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.

In the cases I've referred to, it's not a matter of what their voters think, it's how their voters voted.

Those ballots weren't opinion polls,

Their results amend the constitution of each state, with the effect of protecting the right to an abortion.

Again. It doesn't matter. What people voted for in states does not stop their federal legislators from voting for a national ban, which would override state constitutions.

We'll see whether one gets tabled then, won't we?

@WillIEverBeOk

Quite, it's never going to happen, at least in the next 12 to 15 years. Even Martina (Navratilova - huge Democrat supporter and 'terf') said the Democrats have learned nothing from their defeat. And here's the PROOF they've learned absolutely butt fuck all NOTHING: I just read (on Martina's twitter) that Democrat Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has introduced a bill that will change state law to replace the word "mother" with "inseminated person."

I betcha anything father will still be father.

Inseminated person. That is what we're (If Evers gets his way) reducing women to now. And some of you still can't see how malicious, malignant and misogynistic this Mens Rights Movement is.

Inseminated person? FUCK OFF! The more this goes on, the more I really am starting to hate trans people. For real.

This part of the Bill actually refers to ICSI/artificial insemination - not all pregnancies. Did you read the relevant section of the Bill?

Why "inseminated person"?

"Person" encompasses any human. Indeed, that is very much the point of using the word, in order to include both men and women

Men, i.e. biological males, cannot be inseminated for reproductive purposes.

The only reason for using "inseminated person" is to pander to women who say they are men or of no sex. Which they cannot, in fact, be.

Ergo, it comes under the heading of "genderist claptrap".

How does that make it any better?

Well first off the law is clearly being written to allow for same sex couples, since "husband" gets rewritten as "spouse." And at the moment, the law does recognise trans men. Who do get inseminated. If they wrote woman it would create a loophole. I don't see any way to fix this law independently. As much as I think the de-gendering of everything surrounding pregnancy and birth has gone too far, you can't separate the laws like that.

This won't have been drafted by a legislator either; they actually have legal professionals in state legislatures to do the wording.

Meh. If Trump was pro-trans they'd be all over him but as he isn't he has to be shown he's the devil incarnate (which he isn't, he's just a bog-standard crap politician). Transactivists have no problem schmoozing with the worst of UK Conservatives, Blunt for example. The cries of Right!!! Wing!!!! Fascist!!!!!!!!!! at any woman who dares to think she has rights is literally just because of that reason. There's no other way it can go: transactivism (inc non-binary activism) is based on narcissistic Main Character Syndrome so if you're not 100% support animal you're whatever their insult du jour is.

As someone who currently lives in a liberal part of the US: trans activists would still not be pro Trump, and if Trump didn't hate trans people, at least in public, he would have no political career. To be quite honest, I suspect Trump's policies on both abortion and trans people are not about sincerity, but about what is necessary for his career. At the moment he is being quite a bit more than a run of the mill crap politician. They don't usually announce that they can ignore the legislature and the courts and rule by decree.

Hard disagree. They wouldn't be Democrat if Republican backed them. Transactivism is definitely not to be confused with conviction politics, they goto whover will have them. As Trump isn't a career politician, I'm far more inclined to assess his beliefs as genuine (for good or ill) than what is expedient, knee-jerk opposition or fashionable in certain circles as practised by AOC and others.

Spouse is a gender neutral term though, so it fits. A husband is woman's spouse. A wife is a man's spouse. Spouse just means married partner. There is no gender to it. So spouse should be enough.

I think you have to give more people credit for some intelligence and independent thought, though it is true that those who identify themselves as being 'progressive' are going to be committed to their predictable stable of beliefs; and those who firmly identify as conservative are going to share broadly the same values as each other; but most don't firmly identify with any particular political party or set viewpoint. The rejection of gender ideology is just plain common sense.

For the spouse yes. This isn't a problem for anyone who doesn't hate same sex marriage. The inseminated woman might be straight or might be a lesbian, so now the law covers all cases.

The problem is "inseminated person," yes? Clearly a biological male can't be inseminated. The problem occurs when a trans man is inseminated. As is, the law recognises the change. So the legislature has two problematic choices: write woman and then risk a court deciding the law doesn't apply to a trans man, because legally he's a man; or use the awkward gender neutral person. I have to say I look at legalese rather differently from popular and newspaper writing on this issue.

It is no about 'hatred' it is about common sense and about understanding the nature of material reality. Any sane person of sound mind understands that males are not females - and that women and girls have dignity and a need for privacy, and for fairness in their own sporting categories.

It is only the political tribalists who identify strongly as being 'progressive' who pretend otherwise. After Trump's win it wasn't long before a Democrat senator spoke out to agree that males should have no right to be in categories created especially for women and girls. Most people, when honest, understand this.

@Chersfrozenface

Why "inseminated person"?

The poster had an issue with 'inseminated person' - specifically that the word 'mother' wasn't being used. The image gives that reason. With ICSI and/or surrogacy, they may not indeed be the "mother".

This.

I suggest it would be better to be less concerned with what people think about you, and being overly focused on Trump as a personality - and more concerned with speaking the truth and standing up for reality and for the dignity of women and girls.. Whatever you do, or don't do, those who are firmly embedded in their tribal way of thinking will still consider you to be a 'right wing fascist'. You can't pander to their bigotry and prejudice.

If the person is inseminated, they are a woman. Thus mother. Only a female ie mother, can be inseminated. Its not a man being inseminated.

Its a woman. And if that woman has a baby, she is a mother. There is no other alternative.

If you're rewriting legislation to cater to women who believe they're men but are also aware enough of their female biology to use IVF to get pregnant... that way madness lies.

Some old legislation might need rewording to take account of lesbian couples, but I can't imagine this is being driven by lesbian mothers clamouring to be designated as "inseminated persons".

This might be different in the US/UK.

In the UK 'mother' in this sense has a specific meaning - the person who gives birth. It defines her legal relationship with the baby.

Also, I have no problem whatsoever with 'de-gendering', but I think the removal of sexed words does the opposite.

Particularly when used in a medical or legal sense, 'Mother' and 'Woman' are necessary gender neutral words that simply refer to an adult human female and her relationship to her children. Similarly 'breast'. These words should not be confused with stereotypical expectations of behaviour or dress.

As 'progressive' American women voluntarily give away their right to be defined as a class, it's not surprising that America lags behind other countries when it comes to maternity and birth control rights.

Agreed op. He's all about hate and bigotry. There are plenty left wing GCs who don't want to erase trans people, they just want to protect the rights of women & girls.

I'm not going to applaud his bigotry for one second!

Also THIS! 💯

I know supporting free speech, stopping mass migration, trying to broker peace bringing down the 2 Trillion dollar debt will make a lot of the elite class abroad very unhappy.