is, if nothing the most shameless showman, endlessly picking up on media scare stories to gain support.

Just as he repeats sexist comments.

It is crass and crude.

And unfortunately works amongst what seems to be a growing number of voters.

Just as Farage appeals in the UK.

Trump doesn't care whether people eat pets.

It's just a way to control the conversation.

The Leave campaign did the same with the £350 million NHS pledge. It doesn't matter whether it is true. The goal was to force Remainers to talk about sending money to the EU.

It's a campaign strategy.

However, in government you do need to pin down facts and figures and reliably implement policies, and that is where the chaotic approach falls apart.

If anything is confusing it is your argument here that racism isn't about race.

This is exactly what people mean by the Omnicause.

@TempestTost people would generally say something was racist if it singled out a particular ethnic group for negative stereotyping. It doesn't have to involve "race" as in whether they were Caucasian or African. I don't think the semantics of it is the main point.

Yeah, I tend to agree, maybe I'd say he doesn't particularly care if it was true or not.

Even the northern cities now are feeling the pressure of immigration. Including, notably, some traditional non-white neighbourhoods, who, when you see them talk about it in the media, seem a little shell shocked about it when their community centers etc suddenly are being repurposed or when the services like shelters intended to help the people who can't seem to make it in the community are full of people from away.

It's meant to evoke the sense of people who aren't integrated, working, etc, who will suddenly flood your community from outside and become a direct burden.

I think underneath that there is a slightly wider point of discussion about the idea that immigration supports the society/economy. This has, for many years, been the argument of the middle class and elites, and they poo pooped any claims from the sc that this was not the case as ignorant. It seems pretty clear now - even central bands are admitting it, that the claim for the good of the economy is at best only partially true and the reality is that newcomers in low level jobs do affect things like pay at that level of the economy, but also use more services, sometimes a lot more, than they pay for from their productivity.

That's fundamentally what people are pointing to in their communities. And in the US that is all framed in the discussion of people coming illegally and working in low level jobs.

Stories like this are largely about keeping the focus on that kind of question, it's very showy and gets a lot of headlines whether you anyone thinks it's true or not. Which is not a good way to talk about policy, I think we can agree. OTOH, the middle class left parties have all simply stopped such discussions with straight up denials and claims they are based on no data, which is also bollocks, so I am not surprised one fictional approach is being repudiated with another.

@TempestTost

If anything is confusing it is your argument here that racism isn't about race.
This is exactly what people mean by the Omnicause.

That is the opposite of what I said.

I wonder if we'll see Trump and Musk personally welcoming the Tate brothers back into America?