#with all the DEI rollbacks…

[arinzechukwuture]

Target lost $15.7 billion in market value after announcing the end of its DEI initiatives in January 2025. Target's stock price fell after the company announced that it was ending some of its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

The black out date on Feb 28th serves as a punctuation mark on the on-going boycott of Target and all the other companies that rollbacked their DEI programs. Let’s keep the pressure on by not buying anything from any of these companies.

Boycotts are an effective tool in the hands of an oppressed people who are unified in targeting companies who deal with us in an unjust manner.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Sam Gustin at The Nation:

President Trump’s suggestion last month that the tragic Potomac air crash was somehow the fault of disabled federal air traffic controllers was appalling—but it should have come as no surprise. Trump’s contempt for people with disabilities has been well documented, and it’s that animus, combined with the accelerating MAGA assault on diversity throughout the United States, that has disability rights advocates preparing to defend decades worth of hard-won protections. One month into his presidency, Trump has unleashed a government-wide attack on people with disabilities, from anti-diversity executive orders to proposed special-education rollbacks to threats to slash programs like Medicaid that are lifelines for disabled people across the country. If successful, these actions could have catastrophic consequences for millions of Americans, according to disability rights experts. “This is a crisis for the disability community, and the threat is extremely serious,” Maria Town, president and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities, told The Nation. “These changes have the potential to erode decades of progress that the disability community has fought tooth and nail to achieve.”

Within 48 hours of taking office, Trump signed two executive orders targeting what he called “illegal” diversity programs—commonly referred to as DEI or DEIA—in both the federal government and the private sector. Trump and his MAGA minions claim that these programs, which promote the worthy goals of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility throughout American society, discriminate against, well, them, and so they should be abolished. At a time when Elon Musk and his DOGE henchmen are racing to “delete” entire federal agencies and fire thousands of government workers, diversity programs have become a convenient target for the drastic budget reductions that Trump seeks—under the bogus guise of “waste, fraud, and abuse”—in order to cut more taxes for rich people and corporations. Hence the MAGA/DOGE crusade to demonize and scapegoat diversity programs for all kinds of calamities, from plane crashes to wildfires to train derailments. Thus far, most of the focus on Trump’s diversity rollback has been on “DEI,” but it’s the “A”—for “accessibility”—that has alarmed disability rights advocates.

“The hard-fought-for acceptance of people with disabilities in society is compromised every time Trump uses DEIA as a bogeyman for everything that’s wrong in society,” said Michael Rembis, a professor of history at the University of Buffalo and director of its Center for Disability Studies. “This purge of federal employees is in part designed to remove people who are perceived to be unproductive for both racist and ableist reasons from the federal government.”

The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Trump’s anti-diversity executive orders roll back more than three decades of US policy since then——including executive orders signed by Clinton, Obama, George W. Bush and Biden—aimed at bringing more people with disabilities into the federal workforce and the private sector. From hiring and job training to career development and workplace accommodation, these policies have given many disabled people new opportunities to thrive, and a new sense of dignity after generations of mistreatment in American society, from ostracization to institutionalization to forced sterilization. Those advances are now at risk, and the impacts are already being felt nationwide, as funding cuts loom for community organizations that provide crucial services and support systems for disabled people, from home modification to job coaching to transportation and personal attendant services. “We’ve heard from many organizations across the country that are having to think about cutting their staff, reducing their services, or even closing their doors,” said Town. Disability rights advocates warn that Trump’s anti-diversity executive orders are just a prelude to even more draconian attacks. For example, Trump’s avowed goal to eliminate the Department of Education could jeopardize special-education programs for roughly 7.5 million students—15 percent of the US student population. Trump’s plan to cut billions in grants issued by the National Institutes of Health threatens long-term research and development focused on life-saving—and life-improving—treatments for millions of Americans. And, of course, any cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and particularly Medicaid—and let’s face it, the GOP wants to eliminate or privatize these programs altogether—will disproportionately affect millions of disabled people who rely on the programs to survive.

