Trump's plans for day one: ending child sexual mutilation and having just male and female genders

Language is everything isn't it

Now it's in an EO

I recall learning about power and structure in language and I think of it with gender ideology which seeks to overturn the words we use

I got a lifetime ban from here for calling it "mutilation"

luckily I was willing to grovel A LOT and MNHQ saw the way the wind was blowing

and let me back a couple of years later

It all just undermines important shit.

The idea that world will end because a bunch of people said men could become women had such fucking stupid traction.

Archive link for the Suzanne Moore Telegraph article

https://archive.ph/H2CAX

Suzanne Moore in the Telegraph:

"The days of the “No debate” are over. The pretence that sex can be changed is over. But still many of the great and the good are pumping out lies and disinformation.
These people are science deniers. But strangely, they are the same folk who want us to believe the science on climate change. They cannot see the contradiction, because cult membership means self-IDing as a morally superior person."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/29/trump-ban-gender-transitioning-turned-the-tide-cult/

About time somebody said it. Pity it had to be Trump, who's merely seen the way in which the prevailing winds are blowing, found that these fit his own particular ideology (which, face it, isn't where most women's rights advocates are coming from), and capitalized on it.

This is prime fodder for the hard-of-thinking 'alignment' frothers,who are unable to see any of the nuance or shifting of the sands between left and right politicking that's gradually been happening since about the 1980s.

He's made one point that chimes with a feminist position (TRA isn't 'feminism'), therefore feminists like Yours Truly are now prime candidates for Tea Party membership, or worse.

This is the level of criticality we tend to be dealing with here. Bottoms up! ☕

So he has reframed his trauma and is now backing the Cass Report?!

I follow him and am not blocked.

He was ranting about Cass being policy based evidence making the other day and how Labour will not follow Trump.

Let's see how this pans out. It's still only the first year after an election.

I'm actually surprised he's not fucked off to BlueSky tbh.

Like a cup of cold sick.

We've seen it here where posts have been deleted for saying 'bottom surgery' is a euphemism and saying it's cosmetic multilation with an astronomical complication rate and an unproven success rate due to a total lack of unbiased research.

Apart from one being a sanitised euphemism and the other being medically accurate

We need to be telling the truth. Even if we don't like what this reveals. Regardless of who is President.

First thread I clicked on (from r/cisparenttranskid):

Ps has anyone seen anything online from said fox-slayer? He blocked me a while ago on X but I did see a screenshot of him saying he was off up a mountain to reflect, when all this was going on... Is he still sitting on a summit somewhere?! I wonder if his reflection encompassed his own daughter's transition to "be" a boy. I doubt it, given what he was saying during his hyperbolic rant on X.

Changed my "agree" on your comment to a "thanks". It's both. The thanks is for going in and seeing what's being said. I suspect you're right... plus there will be the usual irresponsible hyperbole (and therefore signposting of vulnerable children towards it) about how many suicides this will apparently lead to. We saw it in the UK following the puberty blocker announcement, when Louis Appleby then had to step in with a stern message. Obviously it wasn't directed personally to any kimono-wearing fox slayers, but it was very clear in spelling out the dangerous impact that this kind of rhetoric can have.

During my morning news scroll, I found this thread on the new EO:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5263078-5263078-new-executive-order-protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation

I normally read the paper before I go to work, but today I'll be lurking on Reddit. Will report back, but predicting the general tone will be 'next stop gas chambers ' (disrespectful and inappropriate comparison very much theirs).

I wonder how naming 'gender affirming care' as 'chemical and surgical mutilation of children' will go down.

This is good. Thank you for posting.

He's not specifically saying anything new but his reflections and clear delivery add to the growing body of media which is presenting common sense in an accessible way.

I'm more than capable of reading a document but hearing it read out, word for word, it felt a bit like the moment after little boy shouted out that the emperor is naked. Like the whole village is about to start murmuring that he's got no clothes on and that it's so bloody obvious that it's mad that nobody could see it. Obviously plenty of people could see it and many were saying it, but until the words landed in a government document, the clarity was always just out of reach. Roll on the outcome from the Supreme Court in the UK. Even if they conclude that it's not possible to determine what sex means without an amendment to the EA, this document in the US can be held up as an example of what the protected characteristic of sex can look like - and the GRA looks hilariously abysmal next to it too.

Thanks, @UtopiaPlanitia
That was helpful information especially about the reach and scope of the EO.

Kara Dansky’s analysis of the new legal situation for women in the US is very detailed and worth reading. I’m posting the link again for anyone who might have missed it 👍

https://karadansky.substack.com/p/defending-women-from-gender-ideology

I’m glad you found it worth watching. Knight is a member of the UK sceptic scene and has been writing and youtubing for a number of years about the acceptance of genderism by the wider sceptic movement.

Excellent analysis. Also explains the various points in the EO that have been claimed as 'anti-trans' and why they are there: to make clear what is not to be done or included in Federal documents etc. Well worth a watch.
He did gloss over the clause saying that trans ID men must not be included in women's rape refuges etc as being administrative - but went on quite a lot about women's private spaces, so I suppose it evened up.

Please don't even think you are allowed to tell me how I must participate in a thread on a public forum.

I note you have no answer to my question. Interesting. TDS hyperbole strikes again.

I found another interesting analysis of the executive order from an English woman living in the US:

Please don't quote me when you're in no way addressing my question. Quote me and answer, or make your own stand-alone reply to the OP. Thanks.

I'm watching this interesting analysis by Stephen Knight of the executive order and thought I'd post it here for the thread:

You just know there's going to be (already has been) so much "Oh, but Trump...". But it's knocking the rest of the world back into the right general direction. And putting it on the news, world-wide. And the citizens of the US, and everyone else, is watching.