I think the spell is finally broken...

I don't think abortion could have been "protected" that way.

As far as I understand it, these kinds of directives don't actually change the law as such. They are more about changing practice, the way other kinds of rules are being implemented, and so on. So with the DEI one for example. It's not changing any laws around discrimination. It's changing policies in the civil service around hiring people in order to meet equity targets, or requiring a business they give a contract to to have enough diversity in the workforce.

If the right to abortion isn't inherent in some other part of the constitution, then the possible solutions would be a constitutional amendment (unlikely to pass, thesearevery difficult and have to have very wide support.) Or a federal level law. But even if passed in both houses, I think that could be vulnerable to arguments it's not properly the role of the federal government to make those decisions and could be struck down by the courts if they agreed..

Re these EOs: given that any future president can rescind a previous EO, why didn't Obama protect abortion with a day one EO like he promised? The Dems could have used the threat of a GOP president rescinding it to encourage women to vote Dem and gained credibility by Obama signing it. Yet he didn't do that.

Do the Dems actually want to win elections here?

@TheywontletmehavethenameIwant
"The damn-fool Democrats handed truth to their worst enemy. Can they ever win it back?"
This is so true, Labour is doing the same thing here

Not just Labour. Lib dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru

Janice Turner in The Times

Democrats yielded the gender war’s key weapon

Last week the US House of Representatives passed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. One by one, Republicans rose to make the simple point that as parents or grandparents of female track stars or soccer players they thought it unfair, and in some cases dangerous, for girls to compete against male-bodied athletes.

To any Floridian football fan or Montanan marathon runner, this was an unarguable truth. Yet all Democrats (except two from Texas) opposed the bill, rebranding it the “child predator empowerment act” and arguing it would lead to the appointment of genital inspectors — “Taliban-like enforcers” and paedophiles — to look inside the underwear of girls as young as four.
If that sounds deranged, it’s because it was. But what else did the Democrats have? They couldn’t dispute biological advantage or fairness, so they ended up sounding like QAnon loons.

None of this matters now President Trump has signed Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, the executive order that got the loudest cheer from the inauguration crowd. This ticks the entire gender critical wish-list, from fair school sports to removing rapists from women’s prisons and categorically defining woman as an “adult human female”.

Liberals will cry culture war — although they didn’t on President Biden’s first day when his executive order replaced “sex” with “gender identity” in Title IX policy, in effect abolishing women’s rights. Or in 2022 when the White House “lesbian visibility day” was led by Charlotte Clymer and Rachel Levine, both straight biological males. Or when Nancy Pelosi supported the abolition of the word “mother” from House rules.

It takes two to fight a culture war. And on the gender front the Democrats lost. Why? Because they moved beyond fighting for legitimate trans rights — freedom from violence or discrimination at work — into fantastical thinking.
When I’m asked why this issue has such salience amid war and economic crisis, I say: imagine if a politician told you he was a devout Creationist or Flat-Earther. You might agree with him on other matters, but would you trust him? That’s how women feel about lawmakers who deny sex is real.

Trump’s executive order states: “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.” The damn-fool Democrats handed truth to their worst enemy. Can they ever win it back?

Oh wow, that is genuinely lovely.

I may actually have a slight tear in my eye (but I'm on my period so will put it down to that).

"Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself."

There's a philosophical technique called "thought experiment", a well-known example of which is the Trolley Problem, in which the subject is asked to choose between two undesirable outcomes. Children also similarly conduct thought experiments, usually of a more fantastical nature like "which is worse: being eaten by a shark or burned by a dragon?".

Someone I knew a long time ago once polled his LiveJournal friends with a childish-seeming question "which is worse: paedophiles or Hitler?" One of the respondents commented that it depends on the circumstances, because a mother seeking someone to babysit her blonde-haired blue-eyed children whilst she goes to the shops will be better choosing Hitler, whilst Jewish people looking for someone to run 1930s-40s Germany would be better choosing the paedophile. Following these threads, that LiveJournal post from over twenty years ago returns to my mind.

The US presidential election effectively asked the electorate "which is worse: a rapist who has a track record of keeping (or at least trying damn hard to keep) manifesto promises, or a woman who, based on her party's track record, will break manifesto promises?" The people weren't voting to choose someone to be their sister's plus-one at a wedding or chaperone their daughter at a gynaecological examination, they were voting to choose someone to run their country. In that context, being a rapist matters less than being someone who can be trusted to keep manifesto promises.

Orwell said via Winston Smith in 1984 that "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four. From that, all follows." If one presidential candidate believes something akin to "two plus two is five" and calls you a bigot for dissenting, whilst the other is a rapist who defends your right to say that "two plus two is four" and signs an EO on day one to stop the government agencies from saying that "two plus two is five", the rapist is honestly the better option.

