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.

Back to Trump damaging the gender critical cause. Below is the executive order Trump signed. I don't know whether this will damage any rights but on reading, it is an order to protect women's rights. Trump himself is certainly a Bovril character and this will ensure the split between progressives and traditionalists will continue with progressives stating that this bill will eliminate trans people and remove their rights. However just the reading of the order indicates clarity and a confirmation of sex and not gender.

The order asserts that only two sexes—male and female—exist, and mandates that all federal programs, documents, and regulations reflect this definition.
The executive order, citing the protection of women’s rights and public safety, directs federal agencies to:
・Recognize Two Immutable Sexes: All federal policies must adhere to definitions based on biological classification at conception. "Female" and "male" are defined by reproductive roles, and terms such as "gender identity" are not to be considered in policymaking.
・Revise Identification Documents: Government-issued documents, including passports and personnel records, will reflect sex as defined under the order and not gender identity.
・Eliminate Gender Identity Policies: Federal agencies must rescind all policies, programs, and guidance related to gender ideology, and cease funding for initiatives that promote gender identity-based recognition.
・Protect Single-Sex Spaces: The order emphasizes the enforcement of sex-based distinctions in spaces such as domestic abuse shelters, prisons, restrooms, and sports, ensuring that biological females have exclusive access to women’s spaces.
・Rescind Prior Policies: Executive orders from the Biden administration related to gender identity inclusion—such as those expanding Title IX protections to include gender identity—have been revoked.

In signing the order, President Trump stated, “We are restoring common sense and protecting women’s rights by reaffirming the biological reality of sex. This order ensures that American policies are grounded in truth and science, not ideology.”
The executive order mandates federal agencies to implement the new policies within 120 days, with regular reporting to the White House. Agencies must adjust their internal regulations, forms, and procedures to comply with the new directive.
The order also tasks the Attorney General with ensuring legal enforcement of single-sex protections and overseeing efforts to prevent federal funding from being used to support gender ideology initiatives.

"terms such as "gender identity" are not to be considered in policymaking."

"Government-issued documents, including passports and personnel records, will reflect sex as defined under the order and not gender identity."

Trump: "As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders"

He doesn't have a clue.

Also, much as I think the Governor of Maine is wrong, a civilised country creates policy through legislation, not threats.

American politics is currently a complete sewer and as far as possible we need to avoid swimming in it.

He doesn't have a clue.

What exactly are you criticising here? The only issue I can see is that he uses "gender" where he means "sex", but this is a common euphemism in the US and elsewhere (see RBG). It's clear that he isn't using "gender" as a shorthand for "gender identity".

a civilised country creates policy through legislation, not threats

The action against Maine isn't some extralegal threat, and doesn't need new legislation - it's purely a matter of enforcing existing legislation, namely Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

May Mailman, President Trump's attorney wrote that Executive Order. She is very keen to end men in women's sports and men in women's spaces.

Yes I understand that EO was written by May Mailman and that she very much does have a clue.

I don't pretend to have a grasp of US politics but Kara Dansky, who describes herself as a lifelong Democrat, and who literally wrote the book on how the Democrats have betrayed women, described the Executive Order on Sex and Gender (January 20th) as 'a significant step toward eliminating the scourge of “gender identity.'

Her initial analysis - both the positives and the limitations - is here:
https://karadansky.substack.com/p/defending-women-from-gender-ideology?utm_source=publication-search

Who is this 'we' you speak of?

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.

this is it. And as long as the only people he is hurting is not them, then why would they care anyway?

Precisely. "The leopards won't eat MY face!"

A lot of faces have been eaten the past month, especially of the "I wanted the government to cut jobs but not MY job" variety.

We have a 2 Trillion dollar deficit. What do you suggest we do if not cut back on govt and waste and fraud?
Social Security and Medicare will collapse otherwise.

Set tax levels that cover required spending ?
Tax billionaires ?
Halve military spending ?

Tax cuts drive deficits. Tax cuts benefit the super rich.
Scandinavia has no deficits and high taxes.

I agree, OP.

I hope it isn't going to be a case of, "Trump is bad, therefore the opposite of everything he stands for is good."

Yes, this.

You would think after years of dealing with TRAs, people would understand why it's important to use words accurately.

Inaccurate and misleading language has been a significant element of the "culture wars" and it is making people extremely cynical.

It's a huge mistake to make the claims about pet eating about the colour of people's skin. Lots of Americans are black, and a lot of them are increasingly upset about the immigration issues, it's one of the things pushing black Americans toward voting for Republican candidates. Some may believe the idea that they are somehow primitive and therefore would eat pets, but guess what, if they do, it's not because of their race.

