No, it's still not progressive. There's a difference between accepting trans people as valid. and pushing some 50's-era rhetoric of feminism being subservient slavery to the man of the house.

Interesting how the OP is about the whole "tradwife" ideology which is damaging for women[1] and feminism[2], but you turn it into a trans-vs.-cis argument, for no reason whatsoever.

The only "clown world" is the one where you think those two entirely disparate topics are comparable.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2020/jan/27/tradwives-ne...

[2] https://mashable.com/article/tradwife-feminism-tiktok

I didn’t say the GP was either. The observation is solely that doing traditional things doesn’t make you part of this “trad” sphere, which is largely syncretic in terms of what it actually considers traditional.

Being a tradwife (whether AMAB or AFAB) is neither progressive nor reactionary. Neither is being trans.

Advocating being a tradwife as an ideal, deviation from which in others should be viewed as inferior, is reactionary in and of itself, even if the person taking the position also has progressive views on other issues.