He's going to give the pen he signed those orders with to RFK Jr. It's an unnervingly sweet gesture from the Orange One.

"Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself."

There's a philosophical technique called "thought experiment", a well-known example of which is the Trolley Problem, in which the subject is asked to choose between two undesirable outcomes. Children also similarly conduct thought experiments, usually of a more fantastical nature like "which is worse: being eaten by a shark or burned by a dragon?".

Someone I knew a long time ago once polled his LiveJournal friends with a childish-seeming question "which is worse: paedophiles or Hitler?" One of the respondents commented that it depends on the circumstances, because a mother seeking someone to babysit her blonde-haired blue-eyed children whilst she goes to the shops will be better choosing Hitler, whilst Jewish people looking for someone to run 1930s-40s Germany would be better choosing the paedophile. Following these threads, that LiveJournal post from over twenty years ago returns to my mind.

The US presidential election effectively asked the electorate "which is worse: a rapist who has a track record of keeping (or at least trying damn hard to keep) manifesto promises, or a woman who, based on her party's track record, will break manifesto promises?" The people weren't voting to choose someone to be their sister's plus-one at a wedding or chaperone their daughter at a gynaecological examination, they were voting to choose someone to run their country. In that context, being a rapist matters less than being someone who can be trusted to keep manifesto promises.

Orwell said via Winston Smith in 1984 that "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four. From that, all follows." If one presidential candidate believes something akin to "two plus two is five" and calls you a bigot for dissenting, whilst the other is a rapist who defends your right to say that "two plus two is four" and signs an EO on day one to stop the government agencies from saying that "two plus two is five", the rapist is honestly the better option.

"Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself."

There's a philosophical technique called "thought experiment", a well-known example of which is the Trolley Problem, in which the subject is asked to choose between two undesirable outcomes. Children also similarly conduct thought experiments, usually of a more fantastical nature like "which is worse: being eaten by a shark or burned by a dragon?".

Someone I knew a long time ago once polled his LiveJournal friends with a childish-seeming question "which is worse: paedophiles or Hitler?" One of the respondents commented that it depends on the circumstances, because a mother seeking someone to babysit her blonde-haired blue-eyed children whilst she goes to the shops will be better choosing Hitler, whilst Jewish people looking for someone to run 1930s-40s Germany would be better choosing the paedophile. Following these threads, that LiveJournal post from over twenty years ago returns to my mind.

The US presidential election effectively asked the electorate "which is worse: a rapist who has a track record of keeping (or at least trying damn hard to keep) manifesto promises, or a woman who, based on her party's track record, will break manifesto promises?" The people weren't voting to choose someone to be their sister's plus-one at a wedding or chaperone their daughter at a gynaecological examination, they were voting to choose someone to run their country. In that context, being a rapist matters less than being someone who can be trusted to keep manifesto promises.

Orwell said via Winston Smith in 1984 that "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four. From that, all follows." If one presidential candidate believes something akin to "two plus two is five" and calls you a bigot for dissenting, whilst the other is a rapist who defends your right to say that "two plus two is four" and signs an EO on day one to stop the government agencies from saying that "two plus two is five", the rapist is honestly the better option.

RFK and MLK too.

This will be interesting.

AND... he's just declassified the JFK files!!!

OMG!

"Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself."

There's a philosophical technique called "thought experiment", a well-known example of which is the Trolley Problem, in which the subject is asked to choose between two undesirable outcomes. Children also similarly conduct thought experiments, usually of a more fantastical nature like "which is worse: being eaten by a shark or burned by a dragon?".

Someone I knew a long time ago once polled his LiveJournal friends with a childish-seeming question "which is worse: paedophiles or Hitler?" One of the respondents commented that it depends on the circumstances, because a mother seeking someone to babysit her blonde-haired blue-eyed children whilst she goes to the shops will be better choosing Hitler, whilst Jewish people looking for someone to run 1930s-40s Germany would be better choosing the paedophile. Following these threads, that LiveJournal post from over twenty years ago returns to my mind.

The US presidential election effectively asked the electorate "which is worse: a rapist who has a track record of keeping (or at least trying damn hard to keep) manifesto promises, or a woman who, based on her party's track record, will break manifesto promises?" The people weren't voting to choose someone to be their sister's plus-one at a wedding or chaperone their daughter at a gynaecological examination, they were voting to choose someone to run their country. In that context, being a rapist matters less than being someone who can be trusted to keep manifesto promises.

