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.

"One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenceless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Trump we can fight, the stupidity of GI, Queer Theory, CRT will be the death of the West if we don't stand up to it.

Right now Trump is all we've got, so Lock & Load.

Tulsi Gabard may be a former Democrat, but she seems rather illiberal, she also a huge Putin fan and speaks glowingly about him.

RFK is demented, antivax, anti science, thinks WiFi alters the blood brain barrier and that mobiles cause cancer.

They're hardly centrists.

most of the armed forces don't serve on the front line. Where are the stats on people joining the army to get free hormones?

But this is exactly what I am afraid of. Up until now you could reasonably say to a trans person "tell me what rights don't you have?" Now they don't have the right to serve in the armed forces.

'most of the armed forces don't serve on the front line.'

During peace time, during a war everyone in the armed forces has to be fit to be deployed to where ever the country needs to deploy them.

Every country has the right to chose only those who are fit to serve, it's not about 'rights' it's about what the country needs to defend it's self.

So make the argument that this surgery is not the responsibility of an employer.

Most of the US military are supposed to be deployable at least in theory. See the graph here:
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-are-in-the-us-military-a-demographic-overview/

Nobody with what the US Govt regard as a delusional belief has the right to serve in the military. It's not just people claiming a trans identity.

(Also: This is a bit cheap of me, but if I was arguing like a TA, I would say: "So what if trans people can't serve in the military? I'm a pacifist and armies shouldn't exist.")

ETA: Figures from 2023

Female sportswomen who identify as transmen need to put off using cross-sex hormones and surgery until their athletic career is finished.

Maybe it would not be unreasonable to say that people with trans identies need to put off using cross-sex hormones and surgery until their military career is finished if they want to join the military? This of course would also entail people using the correct barracks for thir sex, and they would also need to pass the correct fitness and medical examinations.

Unless the Dems throw in with Doge and recognize women they will be on the outside for a long time. They need to be pro DOGE and become Centrist to come back.
Right now there are more registered Republicans than Democrats; that's a first!
Dem approval is down to 35% so low.
Tulsi, RFK jr, Musk and even Trump were all Democrats. Even if you personally don't like them, they are very popular appointments.
So I'm not worried.

I think there is some confusion between one of Trump's pet targets, and actual anti - whatever, race, sex and so on.

What he does not accept and has asked all references to be removed is the idea that their are groups of people who because of say their sex or race should be given or expect more appropriate treatment.

So for instance they have just removed references to a report about violence against Native American Women https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-white-house-live-updates_n_67aa443de4b0cced3687c9ec/liveblog_67b4f9e5e4b08e2e24824c73

And although I think he is both sexist and racist for him the logic is everyone should be treated the same, so there is no need for a special programme for women for a particular community.

In his mind / world view, white men (who may even be gay) naturally get to the top because they are the best.

So his attack on DEI is not about which minority group he hates the most, but the temerity and use of public money to promote people who in his view of the natural order of things are actually able to get to the top by themselves.

His programme is to stop anything that undermines the (natural) supremacy of white men.

I dont think Trump will damage the fight for women's sex based rights because as far a I know no feminist group supports Trump.

Some feminists may support policies that restore women's sex based rights in sport etc., but doesn't mean they support Trump.

The worry will be as usual, that the TRAs and the self congratulatory left will sell the message that feminists supported Trump.

So when the shit hits the van for Trump (which will be whether his isolationist policies damagies the economy) there will be those on the hard left who want to pust the TRA agenda, who will say it is all the fault of terfs.

That's the problem.

As the OP illustrates the public perception is of some strands of feminism hero worshipping at Trumps feet - which is complete projection by the left who were and are too feeble to challenge Trump. So obviously it is women's fault that the left was a complete failure. Not their fault.

Sorry to quote myself but I didn't check before posting so have misrepresented myself

So his attack on DEI is not about which minority group he hates the most, but the temerity and use of public money to promote people who in his view of the natural order of things are actually not able to get to the top by themselves.

Apolgies also for mixing up their and there. Not sure which is wilting faster my touch typing or my brain.

