Anyone else worried Trump’s advocacy of gender-critical views taints and discredits them?

[PotteringPondering]

I’m gender-critical, and was pleased when Trump issued his early Executive Orders on Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, and Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.

But now… everything else. The sickening bullying of Zelensky and support for Putin, the threats to invade allies, the insults, lies, laziness, lawbreaking, cruelty and incompetence.

I’m concerned the fact Trump is an advocate of gender-critical views taints and discredits them in the eyes of thinking people. The verdict of history may be harsh because of the Trump connection.

I’m a resident of Terf Island, and still passionately hold GC views. But the support of Trump and Vance is starting to feel less like a blessing, more like a kiss of death.

This thread is progressing exactly as I predicted.

How would that be? You mean with most posters talking common sense?

You mean without anyone being able to provide any reasons why people with differing views might be able to nonetheless have shared positions on other things?

Making a prediction that overall posters will express support for the EOs that benefited women and children while not supporting many other actions by Trump? Who is incidentally the democratically elected President of a country that many posters don't live in or have ties to.

Considering those same sentiments have been posted over and over and over and over again on numerous threads, some coming at it from a slightly different aspect. That prediction seems like a sure bet really.

@MessinaBloom your "prediction" was mere common sense - everyone here knows that agreeing on one thing doesn't mean agreement with everything.

Your final paragraph isn't very meaningful though Again, posters here might say it doesn’t matter as long as these things happen. I think it does. I’m not getting in bed with the wolf even though he seems harmless. - none of us are in that bed. Most of us aren't in the USA (obviously some are) so don't get to vote anyway. What do you think we should be doing differently? Condemning Trump's EOs because his motives behind them weren't pure?

I’m so glad that there is some pushback in the US against the promotion of what amounts to the abuse of children and trampling of women’s rights. I’m so glad for human rights that they are finding pushback to foisting their anti-scientific ideology on impressionable, vulnerable and/or unconsenting women and children. Even sending some funding worldwide, it seems. Even though such novel, damaging and anti-scientific beliefs are couched in terms which try to conceal what they were/are doing to the human rights of women and children.

I suppose the corollary guilt by association would be how the Democratic Party are accused of being pro slavery, as opposed to the Republicans who outlawed it. Indeed they even wished to allow slavery to expand into the west of the US if the citizens voted for it. Before the civil war.

Do I think that any civil/human rights achievements of the Democrats are tainted by their pro slavery stances? No. If it is a good thing, it is a good thing.

This.

I’d better say that I don’t think Trump is equivalent to people who advocated or defended slavery. The comparison was supposed to illustrate how someone (or party) can do good things even if everything they have done is not good. Even if some things they have done is bad.

“I think the EOs were a good thing” makes you a Trump supporter as much as any of us, like it or not, Messina

Not at all. I agree with the general gist of them, but not the execution, nor the reasons they came to be.

Trump is not making these decisions. He is doing what he is told by the people around him. This is Republican Party strategy. I understand that plenty of people can't possibly support it because they take opposite view of whatever the Republicans say. But these are people who run with the crowd, who do exactly as they are told by their peer group. I have no interest in the views of anyone who is like this.

Yeah, his stance on trans issues has been determined by a team of well paid political analysts who have looked at all the polls and all the data coming out of social media engagement in all 50 states and calculated how many votes taking each possible stance is likely to win or lose in each political battleground. His personal views don't even come into it.

A start might be to stop blaming the Left/leftists/Democrats for everything the Right does, and making assumptions about what left-leaning groups/people think. (This is general and obviously not aimed at you.)

No. The hard of thinking people I agree with you about are pathetic.

Or ... even Donald Trump isn't stupid enough or up his own arse enough to think a man could ever become a woman (or vice versa). He's nearly 80 years old. I genuinely believe anyone over 35 who says TWAW is just a grifting liar.

The problem is that many is the US may have voted for Trump on their feelings on this one issue and it's opened up a whole world of shit. Life is more nuanced than just focusing on one issue. Quite frankly I think he's just a misogynist arsehole rather than an advocate for feminism.

This is the usual from their playbook of whip people up into a frenzy by proclaiming it's the 'woke left'/migrants (insert appropriate other here), create a polarising issue to divide and conquer by sitting back and enjoying the power whilst we fight amongst ourselves, not looking up to realise we deserve better people in charge.

That applies to plenty of people here too, sad to say. You reluctant Trump supporter you!

It's amazing how 'thinking people' can believe the most utter rot!😞

Yep.

I see!

It’s quite uncomfortable being a sex-realist and essentially “of the left” when so many of my lefty compatriots have taken leave of their senses on gender, and so many sex-realists with whom I have common cause have voted to put a dangerous misogynistic fool in the White House.

you mean in the same way that because Hitler was a vegetarian we all look askance at vegans?

in a word: no.

I’m super worried about friends who have started to support Trump because of this. Some have even become more skeptical of abortion access because they think that if Trump was right about TRA, maybe he is also right about curtailing abortion. If only the Left would bloody wake up. The irony of ‘woke’ is that it has sent the political Left in the US and other western countries into a zombie like state while sex realists and those cautioning against absolute cultural relativity on the Left are screaming at it to for the love of god snap back to reality and basic morality. At least the UK has seemingly found a more measured way to slowly crawl back from the gender abyss, without destroying women’s and LGB rights along with it. Thanks, ultimately, largely to the bravery, profile and money of JKR who has been there on the Left supporting vital legal actions that slowly broke the spell. I hope Trump doesn’t go further in undermining abortion in the US and around the world but with JD Vance and Mr breeder Musk whispering sweet nothings in his ear, I fear women, having been recently rescued from the TWAW frying pan, are about to find ourselves being nicely toasted in the pro natalist, anti abortion fire pit. We really should have worked harder on that plan to create our own country…

The problem is that the over 35 who are in power and stated TWAW, either uncritically believe and say anything, or have been convinced its true. So much so its probably difficult for them to admit they were conned.

Do we need any of those people in politics and decision making?

So people who are lamenting the loss of those politicians, and are saying that US voters should disregard this issue are missing a key point - trans is a good proxy for identifying the brave who will not compromise the truth, even if its career damaging.

Your metaphors are slightly unusual, Messina. It's customary for people to shame women for their opinions or views by claiming that they are 'getting into bed' with someone inappropriate. The implications are twofold: a) that the woman targeted is unchaste/sexually active/adulterous, and;
b) that she could only have that opinion/view because she's having sex with a man who also holds it.

I'm intrigued that you've crossed it over with Little Red Riding Hood. Likening Trump to the wolf truly adds an extra dimension to the reflexive attempt in discussions of sexually shaming women with different viewpoints.

I think I could have done without reading it just before lunch though. <-- not envy

But look at those women, they are hardcore republicans who want the same things as he does, in the main.

And as we know, some women would vote for a woman over a man just because.