I think the spell is finally broken...

[Daysnconfuddled]

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

the reality is, of course, that if there are honestly trans men (trans identified women) who actually look like men, and they are in a crowd who has no idea - they will easily be able to continue to use the men's. I am not comfortable with this.

If we know that the only people using women's toilets are actual born women, then I'm ok with trans men using them too. Even those who look like, say, Buck Angel.

But yeah - if they can't use public facilities because of this? they are going to find their lives restricted. In the interests of utilitarianism, i prefer that a few trans men, or trans women, have their activities curtailed than have the vast majority of the population have to accept mixed sex toilets.

A pp asked if this is the outcome we wanted, that people who transitioned 30 years ago and have been living their lives quietly since then, are now greatly restricted.

In a word: no. I didn't

But they should have taken that up with the TRAs who pushed and pushed and made the whole issue so ridiculous that this was always going to happen. Willoughby, Bridges and the ridiculous Sophie-Molly. Thank them. Not us.

It's almost as if the women of FWR haven't been debating GI at a high and informed level for the last ten years, isn't it? As if real movers and shakers such as Magdalen Berns, people from. the Tavi and top-notch legal and academic experts never posted here to keep us informed. As if we've never sat through court cases, read the transcripts, debated the nuances of the Equality Act and the GRA, read the academic articles, studied the research and raised hundreds of thousands to support women's rights court cases — including Keira Bell. Let alone been to loads of events at which serious people spoke, or the fact that many of us have turned out in the rain to demonstrate, written hundreds of letters and created local terf groups together to turn this thing around.

This is terf central. This is where the UK fightback started. And you come on here and have the nerve to tell the equivalent of the terf SAS to 'Have some empathy' ? Not happening. We started out years ago with empathy, thinking there mustt be a middle way that would leave everyone happy enough. And then we learned about autogynephilia and fetishism and we saw how it all worked and we began to understand that this was a men's rights movement.

We have no more fucks to give. Stop it with the 'be kind' shite. We were beyond that by 2019.

I think anyone who believes Trump cares about women’s rights must have forgotten “grab ‘em by the pussy”, Stormy Daniels, E Jean Carroll and doubtless many others.

I think it's up to the people affected to decide if we need none or one or two or three or four or twenty types of alternative provision as well as provisions based on sex.

I don't have a strong view on what's right for them, and nor should I. They should shape this themselves.

The only constraint is that women's provisions are not available as a solution for men and that includes trans women and any other men with cross sex identities.

i don't think anyone on here who is celebrating this one single EO (he signed 200) think that Trump cares about anyone but Trump. I can't imagine any of us think he did it for feminist reasons, or that he is a feminist or that he gives a flying fuck what women think or want or need.

But he did sign this one thing that we have been campaigning for, and hopefully this will be the snowflake that starts the avalanche back to normality.

Not the normality that we face when the sex-class of woman is vanished, right up until people like Owen Jones need a surrogate. Then, BAM!, they know who the women are alright. The old-fashioned type.

Baby steps.

As I said, third spaces. Nobody has to stop wearing a dress.

Also meant to say that given the choice between Democrats who don’t seem to know what a woman is or Trump then I would choose the former.
No point worrying about men in frocks when there is no planet left.

Given that the most polluting country is China and much of that pollution is caused by manufacturing, protectionist foreign policies that reduce consumption of Chinese exports would be a good thing for the planet.

There have been concessions in the law that balance the rights of different groups since we have had laws. For example, we balance the rights of an unborn child to life with the right of a mother to choose by legislating around abortion (how many weeks, the health of mother and child commonly being areas of legislative change and debate). Women exist and men cannot become women. That's obvious and anyone arguing anything else is deluded. A very small minority of men choose to live as women, and have in most every society for as long as we have records (the sitiation on women living as men is much more complicated), the law somehow needs to accomodate those people, who are an enduring group. I'd prefer the law finds ways to accomodate them, while maintaining adequate protections for women. So no self ID, no males in women's prisons or sports etc. But to launch a presidency basically saying 'these people no longer have any rights in our society, the lives they are living are now unteneable and there is no debate on this' is not to me a progressive, feminist stance. Particularly not when dressed up in the language of 'two genders' corresponding to 'two sexes', which it doesn't take a great deal of foresight to see the people saying that have absolutely no interest in any kind of gender non conformity and are in fact proven rapists and abusers. It's just absolutely nuts any women are applauding this.

No. I don't support any policy that is targeting a vulnerable group by basically declaring they don't exist.

Restoring women's sex-based rights and protections. Underpinned by a clear statement about the reality of sex.

That's what the EO is about. Undoing the harm of Gender Identity Ideology.

No. I don't support any policy that is targeting a vulnerable group by basically declaring they don't exist.

Nonsense. No one is saying they don't exist. They exist just as Mormons or Scientologists or flat-earthers or anorexics exist: they hold a belief that they are welcome to hold but that no one else is required to agree with or validate.

If you're saying that refusing to accept and validate someone's beliefs or feelings means they don't exist then an awful lot of people who clearly do exist should vanish into thin air.

