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

[ResisterOfTwaddleRex]

He says "genders" but that has to mean "sex". Day one executive orders, apparently:

x.com/chooocole/status/1870920265330528324?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

I think they enjoy thinking about it 🤮

Then don't complain that this is an echo chamber or that nobody wants to hear your point of view.
I am disappointed. But not surprised.

I agree @lcakethereforeIam

There was that chap a few months ago who didn't realise how excited he was coming across talking about men in women's prisons 😁

He started off all moral and high groundy but ended up practically panting.

I'm still not sure why he couldn't type something different to what he was actually feeling!

It really is. How long have have we been listening to this crap? 10 years at least

You have cave into the demands of men accessing unconsenting women, for all these reasons.

And by reasons I mean masculine women.

😄

He seems bent on criminalizing pornography...at least that's what he said.

Really @Grammarnut? That sounds interesting - I’d be very inclined to hear more along those lines from politicians 🤔 The existing American legal decision that pornographers are engaging in free speech has always struck me as sophistry.

Nobody is suggesting that men can't dress in stereotypical "feminine" clothing, or wear make up or change their names to female-sounding names. As far as I can see, that's all that 'living as a woman' seems to involve for most transwomen. All that is required is that these men do not insert themselves into spaces reserved for actual women or compel others to pretend that they are in fact women.

This is why I much prefer the other part of what Maya Forstater won in her appeal - the right not to believe that we all have a gender identity:

https://x.com/anyabike/status/1749777661855940901?t=Jrsiw6uvippSHHEgMt6lbA&s=19

We should be holding public institutions like schools and hospitals to account because, when they promote a belief in gender identity, they are not following the Nolan Principles. They are breaking existing laws which govern objectivity in public life. The concept of not promoting a belief as fact is covered a few of the points in the EO from the US:

• “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.
• 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
• Agencies shall remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages. Agency forms that require an individual’s sex shall list male or female, and shall not request gender identity. Agencies shall take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.

You just know there's going to be (already has been) so much "Oh, but Trump...". But it's knocking the rest of the world back into the right general direction. And putting it on the news, world-wide. And the citizens of the US, and everyone else, is watching.

I'm watching this interesting analysis by Stephen Knight of the executive order and thought I'd post it here for the thread:

Please don't quote me when you're in no way addressing my question. Quote me and answer, or make your own stand-alone reply to the OP. Thanks.

I found another interesting analysis of the executive order from an English woman living in the US:

Please don't even think you are allowed to tell me how I must participate in a thread on a public forum.

I note you have no answer to my question. Interesting. TDS hyperbole strikes again.

Excellent analysis. Also explains the various points in the EO that have been claimed as 'anti-trans' and why they are there: to make clear what is not to be done or included in Federal documents etc. Well worth a watch.
He did gloss over the clause saying that trans ID men must not be included in women's rape refuges etc as being administrative - but went on quite a lot about women's private spaces, so I suppose it evened up.

I’m glad you found it worth watching. Knight is a member of the UK sceptic scene and has been writing and youtubing for a number of years about the acceptance of genderism by the wider sceptic movement.

Kara Dansky’s analysis of the new legal situation for women in the US is very detailed and worth reading. I’m posting the link again for anyone who might have missed it 👍

https://karadansky.substack.com/p/defending-women-from-gender-ideology

Thanks, @UtopiaPlanitia
That was helpful information especially about the reach and scope of the EO.

This is good. Thank you for posting.

He's not specifically saying anything new but his reflections and clear delivery add to the growing body of media which is presenting common sense in an accessible way.

I'm more than capable of reading a document but hearing it read out, word for word, it felt a bit like the moment after little boy shouted out that the emperor is naked. Like the whole village is about to start murmuring that he's got no clothes on and that it's so bloody obvious that it's mad that nobody could see it. Obviously plenty of people could see it and many were saying it, but until the words landed in a government document, the clarity was always just out of reach. Roll on the outcome from the Supreme Court in the UK. Even if they conclude that it's not possible to determine what sex means without an amendment to the EA, this document in the US can be held up as an example of what the protected characteristic of sex can look like - and the GRA looks hilariously abysmal next to it too.

The Executive Order on children:

www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation/

I wonder how naming 'gender affirming care' as 'chemical and surgical mutilation of children' will go down.

I normally read the paper before I go to work, but today I'll be lurking on Reddit. Will report back, but predicting the general tone will be 'next stop gas chambers ' (disrespectful and inappropriate comparison very much theirs).

Changed my "agree" on your comment to a "thanks". It's both. The thanks is for going in and seeing what's being said. I suspect you're right... plus there will be the usual irresponsible hyperbole (and therefore signposting of vulnerable children towards it) about how many suicides this will apparently lead to. We saw it in the UK following the puberty blocker announcement, when Louis Appleby then had to step in with a stern message. Obviously it wasn't directed personally to any kimono-wearing fox slayers, but it was very clear in spelling out the dangerous impact that this kind of rhetoric can have.

During my morning news scroll, I found this thread on the new EO:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5263078-5263078-new-executive-order-protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation

Ps has anyone seen anything online from said fox-slayer? He blocked me a while ago on X but I did see a screenshot of him saying he was off up a mountain to reflect, when all this was going on... Is he still sitting on a summit somewhere?! I wonder if his reflection encompassed his own daughter's transition to "be" a boy. I doubt it, given what he was saying during his hyperbolic rant on X.