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

Welcome to TERFdom.

No-one here is waving pitchforks. We believe that trans-identified people should have every single right that the rest of us enjoy. Why don't you explain to us exactly what it is that you do believe and how you think it varies from what we believe?
However, if you haven't come here to discuss that topic then please explain what you are here for. I honestly don't see what point you are trying to make

I suspect that LadyGreyson thinks we can allow the nice male criminals into women's prisons. The ones who might well be rapists or violent towards women, but who have not actually been convicted and are therefore totally safe to be locked in a cell with.

I say no to that.
The female criminals have the right to privacy, dignity and safety. This means they should never be locked up with males, not even the nonviolent, non-rapey ones, not even the ones who are homosexual, not even the ones who have had GRS. No males, whatever their feelings or how much they want it.

I don't object to that. You're all just imagining that I have because I haven't waved pitchfork and joined the mob.

There's that polite and respectful genderist discourse again. Women you and your privileged chums disagree with are "the mob".

I think you'll find the devil is in league with us.

Really, though, ad hom smears and attacks are nothing new. All they do is reveal a paucity of argument from the person/s making them. It can be uncomfortable being on the brunt of them but capitulating because of them isn't any way to live.

Classic demonisation.

Me, too.

Education doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence. Sometimes it just means you learn how to phrase bullshit more convincingly.

'Not believing that trans women belong in womens prisons doesn't make me gender critical.'

You're maybe seeing 'gc' as an identity rather than a belief.

This is so very true.

So let me get this straight. You think "transgender people have the right to be recognised and treated as the gender they identify as". If they are "treated as the gender they identify as", doesn't this mean that a man who identifies as a woman should be treated as a woman? Surely this would then mean that such a man should be allowed to compete in women's sports and go to a women's prison if he's convicted of a crime, doesn't it?

That Executive Order is so clearly worded. It's absolutely brilliant and anyone who tries to argue against it is going to look a fool.

Posted this on the other thread but adding here in case the order hasn't been linked to:

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

What really strikes me is that none of this is having to be based on 'GC beliefs' as a protected characteristic in the way this has had to be used to challenge GI in the UK legal system. This is saying:

It's not a belief it's a reality.

There are only two sexes and that is what the law is based on.

It changes everything. We're back in reality.

Well they're back in reality in the US.

The wording is gloriously clear; the adults are back in the room.

How can anyone seriously argue for legislation NOT to be based on scientific reality?

Here's the full text linked (this is the official source as far as I can tell)

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government – The White House

A couple of great bits:

"Invalidating the true and biological category of “woman” improperly transforms laws and policies designed to protect sex-based opportunities into laws and policies that undermine them, replacing longstanding, cherished legal rights and values with an identity-based, inchoate social concept." Yep, we've been saying this for years, with receipts, on here.

"The prior Administration argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which addressed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires gender identity-based access to single-sex spaces under, for example, Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act. This position is legally untenable and has harmed women. The Attorney General shall therefore immediately issue guidance to agencies to correct the misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) to sex-based distinctions in agency activities. In addition, the Attorney General shall issue guidance and assist agencies in protecting sex-based distinctions, which are explicitly permitted under Constitutional and statutory precedent.
(g) 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.
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's quite detailed and also lists a whole load of anti-woman government documents that will be rescinded.

It's very, very clearly about protecting women's rights.

Given we know women have been raped and sexually assaulted by males in women's jails, the bit about prisons in particular is such a relief.

The bit on definitions is good - woman = adult human female. YAY! I feel a trip to Posie's store is in order.

Also makes it clear sex is not a synonym for and does not include gender identity.

HAHA - crosspost Malaga great minds and all that.

The relief I feel on reading such a clear pro-woman EO is immense. IMMENSE!

I especially like this: 'replacing the immutable biological reality of sex with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts. '

And in making it clear that there is just two sexes, it then prioritises sex above gender.

As it should be, so when sex matters, it can rely on legislation to ensure that it will have the priority.

Even the most evil people can do the right things at times. It is simplistic and tribal thinking for anyone to think that women celebrating this one thing believe that they are now celebrating the entirety of the person who made it happen.

And this bit

"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."

So very, very true. My trust in government has been totally destroyed by the lies.

Indeed, if only Keir Starmer would come out with something like this. I am of course dreaming.

Perhaps the UK Supreme Court might bring equal clarity in its judgement in the FWS case.

Yep.

"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."

This really stood out to me. Despite what certain posters keep repeating, this is not a niche issue. Queer theory is a serious threat to democracy and its proponents know this because they have used #NoDebate and #BeKind to try to prevent it being debated in the marketplace of ideas. So we find ourselves in a situation where both conservatives and progressives are authoritarian and a threat to democracy. I am simply pleased to see a statement that recognises scientific reality. I'm sure many of us would have preferred that such a statement had come from the progressives in whichever country we inhabit.

Yes. But as this was done by Trump there's nothing to be pleased about, and the only decent feminist response is to decry it. Right?