Trump did not even read the two "gender" EOs

The damage DOGE are doing to the reputation of the USA is existential

Putin invested his money well buying Trump in 2016 via Manafort and Deripaska

Thanks for the correction, IwantToRetire, what a difference a word makes
I was about to post that organisations who have been banned from putting lists of groups in their recruitment material can remain committed to diversity in their actual hiring processes - to use NASA as an example again:

“NASA is on an ambitious journey to Mars and we’re looking for talented men and women from diverse backgrounds and every walk of life to help get us there,” said NASA Administrator and former astronaut Charles Bolden,

To help accomplish this work, NASA will select qualified astronaut candidates from a diverse pool of U.S. citizens with a wide variety of backgrounds.

@IwantToRetire And although I think he is both sexist and racist

What is your evidence he's racist?
The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio is Hispanic (Cuban) Tulsi Gabbard is Samoan, JD Vance has brown children (Indian), Kash Patel is Indian, the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent is gay, the Attorney General Pam Bondi is a woman.

Pro 19 year olds who get confused/don't care about the difference between Gaza in Mozambique and the Gaza strip?

Pro abandoning the constitution?

Whatever Trump represents it's not a sane alternative to Democrat idiocy.

Tulsi, RFK jr, Musk and even Trump were all Democrats. Even if you personally don't like them, they are very popular appointments.

They might all be absolute charmers and excellent company, thatsthewayitis, but I don't judge politicians on whether on not they are personally likeable, but on what they stand for, and whether or not they have at least an adequate grasp of geopolitical and other facts relevant to the job they are doing.

Their appointments were popular with Trump's party, but weren't their confirmations opposed by all the Democrats + one Republican, which isn't exactly 'very popular', surely it's just 'popular along predictable party lines'.

Trump and his officials will do their thing.

In ongoing terms the important thing to watch is what the Dems do. Some prominent ones like Buttigieg are shifting positions
https://www.foxnews.com/media/pete-buttigieg-slams-democrats-portlandia-approach-pushing-diversity

Tulsi resigned as DNC vice-chair - which, okay, was a decorative role that they wanted a young, good looking, non-white woman for, as long as she didn't have any of her own opinions - she resigned from that role to support Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary.

That's when Hillary Clinton and her people started putting it about that she was a Russian asset. Nobody's ever tried to substantiate that. By constant repetition, it's just become something "everyone knows".

And then Bernie, who agrees with a lot of her antiwar politics, turned around and voted against her in line with the party whip, because that's just the kind of prince Bernie is.

Tulsi Gabbard went to meet Assad without clearance and then spoke up on his behalf.
Tulsi Gabbard regularly parrots Kremlin lies

I think the 'Russian assets' are rather higher up in the food chain.

Of course Hillary says everyone is a Russian asset. She said it about Bernie himself. It's been the go-to smear for the DNC for about the last decade.

Are you following what Trump and Musk are saying? At the moment the United States is a Russian Asset.

Oh, how I hope that happens. Trump is bad news in so many ways. But the dismantling of women’s rights is such a massive disaster, and the longer it continues the harder it will be to put right.

The UK government hasn’t legalised gender self-ID, but it’s routinely allowed even by the police and courts, so the law is just a pathetic joke. If Trump is successful in rooting out this toxic ideology in the USA, I think it will will have a big effect internationally.

No, I don't OP.

The people who think that way already believe that gender critical ideas are inherently fascist and bigoted. Genderism is part of their core beliefs - so long as it is defined as progressive.In ten years if that changes they will believe something else.

I also think that the UK and the US have largely peaked on gender ideology. Most people aren't really supportive and there is no going back. The ones digging in their heels are immune to argument.

So it will keep getting pushed back.

I also, like others, have never seen any evidence Trump is homophobic. Somewhat the opposite actually, he seems to me not to care at all. I don't see any evidence either that he's a racist, or that despite his personal behaviour with women, that he has a problem with them in work roles. People keep repeating these things like they are obvious, but it all seems to be based on people saying it again and again.

I think this reflect the fact that for a lot of the Democrats who support this stuff, they actually don't understand that there is a difference between DEI, and identity politics approaches, and being anti-women, anti-gay, or anti-anyone who isn't white.

They seem to think that if NASA has a picture of a woman on their website, it must be because DEI told them they had to put it there. It's not possible that there might just be women in NASA doing NASA stuff.

These are the same people who keep repeating that Florida now has removed any mention of slavery from school texts. Because obviously anyone who isn't immersed in critical race theory doesn't believe slavery is part of history, or something.