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/

@RanchRat
GC ideology is now so right wing that you support pussy grabbing Trump and nazi saluting Musk. Shame

The far right has always been strong in this corner of MN, it used to be more covert and bubbling underneath the surface.
It's just now it's wide out in the open, pretence has been dropped. Mask has slipped, so to speak.

I'm not convinced that you have read the EO text.
For a start, you describe it as a "two sex/two genders" mandate but the EO is clear that sex is not gender - and the provisions are about sex.
The EO is also very clear that men cannot become women or vice versa which necessarily precludes claims to sex change by clothing choices.

Something, something, far-right!

Can someone explain (other than everything you don't like is far-right) how believing that there are only two sexes is far-right?

Sexual dimorphism is now far-right?

Well you can be as unconvinced as you like. I think you haven't understood my point which is that both the EO and the trans movement traffic in concepts of biological essentialism that are ultimately not feminist.

No but applauding a rapist for introducing a mandate targeted at a minority group is quite close to the definition of 'far right'. Of course Trump believes men are men and women are women; have you seen how he treats women? You think this EO is good for women?

Where is the empathy for the women who want their privacy away from males and their rights upheld? What about empathy for the children who needed help not pushed into binders, puberty blockers and abused and sold a lie? Oh that's right there was and is none, you can keep bleating on about how hard it is for people who want to change gender (which is impossible anyway ), but it's equally as hard for women to be heard and their rights respected. Yet there is no empathy for them.

It's biologically essentialist to say that sex is biological?

Can you please quote the things in the EO you fear could be used to tie gender roles to sex? It's not how I read it but prepared to have my mind changed.

If your fear is more general along the lines of "having people's sex recognised legally could be used to oppress based on sex as well as support based on sex" well yes, that's kind of unavoidable.

You could even conceivably say that the only reason feminists need to care about sex is because sexists care about sex (1). Feminism ultimately only exists because of an injustice that I'm sure we'd all rather not face in the first place.

But, as long as the sexists do care about sex, we also need to be able to define people by their sex and at times support them in ways specific to their sex.

(1) Simplistic take of course, because even if sexism itself goes away it will be a very long time, if ever, before society manages to design itself in a way that women don't carry an extra burden and financial risk due to our reproductive role and therefore need sex specific rights and supports.

I don't care about the history of the politician bringing in this EO, I care about the content. I don't care if the politician is from the red or the blue party.

There has just been pages and pages of ad hominem attacks in the hope that it diverts away from the content of the EO. People want an end to gender ideology.

And whenever it gets to people going on about the EO it is simply "trans people are vulnerable because they are trans", which is meaningless.

Yeah, this. I cannot understand what this board has become, seemingly. Used to be lefties as far as the eye could see.

David Bowie never identified as female. He played with stereotypes and styles and he certainly believed in the fluidity of genders, but you're just talking nonsense and making hypothetical bollocks.

On the subject of empathy.

I'm willing to extend the same amount of empathy to the other side as they've shown to women and girls who have been asking for our rights, dignity and privacy back for the last decade.

I'll leave it to our trans activist visitors to determine for themselves just how much empathy that is.

Sections Two F and Two G literally acknowledge the existence of gender identity as something that some people believe. No one, not even President Pussygrabber, is saying that trans people don't exist.

It's fine to disagree with what the EO actually says but it's dishonest to fabricate statements that aren't actually there.

This is what happens when activists overreach and interfere with the rights of others: the pendulum swings back a looong way. We were warning you about this six years ago, if not longer.

I have understood your point. You are fundamentally wrong about the EO, so I was charitably assuming that you had not read it.
Perhaps you can explain why you think it trafficks in concepts of biological essentialism with reference to the text of the EO?

On minority status: just because someone is in a minority does not mean that their beliefs and opinions deserve respect or that the minority group is vulnerable. In the case of those who call themselves transgender, we are clearly speaking about an internally very diverse group that includes many, mostly male, individuals with power and privilege. Think about the last US presidential administration with a transgender surgeon general (who seemed to care very little about child welfare) or the congressman Sarah McBride who has been given high office despite minimal experience.

The discursive construction of trans vulnerability has for a long time been part of the wider political project, and that construction is driven by the males in the movement (possibly because it aligns with personal beliefs that consolidate individual identity and give them pleasure and satisfaction). Perhaps another reason why trans-identified women remain marginal in transgender politics despite making up the biggest cohort among trans-identified teenagers.

This and this

This is what happens when activists overreach and interfere with the rights of others: the pendulum swings back a looong way. We were warning you about this six years ago, if not longer.

All the attempted lines of attack on this thread are as hollow as the earlier threats and abuse. Women didn't give their consent, you didn't listen it was more important to keep overriding their views.

Yeah, this. I cannot understand what this board has become, seemingly. Used to be lefties as far as the eye could see.

You didn't listen when women said they don't give consent.

Threats and abuse work for so long, then they don't.

Perhaps this board is "me" in this infographic?

You didn't listen to women when they said no consent either. Why not?

Why did you think you could keep overriding their ask for dignity, privacy and safety?

The so called Lefties are now in power in the UK plotting how to freeze and legally 'voluntarily self delete' as many ill, sick or unhappy people as they can whilst they line their own pockets and concentrate on 'wealth creation' so excuse me if those of us left behind decide that Left isn't all it is cracked up to be.

I really cannot take anyone who says ‘TERF SAS’ seriously.

So why, when neutral 3rd spaces are proposed as a solution, do the TRAs react with such anger and talk of “othering”?

It is not totally about safety (and why don’t they campaign for acceptance by other men?) it is about being validated in their performative role as a woman.

Why is there an expectation that women will be accepting but men can’t possibly be expected to do the same?