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'm in the USA at them moment, and I don't think that he concern you're dismissing is unreasonable or invalid. Can you elaborate on how and why you dismiss it?

I'm in Maine, which has a Democrat governor and has abortion rights enshrined in the state constitution, though technically we are a purple state since District 2 (northern Maine) tends to vote Republican and District 1 tends to vote Democrat. We are one of the two states, along with Nebraska, that splits their electoral college vote. The atmosphere here is generally still TWAW but I'm sensing a vibe shift starting. I have heard nothing whatsoever about banning ante-natal care and I frankly don't believe it because there are too many OB/GYNs making a living out of it, though it wouldn't surprise me if the feds brought in some restriction on how contraception is paid for.

It's hard for UK residents to wrap their head around the limitations of what the federal government can decree as distinct from what is under state control.

It's hard for UK residents to wrap their head around the limitations of what the federal government can decree as distinct from what is under state control.

Is this unique to the UK though? Kamala Harris campaigned on protecting abortion rights. She pretended that if elected as a federal government she would protect abortions rights, but it seems voters knew that that was bullshit, and the states would always have primary control over that, and looked at other issues to decide their vote.

In the fallout post-election, people seemingly couldn’t understand why voters in certain states didn’t prioritise what is a state issue over issues the federal government actually has control over, like the budget and immigration.

So maybe a lot of Americans don’t understand this too, or don’t understand how other citizens think on this.

Show me the evidence that Trump is planning to ban ante-natal care.

This.

Treat the mental illness that makes them hate their own bodies instead of butcher them. One day we will look back on horror at this madness. Poor mentally ill children thinking they can change their bodies, pick a gender and all is good. They have been sold a lie

I would go further and say that the trans surgery machine is institutionalised child abuse. Because it's explicitly taking mentally ill, abused, autistic, eating disordered and otherwise vulnerable children, drugging and mutilating their genitals, and even forcing a No Contact separation between them and their families if the families don't comply. This is absolutely the predator's playbook and so in 30 years I believe we'll look back on this period with the same horror that we use to look back on Jimmy Savile's career.

Indeed the Savile parallel is quite a useful one because the dominant attitude to him today is one of carefully constructed bemusement, like "How could he have done all of this in plain sight? Why did no one stop him? Thank God we're more enlightened now about these matters!"

Well our smug self-congratulation will have to be torn down because from 2015 - 2024 we allowed a far worse form of abuse (worse because it resulted in permanent disablement and disfigurement) in plain sight and in fact even bien pensant celebrities like Emma Watson and David Tennant cheered it on.

Why do the parents of these children think changing sex, name, wearing pre conceived ideas of gender clothing, taking puberty blockers, chest binding and then surgery is the way to go. Why not treat the underlying hatred of their bodies? Its odd.

I think a lot of them are operating out of fear because they are being told that their child will DEFINITELY commit suicide if they don't allow the treatment.

I subscribe to the PITT substack which is written by parents of transitioning children who are against the transition. Other common themes I see are:

1. Parents without college education who feel 'railroaded' by the 'clever' professionals
2. Conversely, parents with multiple postgrad degrees who swallowed the postmodern neomarxist theories on which trans rests and so feel their principles mean they have to go along with
3. Coercion from the child - threatning suicide, going NC, self harm
4. In some US states it appears that until recently children were able to get hormones and binders from Planned Parenthood without their parent' knowledge

Trans surgery is not abuse given the person receiving it not only consents (thus is not abuse) they seek it. The only issue is it too readily available.

Circumcision - genital mutilation - of babies, that is abuse. They did not consent to having their genitalia disfigured.

This is untrue, and a fallacy.

1. Informed consent cannot be given if all risks and information is not given; very many trans people who have suffered disabling complications and outcomes say in their own words that they were not given the full detail of the risks
2. In fact, a shocking number of trans children and their parents were never informed that blocking puberty is irreversible, and results in disablement, cognitive damage and chronic illness
3. In fact Joanna Olsen Kennedy, a trans healthcare spokeswoman, said at a conference that mastectomies are essentially reversible
4. Patients with severe mental health conditions cannot give informed consent (I say this as a recovered anorexic who was hospitalised twice for my condition and on the second occasion fed against my consent. My consent wasn't informed consent, because I was dying of starvation)
5. People with certain ND conditions may not be able to give fully formed consent...
6. ....as cannot many people with PTSD from sexual abuse.

The consent trope is a reflection of the trans movement's hypercapitalist, libertarian aproach to dangerous bodily modification. It utterly fails to protect and safeguard the most vulnerable in our society. In fact, it exploits them.

