Trump’s new ‘feminism’

clovenhooves The Personal Is Political General Trump’s new ‘feminism’

Wrongtoy

Mar 31 2025, 9:11 PM

Trump’s new feminism is to acknowledge that men can’t be women. Which of course has been a failing of the Dems.

If one can’t define a woman, by definition there can be no women’s rights. However, defining women does not mean they automatically have rights. See the taliban.

Nancy Mace and Riley Gaines are the forefront of this so called feminism.

Wrongtoy

Mar 31 2025, 9:11 PM #1

wormwood

Mar 31 2025, 11:51 PM

Well observed. Maybe we could call it something else, like femaleism. “Females is female” ism.

wormwood

Mar 31 2025, 11:51 PM #2

Well observed. Maybe we could call it something else, like femaleism. “Females is female” ism.

Leithriel

Apr 1 2025, 5:53 AM

My personal opinion is that you can't protect women's right's in law if you can't define what a woman is.

Conversely, you can't oppress women in law if you can't define who you want to oppress with the laws that you are writing.

Leithriel

Apr 1 2025, 5:53 AM #3

skunk

Apr 1 2025, 11:33 AM

(Apr 1 2025, 5:53 AM)Leithriel My personal opinion is that you can't protect women's right's in law if you can't define what a woman is.

Conversely, you can't oppress women in law if you can't define who you want to oppress with the laws that you are writing.

I agree you can't protect women's rights in law if woman doesn't have a concrete definition and if women aren't a concrete group. Then we have no way of knowing who is in that protected class and what specific needs that protected class has. So therefore, there will be no protected class. Its open season.

But i disagree that you can't oppress women in law if you can't define who you want to oppress. Because not being able to define who you want to oppress doesn't mean a very specific group of people aren't going to suffer because of the laws you pass, just because you refuse to acknowledge their existence.

Women will be oppressed whether society acknowledges a concrete definition for us or not. But we can't protect ourselves if we aren't a cohesive, concrete group legally that recieves protections based on the specific ways in which we're oppressed.

The gender ideologues can pretend they don't know what a woman is and not have a concrete definition, but the laws they advocate for will ultimately oppress adult female humans, regardless of if they're willing to admit it or not.

skunk

Apr 1 2025, 11:33 AM #4

(Apr 1 2025, 5:53 AM)Leithriel My personal opinion is that you can't protect women's right's in law if you can't define what a woman is.

Conversely, you can't oppress women in law if you can't define who you want to oppress with the laws that you are writing.

YesYourNigel

134

Apr 1 2025, 12:28 PM

(Mar 31 2025, 11:51 PM)wormwood Well observed. Maybe we could call it something else, like femaleism. “Females is female” ism.

I feel it's kinda pointless to have a whole new term for the through-the-floor bar of acknowledging that sex exists. Anti-trans/anti-gender-ideology feels more appropriate. You can't call "females is female"ism any sort of political movement because conservatives don't even fully believe that - they're constantly droning on about how women and men are becoming ruined and how your degree of femaleness and maleness is a direct reflection of your adherence to gender roles. They believe in gendersouls just as much as the trans crowd, they just think your gendersoul is always the same as your sex. They also paradoxically believe that all gendered behaviour is merely a passive reflection of our gendersouls that compel all our behaviour even above basic human needs and desires, but also that if one doesn't behave in line with their gendersoul, that they need to change and be forced into it adhering to it. Somehow we're both unavoidably slaves to our gendersouls but also mean and bad and evil if we go against them.

Edited Apr 1 2025, 12:40 PM by YesYourNigel.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

YesYourNigel

Apr 1 2025, 12:28 PM #5

(Mar 31 2025, 11:51 PM)wormwood Well observed. Maybe we could call it something else, like femaleism. “Females is female” ism.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

wormwood

Yesterday, 2:40 AM

(Apr 1 2025, 12:28 PM)YesYourNigel
(Mar 31 2025, 11:51 PM)wormwood Well observed. Maybe we could call it something else, like femaleism. “Females is female” ism.

I feel it's kinda pointless to have a whole new term for the through-the-floor bar of acknowledging that sex exists. Anti-trans/anti-gender-ideology feels more appropriate. You can't call "females is female"ism any sort of political movement because conservatives don't even fully believe that - they're constantly droning on about how women and men are becoming ruined and how your degree of femaleness and maleness is a direct reflection of your adherence to gender roles. They believe in gendersouls just as much as the trans crowd, they just think your gendersoul is always the same as your sex. They also paradoxically believe that all gendered behaviour is merely a passive reflection of our gendersouls that compel all our behaviour even above basic human needs and desires, but also that if one doesn't behave in line with their gendersoul, that they need to change and be forced into it adhering to it. Somehow we're both unavoidably slaves to our gendersouls but also mean and bad and evil if we go against them.