[...] The Trump administration’s assault on government policies and programs that benefit disabled people is not just a scheme hatched in the bowels of The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 anti-government boiler room—although it is that, too. It’s also the natural evolution of Trump’s long-standing prejudice against people with disabilities. Trump’s disdain for disabled people is well known, from mocking reporter Serge Kovaleski and insulting wounded veterans to reportedly telling a relative with a disabled son that “maybe those kinds of people should just die.”

[...] It’s no secret that Trump is obsessed with genetics, as demonstrated by his preoccupation with bloodlines and frequent comments about “good” genes, “bad” genes, “low IQ individuals,” immigrants “poisoning the blood” of America, and other bigoted remarks. In 1988, Trump famously told Oprah Winfrey that people must have “the right genes” to become rich. Since then, he has repeatedly compared his family to purebred “racehorses.” In 2020, Trump again invoked the “racehorse” theory to assure a mostly white Midwestern audience that “you have good genes in Minnesota.” And just last year, he intimated—outrageously—that immigrants commit murder because “it’s in their genes.”

[...] It’s worth noting that disabled people were among the earliest victims of the Holocaust, condemned to death by a Nazi program called Aktion T4, which involved the systematic murder of some 300,000 people in psychiatric hospitals in Germany, Austria, and elsewhere in Europe. Stramondo doesn’t expect anything remotely like that to happen in the United States, but he pointed out that sterilization and murder aren’t the only ways to advance eugenic goals. “You can practice and enforce eugenic ideologies that result in lots of people suffering and even dying just by doing something like eliminating Medicaid,” he said.

The Nation reports on Donald Trump’s attacks on DEIA polices and its impact on persons with disabilities, which goes along with his long record of ableism.

[metalheadsagainstfascism]

I should point out that even though Trump cites "there's only two genders" to roll back DEI programs.

Rolling back DEI will roll back all protections based on race and sex. So women and people of color are at risk too.

You know what? All the gay people and women that supported him? Especially the ones that attacked me for not supporting him? I say this with every fiber, every cell, every ATOM of my fucking being. I hope not only do you lose your job for it. I hope that your pink slip cites that the rollback of DEI protections to be the very reason why you lose your job. I hope that you know that voting for Trump is EXACTLY what caused it. I hope you get EXACTLY what you voted for.

Because I fucking told you what was coming and you called me mentally ill.

-fae

[sweaterkittensahoy]

y'all, if you want me to participate in a boycott, you have to tell me why. I should not have to google the name of the thing and the date to get an answer.

In case anyone else has seen things about "economic blackout on February 28 ", it's about protesting DEI rollbacks from large companies.

But I had to look it up. You can't run an effective boycott if people don't know why, and you shouldn't want to run a boycott where people can't easily answer why.

Also, the info I saw about it said "Starting with one day, maybe going up to three."

You don't get to be wishy-washy on the length of your short boycott. That's not how this works. Are you doing a 24-hour boycott or are you doing a 3-day boycott? Because it feels like you're trying to have a ready excuse if the numbers aren't as devastating as you would like them to be in 24 hours.

Also, frankly, setting it for February 28th when Valentine's Day is FRIDAY and a day that large retailers usually get slammed makes me feel there's no real backbone in play here.

Look, if you wanna participate, participate. Here's a Newsweek article explaining it.

Also, here's Newsweek explaining who The People's Union is because i sure as fuck didn't know, and frankly from the what the founder of the union focuses on on his own Union website, I do not find them serious in the least. It's all buzz words and sob story background with nothing in the article actually indicating what this group does to actually effect change.

If Newsweek has to run an article explaining who the group is who is trying to run a boycott, and that article doesn't actually explain what the group hopes to achieve by having the boycott, it's not a serious group.

"But, Gayle! They want DEI offices back!"

Okay. But do you really think PBS cut its DEI department because it wanted to or because if they don't, the government funding they get will get yanked? Do you really think Target, that loudly made a point to talk about how less rainbow their capitalism was gonna be before Pride last year, is just chomping at the bit to put their DEI office back into place, or do you think maybe they showed up which side they were on and now they have an easy excuse to drop it?

Do you think Google, who was literally head-hunting me for nearly a year, and then suddenly stopped talking to me just as they got sued by female employees for sexist work practices geniunely care about what DEI can do?