This kind of sloppy language is part of the reason Democrats can't seem to understand what is going on - they think it's all about race, and can't figure out why they are losing non-white voters as well.

It's also the thinking that leads to theories where "whiteness" is posited as an inherently evil ideology that needs to be repudiated, which is also getting pushback from regular people. More polarization, again.

Not every problem is racism.

I did not say that programs to help minorities were not allowed in the UK, speaking of being disingenuous.

The kind of affirmative action that is allowed in the US is not, by law, allowed in the UK. That is a straightforward, factual statement.

Trump is set to increase the deficit and the national debt with tax cuts. Like he did in his first term. There are many tax fixes we could make to fix social security and Medicare; Trump doesn't want them.

These cuts are absurd. Every day you get another story about someone they laid off who shouldn't have been. And Elon Musk makes another claim about fraud that turns out to be a lie. It's estimated that fraud is only 3% of the entire federal budget. He's trying to distract people by promising $5,000 cheques per household, but if you do the maths you realise it's impossible; it would require the federal budget to be cut by 50%.

If you want to find real fraud, you send in forensic accountants (and by the way they do! there's regular audits of every government programme) and not a 19yo nicknamed "Big Balls" who was fired from a previous job because he violated security rules.

Another twist on affirmative action (which has been narrowed by law before): Veterans got a nasty surprise when they realised that they are beneficiaries of DEI because the government has veteran hiring preferences. It's also having significant impacts on people with disabilities.

Someone would not believe I had not got my point if view from Trump, or somewhere like ‘the Daily Mail’.

@TempestTost

It's a huge mistake to make the claims about pet eating about the colour of people's skin. Lots of Americans are black, and a lot of them are increasingly upset about the immigration issues, it's one of the things pushing black Americans toward voting for Republican candidates. Some may believe the idea that they are somehow primitive and therefore would eat pets, but guess what, if they do, it's not because of their race.

I'm genuinely baffled. Haitians are not white. Their culture is different to standard US white culture (however that exists). That is exactly what Trump playing on with his comments. Don't even get me started on " "whiteness" is posited as an inherently evil ideology that needs to be repudiated, which is also getting pushback from regular people. More polarization, again". I'm surprised that you posted that. It's cultural propaganda and yes, it exists just to divide.

Of course the Haitian comments were racist. I can't believe we're now trying to pin it on anything else. There's a whole history of immigrants being accused of eating cats, and none of the ones accused are white. You never hear anyone complaining about Canadian immigrants and we do have a fair few!

by the way, the Black shift towards Republicans was small. It's really telling when you look at Black vote shares for Republicans since Goldwater. Every election, aside from Obama, it's been "this time we'll improve with Black voters!" And they don't, or not by much. Biden got 82% of Black men, Trump 71%. Black women remained steady at 92% Democratic. The only demographic to approach Black women's loyalty is Jewish women, by the way.

The biggest shift this time was for Latino men. Now we're getting news stories of Venezuelans saying "but I didn't think my relatives would be deported."

Isn't there also a problem that congress, not 'DOGE' approves expenditure, so many of these cuts will be challenged in the courts, and that will cost everyone money? (but good for lawyers)

The UK.

Ok you don't speak for everyone in the UK, not even everyone on FWR. I'd probably stick to 'I' in future otherwise you end up sounding like a nursery teacher scolding a toddler.

You certainly don't speak for my British family in the USA.

So you and they aren't concerned that the US President is repeating Putin propaganda? You think this is a normal state of affairs?

@Merrymouse Yes, A lot of these EOs are going to be challenged on the basis that they're executive overreach and properly left to Congress. Trump is withholding funds that were appropriated and defying court orders to release them.

This post should have been Harris 71%! Whoops.

This is very good from Gareth Roberts:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-brits-keep-getting-a-tongue-lashing-from-team-trump/

“A recent survey by Opinium used blind polling to test out Trump policies on British voters. The unsuspecting limeys were not told that these were Orange Man plans. Stripped of his imprint, they were much more popular. Even a majority of 2024 Labour voters plumped for declaring a border emergency.”

And of course:

“This is maybe partly why Britain, and the rest of Europe for that matter, has ended up with a succession of dud governments. We have rolled over, while absolutely insane policies – on gender to the Chagos Islands – far madder than anything Trump has ever come out with, were enacted. We said nothing, because it was all conducted ‘properly’, in the right way. We live in serious times requiring urgent action. But urgency frightens us. We still cling to our politesse and process.”

It makes me think of this - 'Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point'.

https://archive.ph/3MG8w