I think the spell is finally broken...

No one is saying they don't have rights. What they don't have is cross sex rights.

Because really, this cross sex identity, this living "as a.." thing, it isn't an actual thing in its own right. It can literally only exist in a framework of sexist gender roles, because those are the only things of "womanhood" that are ever accessible to men (and of course, this is also why these things are not in fact "womanhood" at all).

You are fixated on the solution here being to take something from women. You have been lead to believe the solution must be a "balance of rights" between women and cross sex identifying men akin to the balance of rights between a woman and the unborn children dependant on her body for life.

This is a false equivalence. The child has no option other than the woman's body. Cross sex identifying people however could have many options for dignity, safety and hell, just for support and fun that do not involve encroaching on the provisions of the opposite sex. They could already have had this had the pressure groups that are supposed to represent them not been so ideologically wedded to the single solution of cross sex colonisation, an obsession which has ultimately taken them to this.

So yes, absolutely the law should find ways to protect them, and the people who face these challenges should be an active part of defining that solution. The only constraint this EO introduces is that solution cannot involve cross sex appropriation of single sex provision.

It does not preclude additional mixed sex provisions for those who prefer them. It does not preclude further subdivisions within the sexes or subdivisions of mixed sex.

All this emotional energy currently going into catastrophising about what happens to the people who currently enjoy cross sex privileges would be much better spent taking off the blinders that the activists have conned people into wearing and building a new and frankly better solution from the many many better possibilities that are still entirely open.

You also have to remember that many Americans see the state as being much more important in terms of the law, and will think the state is the proper level for that kind of thing. Much like many people in Europe would think this is a matter for national rather than pan-European decision making.

There are a lot of Americans who see states rights as fundamental.

How does supporting a policy that states that there are only two sexes support Trump?

What makes trans people vulnerable?

Some of the support he gets on here is shameful.

Its just a reminder we have nutters over here too, and this board is flooded with them.

They aren't stopping any other women from pursuing whatever kinds of work or political activism they want, notarethey saying they should.

Most women who think abortion is a problem think that because they believe that a human life becomes a person before birth - and that killing a person is morally very problematic. Which is a perfectly logical conclusion, since society at large does not normally condone the deliberate killing of persons. That's not hypocrisy.

This idea that abortion is the only issue that counts in women's issues is a viewpoint of certain people on the left, it's by no means universally believed. That doesn't mean they hate women, any more than not believing in euthanasia means people hate the elderly.

No. I don't support any policy that is targeting a vulnerable group by basically declaring they don't exist.

Nonsense. No one is saying they don't exist. They exist just as Mormons or Scientologists or flat-earthers or anorexics exist: they hold a belief that they are welcome to hold but that no one else is required to agree with or validate.

If you're saying that refusing to accept and validate someone's beliefs or feelings means they don't exist then an awful lot of people who clearly do exist should vanish into thin air.

Restoring women's sex-based rights and protections. Underpinned by a clear statement about the reality of sex.

That's what the EO is about. Undoing the harm of Gender Identity Ideology.

No. I don't support any policy that is targeting a vulnerable group by basically declaring they don't exist.

There have been concessions in the law that balance the rights of different groups since we have had laws. For example, we balance the rights of an unborn child to life with the right of a mother to choose by legislating around abortion (how many weeks, the health of mother and child commonly being areas of legislative change and debate). Women exist and men cannot become women. That's obvious and anyone arguing anything else is deluded. A very small minority of men choose to live as women, and have in most every society for as long as we have records (the sitiation on women living as men is much more complicated), the law somehow needs to accomodate those people, who are an enduring group. I'd prefer the law finds ways to accomodate them, while maintaining adequate protections for women. So no self ID, no males in women's prisons or sports etc. But to launch a presidency basically saying 'these people no longer have any rights in our society, the lives they are living are now unteneable and there is no debate on this' is not to me a progressive, feminist stance. Particularly not when dressed up in the language of 'two genders' corresponding to 'two sexes', which it doesn't take a great deal of foresight to see the people saying that have absolutely no interest in any kind of gender non conformity and are in fact proven rapists and abusers. It's just absolutely nuts any women are applauding this.

Given that the most polluting country is China and much of that pollution is caused by manufacturing, protectionist foreign policies that reduce consumption of Chinese exports would be a good thing for the planet.