Do you think Amazon, who has cut me out of interview cycles TWICE because when they ask "How do you innovate every day?" and I go, "I don't. I think it's an odd standard to judge all possible employees by especially in my department, where the focus should be on being able to communicate complicated information to anyone in any place at any time, which can lead to innovation but should not be a high-ranked goal" gives a shit about DEI? The Amazon that demanded workers come back to the office back in September while announcing everyone had until January? Thus making it possible for them to have a "voluntary headcount reduction" instead of a layoff to deal with whatever shortcomings the balance sheet showed?

"But, Gayle, I care!"

Aim it somewhere useful. Do a personal boycott. Email all those big companies The People's Union think they can hit on the bottom line within maybe 72 hours and tell them what you generally spend at their company and that you are taking that money away. Because, honestly, an email campaign that is "Hey, I did the math, and last year, I spent $500 at your business, and this year, I'm spending $0." Get your friends into it. Do some community organizing around it. Rather than this empty threat of 24-72 hours, commit to a long-term refusal to work with these private companies who do not have to answer to the government for their funding.

At the end of the day, for me, it comes down to this: A maybe 3-day boycott by an unproven group calling itself a "Union" whose main talking points are "government bad" and "I've been meditating since I was six" (that's not a joke, that's in the article about who the fuck People's Union is) isn't going to do jack fuck all for any DEI program. Literally every business they want you to target can easily handle three days of no shoppers. They can probably handle three years of slow sales, frankly.

The reasons boycotts work when ACTUAL unions call for them is because companies know their average sales. So, if a REAL union says, "Please show your support for the union on February 28 by refusing to buy from our place of business," and that place of business sees a HUGE drop in sales on February 28, they can only assume it's because the union asked customers to show they stand with the union. (By the way, if you ever participate in a boycott like that, please also send an email to customer service that says "I will not be buying from you on February 28 because I stand with the union," but also please only do it if you actually go to that business in general; lots of people call things a boycott when they mean they just don't and never have shopped someplace.).

Those 24-72 hours the People's Union want you spend not shopping but maybe shopping if they feel really powerful after the first 24 hours, will be much better spent bothering your elected officials to make them refuse the anti-DEI executive order.

This is a bragging rights boycott. It will not harm the businesses in the least, but at the end of it, all the people who participated can smugly announce they didn't buy anything at the Target for a whole 3 days because they're so morally correct.

[thatvvitch]

Something I find endlessly hysterical is that all of these predominantly white people cheering at the rollback of civil rights and DEI actually don’t even know what that means. Corporations have been using performative DEI, but what the actual intention was was to prevent discrimination against a lot of different factors.

So not only are the women cheering on allowing discrimination to fully be alive and well against themselves as we are fully entering the Handmaid‘s Tale… but all of these people seem to forget that because we will and have always been in a class war, they will not be able to retire and inevitably when they try to gain employment in their twilight years, age discrimination will come back to bite them in the ass.

America 

[bighermie]

Notoriously Woke Target Announces DEI Rollback Just Days After Trump's Inauguration | The Gateway Pundit | by Ben Zeisloft, The Western Journal

[fuzzyleapfrog]

Universities these days

Faculty members hold more power than many realize. Without their labour, research and expertise, universities cannot function.

Unfortunately, universities that no longer function are part of the goal, aren't they?

The US administration might hope that academics will remain siloed, too consumed with their own work — or too afraid — to resist. However, if faculty members unite across institutions, they can become a force that the federal government cannot ignore.

Hopefully, STEM will not abandon the humanities.

But words won’t be enough. Faculty senates must formally call on universities to refuse compliance. Such resolutions aren’t just symbolic — they create a record that can be cited in lawsuits, the media and advocacy.

If thinking about all of those who already lost, think about those who will see what you do now or in the distant future.

If faculty members are to take a stand, universities must back them up — protecting academic freedom, defending academics against retaliation and refusing to cave in to intimidation. [...] For some, organizing against this directive would not be just an act of resistance, it would be an act of professional and personal risk.

Hoping that universities, states and local communities will support their researchers and institutions.