Orwell said via Winston Smith in 1984 that "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four. From that, all follows." If one presidential candidate believes something akin to "two plus two is five" and calls you a bigot for dissenting, whilst the other is a rapist who defends your right to say that "two plus two is four" and signs an EO on day one to stop the government agencies from saying that "two plus two is five", the rapist is honestly the better option.

AND... he's just declassified the JFK files!!!

OMG!

Janice Turner in The Times

Democrats yielded the gender war’s key weapon

Last week the US House of Representatives passed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. One by one, Republicans rose to make the simple point that as parents or grandparents of female track stars or soccer players they thought it unfair, and in some cases dangerous, for girls to compete against male-bodied athletes.

To any Floridian football fan or Montanan marathon runner, this was an unarguable truth. Yet all Democrats (except two from Texas) opposed the bill, rebranding it the “child predator empowerment act” and arguing it would lead to the appointment of genital inspectors — “Taliban-like enforcers” and paedophiles — to look inside the underwear of girls as young as four.
If that sounds deranged, it’s because it was. But what else did the Democrats have? They couldn’t dispute biological advantage or fairness, so they ended up sounding like QAnon loons.

None of this matters now President Trump has signed Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, the executive order that got the loudest cheer from the inauguration crowd. This ticks the entire gender critical wish-list, from fair school sports to removing rapists from women’s prisons and categorically defining woman as an “adult human female”.

Liberals will cry culture war — although they didn’t on President Biden’s first day when his executive order replaced “sex” with “gender identity” in Title IX policy, in effect abolishing women’s rights. Or in 2022 when the White House “lesbian visibility day” was led by Charlotte Clymer and Rachel Levine, both straight biological males. Or when Nancy Pelosi supported the abolition of the word “mother” from House rules.

It takes two to fight a culture war. And on the gender front the Democrats lost. Why? Because they moved beyond fighting for legitimate trans rights — freedom from violence or discrimination at work — into fantastical thinking.
When I’m asked why this issue has such salience amid war and economic crisis, I say: imagine if a politician told you he was a devout Creationist or Flat-Earther. You might agree with him on other matters, but would you trust him? That’s how women feel about lawmakers who deny sex is real.

Trump’s executive order states: “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.” The damn-fool Democrats handed truth to their worst enemy. Can they ever win it back?

Yes, you stupid women. We warned you that if you didn't let men have what they wanted you would just make it worse for yourselves in the long run.

Janice Turner in The Times

Democrats yielded the gender war’s key weapon

Last week the US House of Representatives passed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. One by one, Republicans rose to make the simple point that as parents or grandparents of female track stars or soccer players they thought it unfair, and in some cases dangerous, for girls to compete against male-bodied athletes.

To any Floridian football fan or Montanan marathon runner, this was an unarguable truth. Yet all Democrats (except two from Texas) opposed the bill, rebranding it the “child predator empowerment act” and arguing it would lead to the appointment of genital inspectors — “Taliban-like enforcers” and paedophiles — to look inside the underwear of girls as young as four.
If that sounds deranged, it’s because it was. But what else did the Democrats have? They couldn’t dispute biological advantage or fairness, so they ended up sounding like QAnon loons.

None of this matters now President Trump has signed Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, the executive order that got the loudest cheer from the inauguration crowd. This ticks the entire gender critical wish-list, from fair school sports to removing rapists from women’s prisons and categorically defining woman as an “adult human female”.

Liberals will cry culture war — although they didn’t on President Biden’s first day when his executive order replaced “sex” with “gender identity” in Title IX policy, in effect abolishing women’s rights. Or in 2022 when the White House “lesbian visibility day” was led by Charlotte Clymer and Rachel Levine, both straight biological males. Or when Nancy Pelosi supported the abolition of the word “mother” from House rules.

It takes two to fight a culture war. And on the gender front the Democrats lost. Why? Because they moved beyond fighting for legitimate trans rights — freedom from violence or discrimination at work — into fantastical thinking.
When I’m asked why this issue has such salience amid war and economic crisis, I say: imagine if a politician told you he was a devout Creationist or Flat-Earther. You might agree with him on other matters, but would you trust him? That’s how women feel about lawmakers who deny sex is real.

Trump’s executive order states: “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.” The damn-fool Democrats handed truth to their worst enemy. Can they ever win it back?

Sooo let me get this right...

Women won't notice any difference in terms of their day to day life, because most people have never and will never knowingly come into contact with a transgender person.

but also

They will still use the spaces they feel are most appropriate and safest for them.
However they will be persecuted for doing so.

So women won't knowingly notice a trans person (presumably because they pass so well) and yet we will still persecute them for using our spaces?
How will we know they're using our spaces and thus "persecute" them if we don't know that they're in them?
It's not logical.