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.

Yes, it was a crazy statement about a group of immigrants.

The issue was they were immigrants who, according to the story, were not able to buy food as they had no jobs, and so were eating pet.

That is not a racist claim, any more than it would be racist if it was a group of Polish people.

It seems like you don't know what the word racism means.

I've heard a few black Americans in the last year or so criticize the way Obama talks to black audiences, using a fake accent and language. I think one even suggested that he practices in the mirror.

I am not sure that's 100% fair about either of them, most people unconsciously change their speech with differernt groups. And Harris in particular when to a black college so if she is the kind of person who picks up speech patterns she might well have done there. Obama though, it seems less likely, he was raised by a white mum outside the US to a large extent.

I think this is a misunderstanding about what the real argument is in the US.

Id Pol, and affirmative action, have gone in a really different direction in the US (and Canada) than the UK.

In the UK you can't discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics - that's not a one sided thing. You can't put out a job advertisement for white people only, nor one for blacks or Asians or whatever.

That's not at all the case in the US, programs are not just trying to encourage women, or others, into sectors or education where they haven't been common. They are doing things like accepting candidates with lower qualifications, or race quotas, tying funding to race.

A heck of a lot of people in the US have a problem with this and want it firmly squashed. And that's not just white people who benefit from the patriarchy or whatever you want to say - in fact these policies are most popular with white people, and especially white women. Black and Hispanic people don't especially support them.

The spin you are putting on it is really inappropriate IMO.

Siding with murderous dictators like Putin. Openly trying to subvert the constitution.

Good Luck America.

And to be honest I don't think he thinks much about either Putin or the constitution. It's all just a TV performance.

Are you willing to die in Ukraine or your children? How about coming for a visit while missile and drones are dropping? This has been going on for 3 years.
A peace deal is a good thing.
Please state exactly with the articles where the Constitution is being subverted.
It's amazing when Clinton or Obama fired workers or generals as President it was a legitimate exercise of their executive powers.

Absolutely, I know I modulate my speech depending on the audience. I think the giveaway is when it doesn't sound natural. Like hearing Biden speak to black audiences, and his speech is peppered with "ain't" and "y'all" when he never talks like that otherwise.

Republicans have their own version of this, but it's usually people from elite backgrounds trying to sound working class.

I think audiences can pick up on when it's fake. Though they might tolerate the fakeness from a politician who can do stuff for them.

That old chestnut, or just care about women’s rights?

Europe has long known that it was likely that America would pull out of Ukraine at some point.

However, Trump actively supports Putin, repeating his taking points.

Re: constitution, giving Musk control of expenditure decisions that need approval from congress.

Trump is selling you what you want to hear in the same way that he has sold fake university courses and dodgy business deals. He doesn't care about the outcome, as long as he can take some cash and extract himself before it all goes pear shaped.

When its convenient to you. But just not womens rights to single sex spaces.

Are you actually reading my posts? I’ve said that I’m gender critical and I’m concerned that Trump is not going to be a long-term benefit to our cause and have explained why. Obviously, you can disagree with that and it’s fine, but it’s abundantly clear that my concern is for women’s rights and spaces. A convicted sexual abuser and felon who is in part responsible for the removal of women’s reproductive rights, that has resulted in women’s deaths, is not likely to do our cause any good in the long-term. Or the short term, let’s be honest.

Thank you!
This is very useful

Fair enough.

The spin you are putting on it is really inappropriate IMO.

I haven't put a spin on it.

You have decided I am in the wrong because (without in fact saying whether I agree or not) I have said what I understand Trump to be saying.

And also you aren't right about the UK.

This happened to day.

Gen Brown was the second black officer to hold the post, the holder of which advises both the president and the secretary of defence on national security.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had previously said that Gen Brown should be fired because of his "woke" focus on diversity, equity and inclusion programmes in the military.

Later on Friday, Hegseth announced the firings of two additional senior officers: Chief of Naval Operations Adm Lisa Franchetti and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen Jim Slife.

Adm Franchetti was the first woman to lead the US Navy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyr2xvn4dpo

And the way it was announced amounted to saying they had got the positions they had not through merit but by being falsely promoted by DEI initiatives.

By the way I think Trump is so lacking in ethics or consistency that it is just as likely he went along with these sackings to ingratiate himself with some of the more lunatic fringe of the Republican Party than he actually cares.

In some way that is worse ie that he will sell out anyone to keep himself as the winner.

President Obama sacked over 550 military officers including the Joint Chief of Staff, he wanted military whose politics aligned with his. It's within the power of the Executive.
President Trump has done similarly, firing those who imposed DEI and don't agree with his principles, which won him the election.

But don't worry we have a fab Attorney General in Pam Bondi and Kash Patel is in charge of the FBI and Tulsi Gabbard in charge of National Intelligence.
Are they female enough and or brown enough to please you?

Thanks for mentioning that. I haven't RT(entire)FT, after my fit of eye-rolling at the OP. I'm a big fan of Tulsi.

Oops that's 197 officers, my mistake

Te kind of affirmative action that goes on in the US is not allowed in the UK.

Unless you mean something different.

Quite honestly I am finding this relentless whining and its not fair rather boring.

Programmes that are set up to help people from disadvantaged communities are allowed in the UK, the same as NASA or whoever it was had a programme for getting women into space.

Get a grip.

It wasn't the firing someone, but the deliberate insulting of them in public by saying they are fakes is the problem.

Maybe you just dont get it. Maybe you think this is how people in public office should behave.

Even if Trump was right on some things, he is utterly despised for his behaviour, what he says and how he behaves.

The fact that he has no loyalties and genuinely doesn't seem to understand he is now a politician and not a business man is a thread to the world.

I cant help it that some in the US think he is their salvation, because that's a bit like thinking a serial cheater will somehow not cheat on you.

The real worry is that he is so utterly lacking in logic, basic understanding, that he will end up starting WWIII.

@TempestTost

Yes, it was a crazy statement about a group of immigrants.

The issue was they were immigrants who, according to the story, were not able to buy food as they had no jobs, and so were eating pet.

That is not a racist claim, any more than it would be racist if it was a group of Polish people.

It seems like you don't know what the word racism means.

Tempest, that's not quite the story, and you know it. Trump marginalised these people on the basis of unsubstantiated anecdotes and made them targets. It was inferred that civilised white people would never do such things as they are better. That is textbook racism.

I'm not sure why you're so opposed to the idea. Is it simply because I'm saying it?

Honestly, this thread is a bizarre read.

Agreed. It was a racist accusation made to appeal to racists.

it was also debunked by the law enforcement officers in the district mentioned, and even after that he STILL repeated it because he knew it got headlines and attention. Parroting false claims against minorities after they have been shown to be false is something i never ever thought i would have to explain is racist.....

Parroting false claims against minorities after they have been shown to be false is something i never ever thought i would have to explain is racist.....

It's only racist if the minority is distinguished by race. Claiming that all gay men are paedophiles is a false claim about a minority, but it is not racist.