Global institutions must also take a stand.

Don't forget that

[...] it’s not just in the United States. Rollbacks are also taking place in parts of Europe, for example.

And after all and most importantly:

This anti-DEI directive is not just an attack — it’s a test, a probe to see how much resistance universities will muster. Staying silent will not prevent more attacks. The only way to win is to act — together, decisively and now.

This is not a drill. It is a defining moment.

Calisi Rodríguez, R. (2025). ‘Silence is complicity’—Universities must fight the anti-DEI crackdown. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00667-2

[mariacallous]

Meta told investors on Thursday that it remains committed to building “an inclusive workplace” full of “cognitive diversity,” even as the social media company moves to end its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The statement was part of an annual earnings filing Meta made to the US Securities and Exchange Commission in which it removed mentions of DEI-related “learning and development courses” for employees, as well as statistics on the percentage of staff who identify as disabled, LGBTQ+, or from other underrepresented backgrounds.

“In early 2025, we announced changes to our diversity programs in light of the shifting legal and policy landscape,” Meta wrote in the filing. “We will continue to work to build an inclusive workplace where we can leverage our collective cognitive diversity to build the best products and make the best decisions for the global community we serve.”

The filing, known as a 10-K, maintains language from Meta’s 2023 version about how “a broad range of knowledge, skills, political views, backgrounds, and perspectives” leads to cognitive diversity and “fuels innovation.” The world’s biggest social media company disclosed it has about 74,000 employees globally, up 10 percent from a year ago. Overall, Meta said it grew its daily active users by 5 percent to 3.35 billion in 2024, while sales increased by 22 percent to over $164 billion.

Two current Meta employees told WIRED they are still upset about the DEI rollbacks announced earlier this month and believe many of their colleagues share the same sentiments. Janelle Gale, the company’s vice president for human resources, said at the time that Meta was eliminating a program that aimed to ensure candidates from underrepresented groups in the tech industry weren’t overlooked in its hiring practices. Cuts were also announced to efforts that promoted Meta working with a diverse slate of outside vendors, such as businesses owned by military veterans or women, as well as to training programs designed to engender respect in the workplace among people with different backgrounds and abilities.

Meta spokesperson Tracy Clayton declined to comment on the revisions to its SEC filing. The company did not immediately respond to a separate request for comment on the concerns raised by some employees.

In a note to staff earlier this month, Gale cited the changing US legal landscape that is “signaling a shift in how courts will approach DEI.” She added that the term had “become charged, in part because it is understood by some as a practice that suggests preferential treatment of some groups over others."

Some Meta employees say they have yet to notice any impacts internally. “I’m not convinced they are going to do anything at all. Could just remove mention of it and move on,” one staffer says. But the changes, which followed the relaxation of Meta’s hate speech policies for content shared on Instagram and Facebook, remain a constant source of discussion among workers, according to one of the employees.

Meta employees typically vote on which questions executives should address at companywide meetings. Ahead of such a gathering scheduled for Thursday, several of the most-endorsed questions were related to DEI. But Meta leadership have told employees that the popularity of a certain question no longer guarantees that it will be answered by company leadership, according to one of the employees. The New York Times earlier reported the change.

A number of US companies, including in the tech industry, removed mentions of diversity goals and programs in their annual filings about a year ago amid growing public criticism of the initiatives in the form of civil lawsuits and pressure from activist investors. A new round of cutbacks have been announced by retailers, restaurants, manufacturers, and tech developers as President Donald Trump returned to the White House this month.

Trump has repeatedly criticized DEI policies and programs, calling them “nonsense” and “discriminatory.” After he was inaugurated on January 20, Trump quickly moved to end DEI programs at agencies across the federal government.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has sought to warm his once-frosty relationship with the president over the past few months. On Wednesday, Meta and Trump reached an agreement to settle a lawsuit Trump filed over the temporary suspension of his user account after the January 6 Capitol insurrection, according to a federal court filing. Meta agreed to pay about $25 million, with most of the funds going toward Trump’s future presidential library, The Wall Street Journal reported. Dani Lever, a Meta spokesperson, confirmed the reporting to WIRED. Trump’s attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment.