They aren't stopping any other women from pursuing whatever kinds of work or political activism they want, notarethey saying they should.

Most women who think abortion is a problem think that because they believe that a human life becomes a person before birth - and that killing a person is morally very problematic. Which is a perfectly logical conclusion, since society at large does not normally condone the deliberate killing of persons. That's not hypocrisy.

This idea that abortion is the only issue that counts in women's issues is a viewpoint of certain people on the left, it's by no means universally believed. That doesn't mean they hate women, any more than not believing in euthanasia means people hate the elderly.

Some of the support he gets on here is shameful.

Its just a reminder we have nutters over here too, and this board is flooded with them.

What makes trans people vulnerable?

How does supporting a policy that states that there are only two sexes support Trump?

You also have to remember that many Americans see the state as being much more important in terms of the law, and will think the state is the proper level for that kind of thing. Much like many people in Europe would think this is a matter for national rather than pan-European decision making.

There are a lot of Americans who see states rights as fundamental.

No one is saying they don't have rights. What they don't have is cross sex rights.

Because really, this cross sex identity, this living "as a.." thing, it isn't an actual thing in its own right. It can literally only exist in a framework of sexist gender roles, because those are the only things of "womanhood" that are ever accessible to men (and of course, this is also why these things are not in fact "womanhood" at all).

You are fixated on the solution here being to take something from women. You have been lead to believe the solution must be a "balance of rights" between women and cross sex identifying men akin to the balance of rights between a woman and the unborn children dependant on her body for life.

This is a false equivalence. The child has no option other than the woman's body. Cross sex identifying people however could have many options for dignity, safety and hell, just for support and fun that do not involve encroaching on the provisions of the opposite sex. They could already have had this had the pressure groups that are supposed to represent them not been so ideologically wedded to the single solution of cross sex colonisation, an obsession which has ultimately taken them to this.

So yes, absolutely the law should find ways to protect them, and the people who face these challenges should be an active part of defining that solution. The only constraint this EO introduces is that solution cannot involve cross sex appropriation of single sex provision.

It does not preclude additional mixed sex provisions for those who prefer them. It does not preclude further subdivisions within the sexes or subdivisions of mixed sex.

All this emotional energy currently going into catastrophising about what happens to the people who currently enjoy cross sex privileges would be much better spent taking off the blinders that the activists have conned people into wearing and building a new and frankly better solution from the many many better possibilities that are still entirely open.

Yeah, unfortunately there is a real element here where they have painted themselves into a corner. basically made it impossible to have any other outcome.

I think a little longer term, what will happen is the number of trans identified people will fall significantly, as it's unlikely to remain an accepted medical pathway. The very few people who remain will probably reasonably be able to claim it's a type of disability and it would be addressed through that provision.

The Democrats won't do anything serious about the climate.

I think the biggest reason many people are climate skeptics is they have never seen any serious plan to do anything about it from the left.

I think a little longer term, what will happen is the number of trans identified people will fall significantly, as it's unlikely to remain an accepted medical pathway. The very few people who remain will probably reasonably be able to claim it's a type of disability and it would be addressed through that provision.

Or maybe it becomes a thing in its own right. Elective cosmetic surgery that no one thinks changes your sex but some people like the effects of anyway. Outfits that ignore gender dress norms. Gender neutral spaces where no one really knows or cares what the exact biological and social journey anyone took to get there was. As long as everyone there chooses to be there and there's single sex provisions for women as well for those who always or even just sometimes need them, it's all good. Who knows, I might well use them myself. The point is that it's a choice not a mandate.

Yes I think this would be the best outcome - where people can play with their gender presentation and norms, but we don’t pretend that changes the sex of those who choose to do so. Where we differ is that I see today’s ’two sex/two genders’ as a regressive mandate that makes that outcome less likely - and in fact is probably going to inflame claims to sex-change because ‘I really am a woman if I dress like one’ seems like the logic that underpins both trans rights, and this EO unfortunately, but from wildly different ideological positions. Trans has always been a means of conformity to sex/gender essentialism and this makes it much more likely we will continue down that path rather than uncoupling them.

If by "this country" you mean the UK, hell no.
Couldn't think of anything worse than a Trump like government.
Regardless of whether you dress him up as "common sense" or not.

Can you show me on the doll where the nasty sex-realist women hurt you?

Now wouldn't that be a thing. Banned from cross sex provisions, the trans and trans ally community regroup and start creating a grass roots whole new cultural phenomenon of agender spaces with two teeny single sex cubicles and a great big mixed sex palace as a Fuck You to the conservative right. New fashions, music genres and art arise out of it. Shocking at first, then edgy, then trendy, then beloved.

In twenty years time the dominant culture is agender and the trad sex roles and heteronormativity that Trump's supporters hoped to re-establish have all long gone. Cultural historians highlight the irony that by preventing gender non conforming people from simply appropriating the existing opposite sex provisions and legal rights, Trump actually triggered a whole new gender nonconforming energy and creativity that burst into sonething brand new.