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

Who was stopping Biden or the Democrats from having the same policies on sex and issuing the same executive order on day one?

If they had we'd have been very happy. But they didn't.

That's on them, not Trump.

You do have to score goals yourself, you can't just hope your opponents won't.

It is ludicrous malaga that we need this disclosure when we post.

I think we should all now post with the disclaimer as a footnote... oh... wait... won't that take our posts into the dreaded 'essay' territory?

I believe that transgender people have the right to be recognised and treated as the gender they identify as and have a right to gender affirming care

But you don’t believe that prisoners should be, so you’re critical of their gender identity in this scenario. As pp say, go and post this on a trans forum and see how long it takes until you get told to die in a grease fire or banned.

As it seems obligatory to have to say on here: Trump evil but a stopped clock etc so I'm going to say: I agree with almost all his orders announced yesterday (I put almost because I can't claim to have considered them all closely) and they represent turn back to normality and reality generally.

Trump is an extreme divisive character, but his polices are what was regarded as common sense 15 yars ago.

Gender ideology has repented the wildest straying from reality by a government but the 'progressive' agenda has been roundly rejected as the extreme position by the people not Trumpism.

It's also perfectly obvious to most people that:

A country needs a secure border
That people should not be judged on the colour of their skin
That net zero will lead to poverty
And that there are 2 sexes.

I don't mean to derail the thread into a is Trump good/evil debate ( I haven't got time for that today anyway) but I just wanted to counter the assumption this is the only good thing he's doing, everything else is extreme.

No, most of what he's doing is also normal obvious stuff and undoing damage by the 'progressives', that's why he won.

Right!

And of course, women are far too naive and apparently don't understand :

That a political party will make decisions that will win them votes if they understand there is enough depth of support for that particular issue that it might convince swinging voters to vote for them, but that they then need to deliver their promises to keep that swinging support going for as long as they can.

And that this issue crosses the boundaries of 'belonging' to feminists. It has negatively impacted female people across the spectrum of political beliefs. So,
while there are aspects of the group of issues that interest feminists, there are many other people who are not feminist who also want the protections that this EO can influence.

Surely we should be able to discuss the positives and negatives of the EO without the attempts to shame posters who want to celebrate aspects or all of it.

But hey, then again reasonable people in the world do not declare others as being fully supportive of a party leader just because they agree on one aspect partially or wholly of one EO. What a world when saying 'He got this right' is twisted to being 'you are all worshiping this man'.

Just so pleased about this. And the clear and straightforward language used. Other nations are going to have to stand up now and tell us why this is a terrible idea. 😛

It's the black and white thinking of gender critical posters.and the righteousness that comes with it, like declaring someone a TERF because they think that female prisoners should be protected that makes most people not want to engage with them.

LOL. It's not actually women on Mumsnet who do that, it's trans rights activists who are happy to demonise any woman as a terf who even suggests that in some limited ways biological sex might be sort of important.

Like you, if your position is genuinely held.

Not believing that trans women belong in womens prisons doesn't make me gender critical.

Go and post it on TRA Reddit, see what they think 🤷‍♀️

Education doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence. Sometimes it just means you learn how to phrase bullshit more convincingly.

This!

"The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself."

This really stood out to me. Despite what certain posters keep repeating, this is not a niche issue. Queer theory is a serious threat to democracy and its proponents know this because they have used #NoDebate and #BeKind to try to prevent it being debated in the marketplace of ideas. So we find ourselves in a situation where both conservatives and progressives are authoritarian and a threat to democracy. I am simply pleased to see a statement that recognises scientific reality. I'm sure many of us would have preferred that such a statement had come from the progressives in whichever country we inhabit.

Yep.

Indeed, if only Keir Starmer would come out with something like this. I am of course dreaming.

Perhaps the UK Supreme Court might bring equal clarity in its judgement in the FWS case.

And this bit

"The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself."

So very, very true. My trust in government has been totally destroyed by the lies.

And in making it clear that there is just two sexes, it then prioritises sex above gender.

As it should be, so when sex matters, it can rely on legislation to ensure that it will have the priority.

Even the most evil people can do the right things at times. It is simplistic and tribal thinking for anyone to think that women celebrating this one thing believe that they are now celebrating the entirety of the person who made it happen.

I especially like this: 'replacing the immutable biological reality of sex with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts. '

HAHA - crosspost Malaga great minds and all that.

The relief I feel on reading such a clear pro-woman EO is immense. IMMENSE!

Here's the full text linked (this is the official source as far as I can tell)

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government – The White House

A couple of great bits:

"Invalidating the true and biological category of “woman” improperly transforms laws and policies designed to protect sex-based opportunities into laws and policies that undermine them, replacing longstanding, cherished legal rights and values with an identity-based, inchoate social concept." Yep, we've been saying this for years, with receipts, on here.

"The prior Administration argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which addressed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires gender identity-based access to single-sex spaces under, for example, Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act. This position is legally untenable and has harmed women. The Attorney General shall therefore immediately issue guidance to agencies to correct the misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) to sex-based distinctions in agency activities. In addition, the Attorney General shall issue guidance and assist agencies in protecting sex-based distinctions, which are explicitly permitted under Constitutional and statutory precedent.
(g) Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology. Each agency shall assess grant conditions and grantee preferences and ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.
Sec. 4. Privacy in Intimate Spaces. (a) The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that males are not detained in women’s prisons or housed in women’s detention centers, including through amendment, as necessary, of Part 115.41 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations and interpretation guidance regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act."

It's quite detailed and also lists a whole load of anti-woman government documents that will be rescinded.

It's very, very clearly about protecting women's rights.

Given we know women have been raped and sexually assaulted by males in women's jails, the bit about prisons in particular is such a relief.

The bit on definitions is good - woman = adult human female. YAY! I feel a trip to Posie's store is in order.

Also makes it clear sex is not a synonym for and does not include gender identity.

The wording is gloriously clear; the adults are back in the room.

How can anyone seriously argue for legislation NOT to be based on scientific reality?

Posted this on the other thread but adding here in case the order hasn't been linked to:

Here is the order:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/

What really strikes me is that none of this is having to be based on 'GC beliefs' as a protected characteristic in the way this has had to be used to challenge GI in the UK legal system. This is saying:

It's not a belief it's a reality.

There are only two sexes and that is what the law is based on.

It changes everything. We're back in reality.

Well they're back in reality in the US.

That Executive Order is so clearly worded. It's absolutely brilliant and anyone who tries to argue against it is going to look a fool.

So let me get this straight. You think "transgender people have the right to be recognised and treated as the gender they identify as". If they are "treated as the gender they identify as", doesn't this mean that a man who identifies as a woman should be treated as a woman? Surely this would then mean that such a man should be allowed to compete in women's sports and go to a women's prison if he's convicted of a crime, doesn't it?

This is so very true.