Zuckerberg didn’t acknowledge the settlement on the company’s quarterly earnings call on Wednesday, but did applaud the president. “We now have a US administration that is proud of our leading companies, prioritizes American technology winning, and that will defend our values and interests abroad,” he said. “And I am optimistic about the progress and innovation that this can unwind.”

At Meta, the effect of the DEI cuts may be muted, in part, because the company has been working on trimming them for some time behind the scenes, according to a former Meta employee directly familiar with the changes. “It’s been a slow, painful death,” they say. After the murder of George Floyd in 2020, then chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg spearheaded the company’s increased commitments to diversity, including commissioning an internal civil rights audit. In its 2022 diversity report, Meta noted that it had doubled the number of women and Black staff members since 2019 as part of its diversity goals.

With Sandberg’s support, the former Meta employee says, “there was like this huge rush of energy to make a difference.” But in July 2022, Sandberg announced her departure from day-to-day operations at the company. Around that same time, the tech giant announced that it would start identifying teams to let go during upcoming widespread layoffs, which took place several months later. The eventual cuts affected some 11,000 people and were the first blow to Meta’s progress on diversity, the former employee alleges.

“Managers who were on these DEI teams were forced to either convert to non-manager roles or move to other teams that weren’t DEI. Teams with DEI in their names were disbanded,” the former employee says. They further allege that after the layoffs, Meta stopped hosting quarterly leadership meetings to discuss progress on DEI goals.

Asked about these allegations, Meta’s Clayton says the layoffs affected employees across the company.

Diversity advocates maintain that investing in DEI programs helps businesses perform better financially. Some companies, including Microsoft, have not announced recent changes to DEI programs or amended related sections in their SEC filings. This week, Netflix, one of the first major tech companies to publish its fourth quarter earnings report, bolstered its section on diversity. The company now says that it trains not only its recruiters, but also “our people leaders” on hiring “more inclusively.”

The streaming giant continues to state that diversity in the workplace is important to attracting subscribers. “We want more people and cultures to see themselves reflected on screen—so it’s important that our employee base is diverse and represents the communities we serve,” Netflix explains in its SEC filing. The company, which employs about 14,000 people, declined to further comment.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Christopher Wiggins at The Advocate:

President Donald Trump is expected to issue more than 200 executive orders on Monday, moments after being sworn back into office. The orders will target transgender rights, diversity initiatives, and other federal policies. According to Fox News, the actions will include sweeping reversals of Biden administration policies and significant measures to fulfill Trump’s campaign promises.

Defining "biological sex"

One of Trump’s first executive orders will require federal agencies to define sex as strictly either male or female. This directive will eliminate recognition of transgender and nonbinary identities at the federal level, barring individuals from updating gender markers on passports and other federal documents that currently allow for “X” gender markers. The Biden administration had allowed such updates, viewing them as critical for equality for nonbinary people.

Eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs

Trump is set to abolish all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within federal agencies. These programs, implemented under Biden, aimed to address systemic inequities and create more inclusive workplaces. Trump’s administration argues that DEI programs are unnecessary and divisive, according to Fox News. This rollback is expected to disproportionately impact underrepresented groups who have benefited from the programs.

Reinstating the transgender military ban

Trump has promised to reinstate a ban on transgender people serving in the military, reversing Biden’s 2021 policy that allowed transgender Americans to serve openly. Trump originally introduced the exclusive policy during his first term and faced widespread criticism for being discriminatory. Trump has framed this decision as a cost-saving measure, though studies have shown that transgender service members have a negligible impact on military spending. Advocates warn the ban will exclude capable individuals from serving their country.

Banning transgender women in sports

Another executive order is expected to ban transgender women from participating in women’s sports, aligning with Trump’s campaign promises. He has argued this measure ensures fairness in competition despite a lack of evidence supporting widespread advantages for transgender athletes. Advocacy groups have called such a ban harmful and rooted in misinformation. Despite the exceedingly small number of trans athletes who participate in competitive sports, Republicans have made targeting them a priority.

