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

There are something like ten million unique users per month on Mumsnet.

Mostly women.

That's a lot of power, a lot of influence and a lot of votes.

Given trump just won an election where this issue was hugely significant, it's a little daft to claim the MN attitude isn't generally representative!

You're starting from the inaccurate premise that male people have the right to be in female single sex spaces. They do not have that right, not even if they are legally female under the GRA.

So male people do not lose any rights if excluded from female single sex spaces. Under the EA, when women's rights to privacy, dignity and safety are in play, it is always lawful to exclude any and all males from women's single sex spaces and facilities, either on the basis of sex or on the basis of gender reassignment.
The group of people who are losing their rights under GII are women.

Should female prisoners lose their rights to privacy, dignity and safety because they are criminals?

I'm gender critical but I'm not going to celebrate anything he does. It won't be nuanced at all, he is always misinformed. Elon Musk is a fucking Nazi. This doesn't help the cause one bit because it will just go further the other way when he is out of power / dead. Trump is never the answer for anything and people will read this and say that is Mumsnetters are in league with the devil etc etc.

Can you explain why stopping male murderers, rapists and paedophiles being placed in federal women’s prisons is a bad thing because Trump has done it?

Kellie Jay Keen-Minshull discussing the origin of her campaigning phrase 'adult human female' that was used in the Trump executive order:

https://www.youtube.com/live/ge5ko2Xv1Ig?feature=shared

The Executive Order is all we hoped for. Here is an excellent summary.

https://x.com/glennagoldis/status/1881530076917043502?s=61&t=NHDSDk1MaF98_GOtcuLi0Q

And the order completely replaces gender or gender ideology with sex. I’m over the moon.

The whole thing is wonderful, but this bit is the best.

"No one I know socially bar a few morons believe that entire groups of people should lose their rights or the respect of the public because someone from that group is a criminal."
We know. Criminal activity is infact massively underrepresented in the group of people your social set is happy to see lose their rights.

"I'm gender critical but". Yeah, we usually know where that's headed.

Who will this impact? Particularly the first paragraph

All government agencies will ensure that official documents, including passports, visas and Global Entry cards, “accurately reflect the holder’s sex,” the executive order says.

Also, departments running federal prisons, migrant shelters, rape shelters and other “intimate spaces” will be directed to protect single-sex spaces for privacy. And employee records will also adhere to the executive order, as will federal departments’ messaging.

GiveMe: Colon tissue cannot become vaginal tissue. A female urethra cannot be stretched to the tip of a neophallus without fistula. Agreed and well done for saying so.

The whole thing:

www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/

We need this in the UK. Hats off to the US TERFs, you did it!

Other forums? I think you mean echo chambers.

Poll after poll after poll done including by YouGov shows that the majority of people support the retention of single sex spaces and fairness in sports. We, actually represent the majority, @LadyGreyson .

I find Mumsnet leans towards older women, mainly late thirties plus. There are lots of middle aged women, secondary school mums and grandmothers here.

And nice bit of ageism there. The fact you think women only in their 30s are 'older women' says a lot about you.

@LadyGreyson can you explain why you object to putting an end to the housing of violent male murderers, rapists and paedophiles in women’s prisons?

With a bonus question: And do most "normal women" in the UK really support this?

LadyGreyson
I posted in response to you at 1:41.
Do you have a response for me?

Haha ok. It is not ageist to simply acknowledge the demographic present. I have not said anything negative about older women, simply that they are the majority here.

But you're in your early thirties, so by your token old age is hurtling towards you fast. Maybe your views will change overnight and the middle class professionals who haven't yet reached that grand old age of 36 will be making pointed comments about your new opinions.

Ok so why do you think people who are gender critical are “vicious”, seeing as this is what people are pleased about?

If you think males shouldn’t be in women’s prisons, you’re also gender critical and in the eyes of trans activists “transphobic”, so why do you see yourself as different?

As generations age they don't suddenly acquire the views of the generations before them or no social progress would be made.

Yet you feel you can lump everyone over 35 into one box and pretending biological sex is meaningless even when it isn't isn't any kind of "progress". It's a flash in the pan. Support is dropping for gender identity ideology and will continue to do so. Younger Gen Zs are already not treating it with the hushed reverence the middle class members of your particular cohort do.

Trump is not wrong.

There are only two genders.

Male and Female.

Simple.

MarieDeGournay

It is a disconnect, isn’t it? People use threads to discuss opinions and information, to evaluate information to understand the opinions, decisions and events.

Yet we have yet to see some of the posters who claim to have qualifications in the topic being discussed supporting their points with links and long posts when surely it is them who should be able to present the persuasive points with evidence that would be of interest to the thread.

If the evidence presented is not robust enough to withstand scrutiny to support the opinion it has been said to support, then shouldn’t that raise doubts in the minds of those who rely on that evidence? If a group of people on a thread point out inconsistencies between the claim / opinion and the evidence, surely that makes people think there needs to be more research, thought, and discussion done to the strengthen the information used to support their opinions?

Not merely resorting to complaints that people didn’t accept the opinion. And not even if that opinion is bracketed in someway with an appeal to authority that it should be automatically given strong credibility because someone stated they have qualifications in a field related to the topic.

I have always wondered at this disconnect and where it stems from.