You are absolutely correct. I was making a wry joke. Since “females” is a sexist way to speak about women and girls, and “are” would be correct and “is” isn’t.
I don’t seem to be conveying tone very well. Should I have added an emoji or something?

wormwood

Yesterday, 2:40 AM #6

(Apr 1 2025, 12:28 PM)YesYourNigel
(Mar 31 2025, 11:51 PM)wormwood Well observed. Maybe we could call it something else, like femaleism. “Females is female” ism.

I feel it's kinda pointless to have a whole new term for the through-the-floor bar of acknowledging that sex exists. Anti-trans/anti-gender-ideology feels more appropriate. You can't call "females is female"ism any sort of political movement because conservatives don't even fully believe that - they're constantly droning on about how women and men are becoming ruined and how your degree of femaleness and maleness is a direct reflection of your adherence to gender roles. They believe in gendersouls just as much as the trans crowd, they just think your gendersoul is always the same as your sex. They also paradoxically believe that all gendered behaviour is merely a passive reflection of our gendersouls that compel all our behaviour even above basic human needs and desires, but also that if one doesn't behave in line with their gendersoul, that they need to change and be forced into it adhering to it. Somehow we're both unavoidably slaves to our gendersouls but also mean and bad and evil if we go against them.

lesbiansherlock

Yesterday, 3:26 AM

(Yesterday, 2:40 AM)wormwood
(Apr 1 2025, 12:28 PM)YesYourNigel
(Mar 31 2025, 11:51 PM)wormwood Well observed. Maybe we could call it something else, like femaleism. “Females is female” ism.

I feel it's kinda pointless to have a whole new term for the through-the-floor bar of acknowledging that sex exists. Anti-trans/anti-gender-ideology feels more appropriate. You can't call "females is female"ism any sort of political movement because conservatives don't even fully believe that - they're constantly droning on about how women and men are becoming ruined and how your degree of femaleness and maleness is a direct reflection of your adherence to gender roles. They believe in gendersouls just as much as the trans crowd, they just think your gendersoul is always the same as your sex. They also paradoxically believe that all gendered behaviour is merely a passive reflection of our gendersouls that compel all our behaviour even above basic human needs and desires, but also that if one doesn't behave in line with their gendersoul, that they need to change and be forced into it adhering to it. Somehow we're both unavoidably slaves to our gendersouls but also mean and bad and evil if we go against them.

You are absolutely correct. I was making a wry joke. Since “females” is a sexist way to speak about women and girls, and “are” would be correct and “is” isn’t.
I don’t seem to be conveying tone very well. Should I have added an emoji or something?

I don’t know if you’re aware but there is a set of feminists who call themselves femalists (Kellie Jay Keen in the UK, Dora Moutot and Marguerite Stern in France). It’s in reaction to being apparently ostracized by the more mainstream GC/Radfem feminists.

lesbiansherlock

Yesterday, 3:26 AM #7

(Yesterday, 2:40 AM)wormwood
(Apr 1 2025, 12:28 PM)YesYourNigel
(Mar 31 2025, 11:51 PM)wormwood Well observed. Maybe we could call it something else, like femaleism. “Females is female” ism.

I feel it's kinda pointless to have a whole new term for the through-the-floor bar of acknowledging that sex exists. Anti-trans/anti-gender-ideology feels more appropriate. You can't call "females is female"ism any sort of political movement because conservatives don't even fully believe that - they're constantly droning on about how women and men are becoming ruined and how your degree of femaleness and maleness is a direct reflection of your adherence to gender roles. They believe in gendersouls just as much as the trans crowd, they just think your gendersoul is always the same as your sex. They also paradoxically believe that all gendered behaviour is merely a passive reflection of our gendersouls that compel all our behaviour even above basic human needs and desires, but also that if one doesn't behave in line with their gendersoul, that they need to change and be forced into it adhering to it. Somehow we're both unavoidably slaves to our gendersouls but also mean and bad and evil if we go against them.

You are absolutely correct. I was making a wry joke. Since “females” is a sexist way to speak about women and girls, and “are” would be correct and “is” isn’t.
I don’t seem to be conveying tone very well. Should I have added an emoji or something?

wormwood

Yesterday, 6:13 AM

Now that you mention it, I had heard Keen called herself that, though it wasn’t at the top of my mind when I made the joke. Fits her well enough.
I only know a tiny bit about Stern and nothing about Moutot, so I won’t extend my disdain to them.

wormwood

Yesterday, 6:13 AM #8

Feministunderyrbed

Yesterday, 7:11 AM

I don’t know Stern or Moutot but I thought Keen’s whole point was that she wasn’t a feminist. She’s just opposed to gender identity. It’s good for anyone to call out the emperor’s nakedness but she’s not really helping make room for GC feminists—if anything, she’s driving a backlash.

Trump’s “feminism” is no such thing. It’s just more patriarchy.

Feministunderyrbed

Yesterday, 7:11 AM #9

Print Thread

Recently Browsing
1 Guest(s)