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

"The order ends with a sweeping statement about the fundamental issue the White House believes is at stake in this order: ”Men and women are equal but have obvious sexual differences,” it reads. “If federal policies promote such an obvious falsehood that men can become women, the government will forfeit all credibility. The government must maintain a commitment to recognizing biological reality to maintain the trust of the American people.”"
(Emphasis mine)

The title of the order alone says everythung has changed:

"Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

Defending women.
Restoring biological truth.

Alleluia.

Interesting feature in the Daily Telegraph by Oliver Brown, chief sports writer and big supporter of women's sports as Mumsnet will probably know.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2025/01/19/donald-trump-protecting-women-sport-party-political-issue/

It confirms how big a deal this was in US voting - in contrast to the UK.

I hadn't even considered that but it's possible. There's not really money involved so maybe not?
Might be big for the UN, which the USA bankrolls.
Sall Grover (Giggle Vs Tickle) reckons it will influence Australian politics, but I'm not sure much will happen there unless/until the SDA is amended.

Incredible

The house of cards collapses

In the US at least

There will be legal action after legal action which the genderists will lose. And while arguing their case, light will be shone. Operation Let Them Speak is just getting going in the US.

Wow, indeed.

Wow. Wonder what this might mean for the UK and Canada? Priced into continuation of the 'special relationship'?

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

Article from Emily Yoffe at the Free Press with details of Trump’s executive order for day one:

https://www.thefp.com/p/trumps-day-one-executive-order-male-female-gender-ideology-pronouns

Aren’t the Democrats being ever so slightly ‘obvious’ with this appointing McBride to this role?

It’s such student union politics and it’s the type of irritating student union politics that we see in almost every Western democratic parliament in recent years: I’m so fed up with attempts at virtue signalling and owning the opposition - I want proper grown up boring government that fixes infrastructure and improves voters’ lives.

I’d say you need to find something impacting culture, safety, society and dc written in laws and backed by institutions

Some kind of mass cultural movement that ended in harm

Much worse than Savile, and yes worse than frontal lobotomy scandal even. You’d need to find something broad scale and backed by institutions and impacting children.

Or the blood products scandal of the 80s, which was actively prolonged and covered up even after the risks were known.

Or continuing to prescribe Thalidomide after the side effects were understood, without relaying those risks to the women involved.

Both examples of the medical ‘establishment,’ with the full knowledge and complicity of Government, ran roughshod over the best interests of their patients victims.

New York Times poll about Trump's key policy proposals and an article discussing same (it has a couple of sections discussing public perceptions of genderism):

Support for Trump’s Policies Exceeds Support for Trump
A new poll found the public is sympathetic to the president-elect’s plans to deport migrants and reduce America’s presence overseas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/us/politics/trump-policies-immigration-tariffs-economy.html

https://archive.is/ThUtt

Can't support too many of them.

A reminder of the new president's to-do list, to be completed, he says, by Tuesday at the latest.

I think the trans issue prompted far more switching away from the Democrats than they are willing to acknowledge. I held my nose and voted for them anyway because I couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump, but I was deeply unhappy about that aspect of their policies.

Exactly. Everyone knew it was iffy. They knew the states wouldn’t stand for any federal legislation, they knew it was an empty promise like every other Democrat administration before it, and knew it wouldn’t stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny or judgment.

And those in Red states who are anti-abortion didn’t care. And those in Red states that are pro-choice knew they were screwed anyway and Harris had little chance of saving them.

And those in Blue states who already had abortion rights protected at a state level didn’t have to worry.

So everyone looked elsewhere for reasons to decide their vote.

And the Democrats were somehow shocked that Harris’s “I’ll do what no one else has managed, promise, no we mean it this time, honestly” pledge wasn’t enough on its own and worth ignoring other issues for. “But, but, but, we were going to protect abortion rights federally! Why didn’t people vote for that alone?!” Federal Democrats couldn’t wrap their heads around how insightful voters were on voting on issues they thought could bring about actual change to their lives rather than empty promises.

The ACLU laid out a pathway for Harris to accomplish this - www.aclu.org/news/reproductive-freedom/how-kamala-harris-can-secure-federal-abortion-protection-once-and-for-all - but it's all very iffy, and bearing in mind that several states have banned or heavily restricted abortion access it would have probably ended up back in front of SCOTUS anyway. Given the current make-up of the court, I'm not sure whether any such legislation would stand in the end.

Ah yes, that seems to be correct.

It has to do with Catholic adoption agencies that have been prevented from functioning in the US because they don't adopt to gay couples.

So Catholic (or presumably other) agencies will be able to follow their religious teachings on this issue. So presumably gay couples will have to adopt through non-Catholic agencies.

Not quite banning gay adoption. I'm not sure the hyperbole really engenders trust in the political understanding, or honesty, of the person saying that's the purpose.

I would go further and say that the trans surgery machine is institutionalised child abuse. Because it's explicitly taking mentally ill, abused, autistic, eating disordered and otherwise vulnerable children, drugging and mutilating their genitals, and even forcing a No Contact separation between them and their families if the families don't comply. This is absolutely the predator's playbook and so in 30 years I believe we'll look back on this period with the same horror that we use to look back on Jimmy Savile's career.

Worse than Savile's career. This is the medical profession knowingly mutilating children and putting them on life-shortening drugs, with the explicit endorsement of the establishment: government, corporates, universities, professional associations and so on. It's more like the frontal lobotomy scandal, but worse even than that in my view.

In one of the episodes of Gender: a wider lens, the one on the Lisbon conference, it was claimed that, in the WPATH conference happening in parallel, the consensus is forming that a deep vaginoplasty is not recommended, and they are shifting to recommending a shallower surgery that doesn't create a pseudo vaginal canal, because of the rates of complications. If even WPATH is starting to consider it unethical... If this is confirmed (it was sort of leaked information), it's big! At it left me wondering about phalloplasties, which are as bad as, if not even worse.