I think the spell is finally broken...

A thimble of empathy wouldn’t go amiss. You sound like you’re frothing at the mouth.

Beingin a prison that houses ONLY women and not male rapists that put their lives in danger. Women should be safe in prison.

Not being put in a prison cell with a man is a woman's right

@ResisterOfTwaddleRex has posted the definitions from the order. I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's not sex, it's clear

You think being in prison is a woman’s right?!

Then she will have to pee at home.

It was her choice. These are the consequences of her actions. If she feels she has no proper place to go it's because she's done that to herself.

Not to say she doesn't have my sympathy. She does, most transmen are women who are dealing with neuro diversity or trauma but it's still a choice.

no families, no inventions, no eccentricity, no pioneers

What the absolute fuck are you on about?

Of course it deals with sex based rights! eg here, having defined sex, it says:

“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 literally says to keep men out of women's prisons, showers, rape crisis centres and sports...

Has the scolding finished yet? Or shall I just go and pour myself another celebratory glass of wine?

I have met a number of Republican women and just like us vipers they have varied views on many issues. The ones I met were all in agreement that humans can’t change sex though and that sex matters in many instances.
The generalisations of what ‘conservatives’ think and are planning to do by some posters on this thread would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic; go and educate yourselves folx! Have you ever met a Republican?

@TwooMuchLabour

Which neutral toilets would those be? I spend a lot of time in the states, and I have yet to spot one.

The result is being unable to use the toilet in public places at all, which renders them inaccessible.

I agree, choices were made. But I'm not sure that this was a foreseeable outcome.

They have it, but it's not driving the car any more, it's tied up and gagged in the boot. Progressivism is driving. And that comes with a prescribed set of articles of faith beliefs which cannot be deviated from and which come before ANYTHING else. I think many people didn't realise this and thought they were voting for the Labour Party of 10/20/30 years ago.

Like any extremist religion, it's impervious to things like reason, logic, compromise, debate. These things just bounce off it. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into.
They are very harsh to heretics and apostates. In Scientology, these are called suppressive persons because they are dangerous to the believers. This is why we so often hear that people are "unsafe" when the likes of Helen Joyce speak. Talk of safety and danger means that beliefs may be challenged.

This is why it's so shocking and such a relief, like a breath of air, when a Rosie Duffield or a Wes Streeting, even, breaks ranks and says something sensible.

Nowhere in any of that are women’s rights mentioned or protected. It is concerned with gender ideology, not women’s rights. As I said. If you think that the ‘reality’ of sex being aligned with two genders is a positive move for women, good luck to you.

Isn’t this how politics is supposed to work though? You ascertain what people want or need and then you work towards delivering this via policy / legislation. It’s not really manipulation if you are being guided by what your voter base already believes is it?

You can explain that to the children who were separated from their parents at ICE camps.

She will have to have her documents amended back to female, they should never have been changed.
And use neutral toilets.

She chose to make those outward changes that don't match her sex. She will have to explain she's a biological female.

You can't pretend to be the opposite sex and expect to never get pulled up on it or 'pass' 24/7.
And they shouldn't morally!

This is the difficult part. There are plenty of adults (who aren't sex offenders) who have transitioned a decade ago.

For example, I have a relative who transitioned from female to male, many years ago. Years of cross sex hormones, mastectomy and who knows what else. All documents changed to reflect male gender.

They present male. Full beard, etc. The executive order means they legally have to use female toilets. The risk now is getting beat up for using the toilet they legally are supposed to use.

No idea what happens regarding the passports, health insurance for hormones, etc.

There's no "third space" or solution for people who transitioned long ago.

While I'm in favour of protecting single-sex spaces and not indoctrinating children at school, I can't ignore the fact that real people will be hurt by this.

All of this because they are going to stop castrating children?

This doesn’t deal with sex based rights?

“Sec. 2. Policy and Definitions. It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality. Under my direction, the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality, and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:
(a) “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”
(b) “Women” or “woman” and “girls” or “girl” shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively.
(c) “Men” or “man” and “boys” or “boy” shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively.
(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.
(f) “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.
(g) “Gender identity” reflects a fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum, that does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.”

He's not doing this because he "hates trans people".
He's doing this because if left to continue, queer theory and trans will destroy society as we knew it just a few years ago. There would be no families, no inventions, no eccentricity, no pioneers - just boring conformity to 1950s stereotypes, medicalisation, surgery and sterility.
Trans = conforming to shit we left way back.

I don't agree that abortion is a fundamental right of women. Access to necessary abortion is possibly a right. Access to abortion for medical reasons (not including ectopic pregnancy which is not an abortion but a surgical procedure) is a right.
Apart from that, yes abortion could be (as it was) a right at Federal level. And go on spell out what you mean because you are positing a raft of ideas which are not associated with either the TikTok ban or the removal of gender ideology from being funded and supported at a Federal level.
To spell it out, gender ideology has nothing to do with LGB rights at all being completely different and not grounded in anything other than unprovable feelings in someone's head (which can change every day, apparently, depending on whether the wind is in the west or not...)

I’ve read the order. It’s about gender ideology, not sex based rights.

Which version of Gender Critical Feminism do you disagree with?

Is it the TRA version that can be found on Wikipedia:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism?

Or is it actual Gender Critical Feminism:

hollylawford-smith.org/what-is-gender-critical-feminism-and-why-is-everyone-so-mad-about-it/?

Fair one. I see your point.

so find someone else to attempt to argue with.

It's not even an 'argument' it was a question. Well until you upped the ante for whatever reason.

You've said what you have about Trump but since no one can answer a simple question on who else then yeh it's a problem.