Several of Felon 47’s 200+ tyrannical executive orders will target trans rights (and LGBTQ+ rights more broadly), such as legalizing trans erasure by declaring that the only two federally recognized genders are male and female, ban on trans women in women sports, reinstate the ban on trans military service members, and attacks on gender-affirming care.

Blue states should not obey any of his tyrannical anti-trans EOs!

See Also:

HuffPost: Trump Preparing Executive Order To Declare There Are Only 2 ‘Not Changeable’ Sexes

Erin In The Morning: Trump Promised 200 Executive Orders Day 1: Here Are Some That Could Target Trans People

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

It's clear at this point that the single most mobilizing issue in the 2024 election in the US is anger over the Opus Dei Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade, and a demand that this decision be overturned and Roe v Wade, which enjoys 70% support among Americans, be reinstated. Whitney Fox is a political newcomer, but the Democratic candidate for Florida’s 13th congressional district is optimistic that anger over the rollback of abortion rights will nudge her to victory.

Fox is challenging Republican incumbent Anna Paulina Luna, a firebrand ally of Donald Trump and a self-described “pro-life extremist”, with a promise to defend women’s autonomy. In a campaign video, Fox makes her pitch: “Our way of life is under attack by extremist politicians, attacking our reproductive freedoms, our democracy and doing nothing to lower the costs we are all struggling with,” she adds. “That’s why I am running for Congress: to end these attacks and protect our way of life, for my family and yours.”

But Fox faces an uphill battle if she is going to win on November 5. Pinellas county, where she is standing, has leaned conservative in recent years, and the non-partisan Cook Political Report rates the Fox-Luna race as “competitive” but “likely Republican”. Over a lunch of Cuban sandwiches in the city of St Petersburg, Fox is confident. Luna is wrong on this issue, she says, “And we know that with the right candidate, the right message, and our well-run campaign, we will be able to beat her.”

Democrats across the country are making the same bet. With just under two weeks until election day, when Americans will choose not only a new president but also a new Congress, they believe the hardline positions on abortion being pushed by many Republicans will work in their favour. Florida is one of nearly a dozen states where voters will be given a direct say on abortion laws through ballot referendums in November, including presidential battlegrounds such as Arizona and Nevada that are likely to determine who wins the White House.

Ever since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade in 2022, striking down the national right to an abortion, Republican officials have been pushing for increasingly prohibitive abortion restrictions at the state level. More than 20 states have laws to limit abortion earlier in pregnancy than the viability standard set by Roe, including 13 states where abortion is now banned in almost all circumstances, including for victims of rape and incest.

Some conservative lawmakers and judges are going further, calling for restrictions on access to contraception and fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilisation. All of this is at odds with the clear majority of Americans who identify as pro-choice, according to multiple polls. Opposition to the hardline policies was credited with supercharging Democratic victories in the 2022 midterms and several other special elections and off-year contests since. Democrats are now bullish that voter discontent with Republicans on the issue will once again motivate voters — especially women and young people — to turn out in large numbers for their candidates, from vice-president Kamala Harris to congressional hopefuls like Fox.

At the same time, many high-profile Republicans — including Trump — have scrambled to distance themselves from the religious right, to avoid alienating moderate and swing voters whose support will be critical in an election that is on a knife-edge.

The latest polling suggests while Harris and Trump are in effect tied in the crucial swing states, the former president has a problem with female voters in particular: a recent NBC News survey showed women across the country supporting his rival by a 14-point margin.

At a campaign stop in the battleground state of Pennsylvania on Monday, Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman who broke with her party over Trump and is now campaigning for Harris, called on women of all political stripes to “reject cruelty” and “misogyny” at the ballot box.

“[Abortion] is not an issue that we’re seeing break down across party lines,” Cheney added. “There are many of us around the country who have been pro-life but who have watched . . . state legislatures put in place laws that are resulting in women not getting the care they need.”

Jessica Mackler, president of Emily’s List, a national group that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights, says the issue is already shaping how Americans will vote.

“The question is not: Will abortion drive votes in this election?” she says. “It is: How far, how wide and how deep does that impact go?” Florida — a racially and economically diverse state that is America’s third-largest by population — was for decades considered a bellwether of who would take the White House. Pinellas county, where Fox and Luna are competing, has picked the winner of every presidential election since 1980, with the exception of George W Bush in 2000.