In one of the episodes of Gender: a wider lens, the one on the Lisbon conference, it was claimed that, in the WPATH conference happening in parallel, the consensus is forming that a deep vaginoplasty is not recommended, and they are shifting to recommending a shallower surgery that doesn't create a pseudo vaginal canal, because of the rates of complications. If even WPATH is starting to consider it unethical... If this is confirmed (it was sort of leaked information), it's big! At it left me wondering about phalloplasties, which are as bad as, if not even worse.

I would go further and say that the trans surgery machine is institutionalised child abuse. Because it's explicitly taking mentally ill, abused, autistic, eating disordered and otherwise vulnerable children, drugging and mutilating their genitals, and even forcing a No Contact separation between them and their families if the families don't comply. This is absolutely the predator's playbook and so in 30 years I believe we'll look back on this period with the same horror that we use to look back on Jimmy Savile's career.

Worse than Savile's career. This is the medical profession knowingly mutilating children and putting them on life-shortening drugs, with the explicit endorsement of the establishment: government, corporates, universities, professional associations and so on. It's more like the frontal lobotomy scandal, but worse even than that in my view.

Ah yes, that seems to be correct.

It has to do with Catholic adoption agencies that have been prevented from functioning in the US because they don't adopt to gay couples.

So Catholic (or presumably other) agencies will be able to follow their religious teachings on this issue. So presumably gay couples will have to adopt through non-Catholic agencies.

Not quite banning gay adoption. I'm not sure the hyperbole really engenders trust in the political understanding, or honesty, of the person saying that's the purpose.

The ACLU laid out a pathway for Harris to accomplish this - www.aclu.org/news/reproductive-freedom/how-kamala-harris-can-secure-federal-abortion-protection-once-and-for-all - but it's all very iffy, and bearing in mind that several states have banned or heavily restricted abortion access it would have probably ended up back in front of SCOTUS anyway. Given the current make-up of the court, I'm not sure whether any such legislation would stand in the end.

Exactly. Everyone knew it was iffy. They knew the states wouldn’t stand for any federal legislation, they knew it was an empty promise like every other Democrat administration before it, and knew it wouldn’t stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny or judgment.

And those in Red states who are anti-abortion didn’t care. And those in Red states that are pro-choice knew they were screwed anyway and Harris had little chance of saving them.

And those in Blue states who already had abortion rights protected at a state level didn’t have to worry.

So everyone looked elsewhere for reasons to decide their vote.

And the Democrats were somehow shocked that Harris’s “I’ll do what no one else has managed, promise, no we mean it this time, honestly” pledge wasn’t enough on its own and worth ignoring other issues for. “But, but, but, we were going to protect abortion rights federally! Why didn’t people vote for that alone?!” Federal Democrats couldn’t wrap their heads around how insightful voters were on voting on issues they thought could bring about actual change to their lives rather than empty promises.

I think the trans issue prompted far more switching away from the Democrats than they are willing to acknowledge. I held my nose and voted for them anyway because I couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump, but I was deeply unhappy about that aspect of their policies.

A reminder of the new president's to-do list, to be completed, he says, by Tuesday at the latest.

Can't support too many of them.

New York Times poll about Trump's key policy proposals and an article discussing same (it has a couple of sections discussing public perceptions of genderism):

Support for Trump’s Policies Exceeds Support for Trump
A new poll found the public is sympathetic to the president-elect’s plans to deport migrants and reduce America’s presence overseas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/us/politics/trump-policies-immigration-tariffs-economy.html

https://archive.is/ThUtt

The public have their views and the Dems have theirs. They just handed McBride the role of Deputy Whip.

x.com/babybeginner/status/1880887477151633490?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Or the blood products scandal of the 80s, which was actively prolonged and covered up even after the risks were known.

Or continuing to prescribe Thalidomide after the side effects were understood, without relaying those risks to the women involved.

Both examples of the medical ‘establishment,’ with the full knowledge and complicity of Government, ran roughshod over the best interests of their patients victims.

Much worse than Savile, and yes worse than frontal lobotomy scandal even. You’d need to find something broad scale and backed by institutions and impacting children.

I’d say you need to find something impacting culture, safety, society and dc written in laws and backed by institutions

Some kind of mass cultural movement that ended in harm

Aren’t the Democrats being ever so slightly ‘obvious’ with this appointing McBride to this role?

It’s such student union politics and it’s the type of irritating student union politics that we see in almost every Western democratic parliament in recent years: I’m so fed up with attempts at virtue signalling and owning the opposition - I want proper grown up boring government that fixes infrastructure and improves voters’ lives.

Article from Emily Yoffe at the Free Press with details of Trump’s executive order for day one:

https://www.thefp.com/p/trumps-day-one-executive-order-male-female-gender-ideology-pronouns