Also meant to say that given the choice between Democrats who don’t seem to know what a woman is or Trump then I would choose the former.
No point worrying about men in frocks when there is no planet left.

As I said, third spaces. Nobody has to stop wearing a dress.

i don't think anyone on here who is celebrating this one single EO (he signed 200) think that Trump cares about anyone but Trump. I can't imagine any of us think he did it for feminist reasons, or that he is a feminist or that he gives a flying fuck what women think or want or need.

But he did sign this one thing that we have been campaigning for, and hopefully this will be the snowflake that starts the avalanche back to normality.

Not the normality that we face when the sex-class of woman is vanished, right up until people like Owen Jones need a surrogate. Then, BAM!, they know who the women are alright. The old-fashioned type.

Baby steps.

I think it's up to the people affected to decide if we need none or one or two or three or four or twenty types of alternative provision as well as provisions based on sex.

I don't have a strong view on what's right for them, and nor should I. They should shape this themselves.

The only constraint is that women's provisions are not available as a solution for men and that includes trans women and any other men with cross sex identities.

I think anyone who believes Trump cares about women’s rights must have forgotten “grab ‘em by the pussy”, Stormy Daniels, E Jean Carroll and doubtless many others.

It's almost as if the women of FWR haven't been debating GI at a high and informed level for the last ten years, isn't it? As if real movers and shakers such as Magdalen Berns, people from. the Tavi and top-notch legal and academic experts never posted here to keep us informed. As if we've never sat through court cases, read the transcripts, debated the nuances of the Equality Act and the GRA, read the academic articles, studied the research and raised hundreds of thousands to support women's rights court cases — including Keira Bell. Let alone been to loads of events at which serious people spoke, or the fact that many of us have turned out in the rain to demonstrate, written hundreds of letters and created local terf groups together to turn this thing around.

This is terf central. This is where the UK fightback started. And you come on here and have the nerve to tell the equivalent of the terf SAS to 'Have some empathy' ? Not happening. We started out years ago with empathy, thinking there mustt be a middle way that would leave everyone happy enough. And then we learned about autogynephilia and fetishism and we saw how it all worked and we began to understand that this was a men's rights movement.

We have no more fucks to give. Stop it with the 'be kind' shite. We were beyond that by 2019.

the reality is, of course, that if there are honestly trans men (trans identified women) who actually look like men, and they are in a crowd who has no idea - they will easily be able to continue to use the men's. I am not comfortable with this.

If we know that the only people using women's toilets are actual born women, then I'm ok with trans men using them too. Even those who look like, say, Buck Angel.

But yeah - if they can't use public facilities because of this? they are going to find their lives restricted. In the interests of utilitarianism, i prefer that a few trans men, or trans women, have their activities curtailed than have the vast majority of the population have to accept mixed sex toilets.

A pp asked if this is the outcome we wanted, that people who transitioned 30 years ago and have been living their lives quietly since then, are now greatly restricted.

In a word: no. I didn't

But they should have taken that up with the TRAs who pushed and pushed and made the whole issue so ridiculous that this was always going to happen. Willoughby, Bridges and the ridiculous Sophie-Molly. Thank them. Not us.

We could of course just go back to having male and female toilets

That's why I specfied separate AFAB and AMAB gender neutral toilets so they're not mixed sex

What about non-binary? Do they get one too?

Gender neutral is mixed sex.

All the young non binary women who campaigned for gender neutral lost a set of loos. The men go in there for a long sit down so the non binaries use the ladies on another floor. One man even forgot to close the cubicle door when he went for a wee. It stinks.

I've seen individual private spaces marked as unisex. Most disabled toilets are like this. It seems to work as long as footfall is low.

Female
Male
AFAB gender neutral
AMAB gender neutral

Personally I think female and male with a third gender neutral space works well.

How would that work then?

What a strange post. I’ve no idea what you think my problems are.

You seem totally ignorant to the fact that most people who are desperate to ‘transition’ are obviously in a state of distress and unhappy with themselves and their lives. Medical professionals, including mental health professionals, promote the idea that the solution to this distress is to ‘change gender’. Therefore it’s unsurprising we are in the position we are as a society, but I don’t blame individuals as this is very much a societal problem. If people are now expected to ‘de transition’ of course this will cause distress and possibly suicides, considering this was meant to be a solution to their problems and it’s now being ripped away - especially if they have had surgeries and taken hormones for years. It’s only human to have some empathy.