But the state, which Trump adopted as his own after making Mar-a-Lago his primary residence in 2019, has become increasingly Republican. Trump won Florida by 3.4 points in 2020 and, in the 2022 midterms, Republican governor Ron DeSantis was re-elected by a nearly 20-point margin.

“Trump has carried Florida twice. I don’t know why he won’t carry it a third time,” says Brad Coker, a veteran non-partisan pollster and chief executive of Mason-Dixon Polling in Jacksonville, Florida’s biggest city. For now, Florida is leaning Republican, the Financial Times poll tracker shows, with Trump holding a 5.9-point lead over Harris. Yet there are signs of brewing discontent; political analysts expect the results in November will be much closer than they were in 2022. Other polls show Florida’s US Senate race — with incumbent Republican Rick Scott facing Democratic challenger Debbie Mucarsel-Powell — within striking distance for Democrats.

DeSantis’s approval rating has also fallen sharply in the past two years, a trend some analysts attribute to his increasingly conservative policy positions. In May, he signed a law banning access to abortion in the state after the sixth week of pregnancy — when many women do not yet realise they are pregnant — with some exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

In this election, voters have a chance to overturn that law thanks to a ballot question known as Amendment 4, a referendum on enshrining abortion rights in Florida’s constitution. If 60 per cent of the electorate votes yes, the amendment would broadly guarantee access to abortion until a foetus can survive outside the womb, usually defined as around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

The referendum, which was added to the ballot following a petition campaign by pro-choice groups, is nevertheless seen as an opening for Democrats, who are confident it will draw out voters on their side even though the campaign is not technically affiliated with any political party. “In every district that we are in, in every state that we are in, this is the issue that is driving the Democratic coalition in a really remarkable way,” says Mackler of Emily’s List. “Where abortion is on the ballot in any form, it is a driver of wins for Democrats.”

There is growing evidence that ballot measures to codify abortion rights can pass even in states that skew conservative, especially when only a simple majority is required. The most recent example was last year in Ohio, where an amendment enshrining reproductive rights in the state’s constitution passed with nearly 57 per cent of the vote. A year earlier, a similar measure passed in Kansas with 59 per cent support.

Both those states are reliably Republican: the Financial Times poll tracker shows Trump on course to win Ohio by more than 8 points and Kansas by 16. That has prompted GOP leaders to shrug off suggestions that support for abortion rights will fuel a so-called “blue wave” next month, insisting that issues like the economy carry more weight with voters. A recent nationwide Pew poll found the economy was the number-one issue for all voters in the election, while abortion ranked eighth. However, for those who identify as Harris supporters, abortion ranked as the third most important issue.

“You hear a lot of noise in the media, but the reality on the ground is that we are in a better place than we ever have been in Florida,” says Evan Power, chair of the state’s Republican party. “If you talk to Floridians, they care about immigration, inflation and the economy.”

Republicans already have an advantage over the Democrats when it comes to registered voters in the state, according to the latest official figures. Roughly 5.4mn people in Florida are registered Republicans, compared with 4.4mn registered Democrats. Another 3.5mn are registered to vote but unaffiliated with either major party.

That makes non-partisan experts like Coker doubtful Democrats can pull off an upset. “[Abortion] might move the needle a little in Florida when you start talking about the margins, but I don’t think it is going to change the overall outcome,” he says. “It is not going to be enough to flip a state like Florida.”

[frankencanon]

From the article:

As a response to the DEI rollbacks, the People's Union is planning a 24-hour economic blackout all day on February 28, beginning at 12 a.m.

During this time, participants are pledging to not make any purchases either online or in brick-and-mortar stores.

The People's Union is targeting Amazon, Walmart and Best Buy, but the group is also asking boycotters to refrain from spending money on fast food or gas, as well.

If consumers must make purchases, they are asked to buy only from small, local businesses.

The People's Union originated from grassroots efforts of Americans looking to regain control over corporate influence.

