Donald Trump upholds sexist policies against women

The argument

Supporters of Joe Biden's 2020 candidacy argued that the Trump administration pursued policies harmful to women's rights and interests, and that this was a reason to vote him out. Their central example was reproductive rights: the administration appointed judges and Supreme Court justices widely expected to be hostile to abortion access, expanded the 'global gag rule' barring US funding to overseas organisations that so much as mention abortion, and supported restrictions that critics argued would curtail women's control over their own healthcare. For these voters, the trajectory of reproductive policy alone represented a serious rollback of women's autonomy. The argument extended to other areas. Critics pointed to the administration's moves to weaken Title IX protections governing how schools handle sexual assault complaints, to rules they argued made it easier for employers to deny contraceptive coverage, and to a broader pattern they read as deprioritising women's economic and health interests. They also drew attention to the president's own record of public statements about women and the numerous allegations of misconduct against him, contending that this set a tone at odds with women's equality and dignity. For voters who regarded the protection and advancement of women's rights as a central issue of the election, this record was disqualifying, and Biden — who campaigned on restoring reproductive protections, strengthening Title IX safeguards and advancing pay equity — represented the alternative. Because, on this argument, Donald Trump upheld policies that set back women's rights and interests, his opponents concluded that Joe Biden should be elected in 2020.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Trump's defenders replied that the policies described are contested matters of political disagreement rather than "sexism": appointing judges who read the Constitution as leaving abortion to elected legislatures, or adjusting Title IX rules to add due-process protections for the accused, were, they argued, defensible positions many women themselves supported, not attacks on women. They pointed to women in senior administration roles and to pre-pandemic economic conditions as evidence of a record they judged favourable to women's interests. On this view, framing ordinary policy differences over abortion or campus procedure as "sexist policies against women" mistakes a values disagreement for hostility.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Judicial appointments and the gag rule reflect a contested view that abortion policy belongs to elected legislatures, which defenders argue is a political position, not sexism. [Rejecting P2] Changes to Title IX were defended as adding due-process protections for the accused, a reform with support among women, rather than a setback for women generally. [Rejecting C] Because these are disputed policy choices on which women themselves differ, characterising them as "sexist policies against women" is contested, so the conclusion does not follow for those who reject that framing.