"If we disrupt the economy for just ONE day, it sends a powerful message," the People's Union wrote on its website.

USA people! Buy NOTHING Feb 28 2025. Not anything. 24 hours. No spending. Buy the day before or after but nothing. NOTHING. February 28 2025. Not gas. Not milk. Not something on a gaming app. Not a penny spent. (Only option in a crisis is local small mom and pop. Nothing. Else.) Promise me. Commit. 1 day. 1 day to scare the shit out of them that they don't get to follow the bullshit executive orders. They don't get to be cowards. If they do, it costs. It costs.

Then, if you can join me for Phase 2. March 7 2025 thtough March 14 2025? No Amazon. None. 1 week. No orders. Not a single item. Not one ebook. Nothing. 1 week. Just 1.

If you live outside the USA boycott US products on February 28 2025 and stand in solidarity with us and also join us for the week of no Amazon.

Are you with me?

Spread the word.

[melorasmushrooms]

I love when people say “How about I do anyway” in the face of adversity. I love that my school’s principal put up signs welcoming everyone regardless of their race, class, gender, sexuality (we’re a sanctuary school in a VERY diverse district), proudly displayed at the front of the school for all to see. The local art museum gives no fucks about DEI rollback and is continually platforming a variety of artists from everywhere in the country and beyond. There’s so much power in truly not giving a fuck

[ifwebefriends]

So I’m hopefully getting my first big kid job (I.e. job where I use my college degree) in a couple months after I graduate and I have anxiety so my brain likes to prepare for any scenario I can think of and due to all the DEI rollback stuff and the potential coworkers I’ll have to deal with I am mentally preparing myself for the social strategy of not explicitly saying that I’m queer but like humorously implying it like I’m in a sitcom in the 90s/2000s

[mybirdwontstopchirping]

i work for a large retail company that has recently taken part in the DEI rollback and i’ve noticed that, in the past few years, during Black History Month, they’ve had displays highlighting black owned businesses, etc. I was wondering what they would do this year. I can only speak for the store I work at, but this year there was absolutely nothing out on the sales floor that hinted at celebrating Black History Month. the ONLY THING in the store was a little poster in the employee break room area talking about the history of the month. not surprised at all but still sucks!

[betterbemeta]

Something we should remember from that time is that this attitude is a reaction to instability, it's a form of bargaining for security.

2014 was a huge year for trans visibility. Laverne Cox was on the cover of Time Magazine. Janet Mock was interviewed by Piers Morgan, he was awful, and the conflict was extremely public. These are just two events I remember off the top of my head, and LGBT+ rights were in the USA public consciousness as same-sex marriage was being made legal in many states ahead of the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. This was a huge victory for trans people too, given how marriage can gate healthcare access and legitimacy.

Gamergate also 'started' around that year, with all its transphobic threats.

This increased visibility and controversy contributed to:

A fear of retaliation, and

many many people coming out of the closet.

It's an instinct to try and argue for why others are stealing valor, that some people were 'here first' and should be served first or deserve more finite (but nebulously defined) 'resources' than anyone else and to try to push others out of the lifeboat to it's a 'smaller target.'

BUT WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THIS INSTINCT WAS AND REMAINS A LIAR.

Acting on this instinct didn't result in more security for anyone.

It didn't qualify anyone for more respect than other people.

It didn't frame anyone as more deserving of support.

And it definitely didn't reduce transmisogyny. JKR didn't get terf radicalized because she believed some trans people were Too Unserious. It was specifically transmisogynist fearmongering.

None of the DEI rollbacks, no transvestigation bullshit, could have been prevented by fewer they/thems coming out 11 years ago. That's just a big version of the "you were asking for it in such a slutty dress," argument. However the words to describe the crab bucket reflex change we know NOW that this reflex in the past led to 0 good things (and to Blaire White) and that's not going to be different 'this time', or any time in the future.

it's actually crazy to me the way people will just say regular 2014 style truscum shit except change "fakers" and "fetishists" and "hurting trans people" to "theyfabs" and "internalized transmisogyny" and "hurting trans women" & everyone eats that shit up like they're starving. I thought we learned but yall really are just memorizing buzzwords huh