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/

What about the rest of Pluvia's powerful post? Any thoughts on the message?

It’s really not hard to have empathy for more than one group of people - for some of us anyway. And you have missed my point entirely.

Yeah, it's almost as hard to take seriously as a middle aged man believing how he thinks makes him actually a women isn't it?

Agree.

That would be nice. The 1970s all over again. Maybe we'll even see a few young women with short or curly hair. I find that ubiquitous long straight hair very dull.

We'd still need single sex changing rooms, sports, hospital wards, loos, rape crisis centres, domestic violence shelters, prisons, personal care provision, etc etc - but the rest, great.

Pesumably, as seen in the transactivist posts on this thread, these are posters with a deficit view of women and women's rights. Our rights and our bodies must be subservient to the demands of men, as must safeguarding children.

The thrill of frothing about women being right wingers is much evidently easier than having to acknowledge how this toxic ideology has been allowed to target mentally vulnerable children & young people, literally wrecking their mental and physical health. And Trump appears to be the politician bringing a halt to this.

I can have empathy and still recognise that accommodating cross sex identifying people by treating them as if they actually are the opposite sex causes far more social problems, emotional (and physical) pain and injustices than it solves.

Again, no one is saying people who feel, for any reason, they are so out of line with others of their sex that they cannot bear or don't feel safe to share provisions or even language with them should be forced to anyway. All we are saying is whatever alternative provisions are made for those people, they can no longer include the privilege of access to provisions of the opposite sex, because the cost of that privilege to women is unfair and it hurts more people than it helps.

So an intelligent, well informed, articulate post from someone with knowledge and experience is 'not serious' because she used a joke as an intensifier in her response to a ridiculous comment?

Is disapproving of people having a sense of humour something that happened to you or something that you identified into?

I rather like it.

It's going on my next mug. In bigly letters.

Women saying I don’t consent is not a political position. Nor is the ask for safety, dignity and privacy.

The tactics you and others use to undermine that clear and simple position is just more of what has been employed over last two decades.

Why continue to override women?

Plastictrees · Today 08:01
I really cannot take anyone who says ‘TERF SAS’ seriously.

That sums up your problem, doesn't it? You've lost the battle because you've never taken women seriously. You have no respect for us. Particularly for the kind of informed, battle-hardened women who have seen every move you throw, every word you say, a thousand times before and are unmoved by it.

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

Because the whole point, for the vast majority of men in the GI movement who are motivated by extreme misogyny (which even Starmer is coming close to acknowledging) or fetishism, is breaking down women's boundaries and getting to film themselves in women's toilets, with a foot up on the basin to expose their bulge and sometimes even their naked genitalia. Some of them 'flash' women in a way that could be excused as an accident if the police were involved. We all know that flashing is frequently just an indicator of more worse sexual offending. The whole point of men in women's toilets is that it's seen as one over on women. They won't use third spaces because anyone can use third spaces and that's not what they want: they want to transgress for kicks.

Decent men observe boundaries. Any man in a women's toilet, unless he's a cleaner with good reason to be there, has made it plain what kind of man he is — a man who has no respect for women's boundaries.

Maybe eventually we wouldn't even need some of those. Who knows? The point is that if we as a society decide we no longer need some of those things to be single sex, it's because single sex versions exist but have been unused for decades because everyone actively prefers the mixed version. It's not because activists have tried to force social change by taking them away when they were still wanted and needed and when data clearly shows there are significant differences in risks and outcomes aligned to sex.

Will that happen? Very unlikely if only because it means some pretty large world religions have changed some major tenets. But I can be open minded to things changing in the future without compromising the case for single sex provisions today. On the contrary, laying out what would have to have changed to make single sex provisions no longer necessary really highlights that we are no where near a world where that is the case.

This is my point though - many people are victims of this gender ideology, including those who ‘transitioned’ many years ago and haven’t caused any harm to anyone. Gender identity clinics which have popped up everywhere, which I have professional experience with, are a massive part of the problem - essentially colluding with this narrative rather than considering any alternative hypothesis for why a person wants to ‘transition’. This narrative has been pedalled by the medical community, including psychiatry and clinical psychology, and anyone who has questioned this was labelled anti trans, bigoted etc. I believe that vulnerable people, often with a background of trauma and poor mental health, have ‘transitioned’ as it was positioned as a solution to their problems. These people are victims of gender ideology too. So yes I think having some empathy and concern for how new legislation could impact these people is reasonable, and does not mean that it’s not possible to have empathy for the impact of gender ideology on women. It is not mutually exclusive or black and white, as some posters here seem to think - quick to accuse people of being TRA’s and other nonsense, it is obviously a complex topic which requires some nuanced thought. Obviously things should never have reached this point, my focus is on how the harms can be undone including those that have ‘transitioned’.

But sure, continue to spectacularly miss the point and repeat yourselves about women’s rights, when that is not what I am questioning.
The responses here are batshit and really undermines the cause, meaningless hyperbole where I am accused of not respecting or taking women seriously just because I can have empathy for those who have been victims of gender ideology, including those who have ‘transitioned’.

it is obviously a complex topic which requires some nuanced thought.

This is where the majority of women were about 5 or 6 years ago. The response to any woman raising her voice up was "TWAW you stupid bigoted bitches" and also rape and death threats to force compliance.

Disavowing any debate, any empathy, any concessions for the position of women and girls is why we arrived at yesterday's EO by the Trump administration.

None of this is the fault of women and girls who frankly never asked for this insanity to be imposed on us from above.

So if trans people collectively feel let down then they need to ask previous administrations, trans orgs and their blinkered community spokespeople why it was allowed to get to this point because the direction of travel has been apparent for a long time now.

I'm sorry but I'm not clear what your point is.

Are you suggesting these people must continue to have cross sex privileges because "empathy"? In which case No. Because there can be other, better solutions, solutions that do not harm women and women's righys as collateral damage.

Are you suggesting they must be considered and supported in different ways? Well yes, but since many posters have already said exactly that I'm not sure who you think you are castigating here.

Perhaps you have better ideas? In which case please go ahead and share them! You may inspire people.

Or are you just wringing your hands and performing just how much more empathy you have than these nasty women without risking getting your hands soiled by suggesting how it may be solved?

The responses here are not 'batshit' nor are they any political position as some claim.

We've been discussing this for years, you'd have been better off listening at the start

My first point is that having empathy for those who have transitioned under gender ideology does not make a person a ‘trans rights activist’, or mean they do not support women’s rights - there is so much projection going on in this thread, that it removes possibility for open discussion. There has been a distinct lack of any empathy here which is why I have mentioned it, repeatedly.

My second point is that it is not going to be easy or straightforward to enforce this new legislation, when people have already transitioned. Again the vitriolic posters have a very blinkered overly simplistic view of this, and seemingly don’t care about the likely increase of self harm and suicide rates. There needs to be more research into so-called gender dysphoria which can then inform psychological interventions and service provision. There needs to be more psychological support for people for a start, as it is no coincidence that a high proportion of males who wish to ‘transition’ have experienced trauma from males. Unfortunately the psychology community, which I am part of, has been stifled for years and prevented from doing such research. I don’t have a solution, but I know that just stripping away someone’s new ‘gender identity’ without offering any support is unethical and problematic.

Take your blinkers off, I’ve been actively involved in this area for years.

The problem is everything is so polarised in America. Trump opposing the transgender agenda only makes Democrat voters support it more strongly.

Take your blinkers off.

Women have been asking for privacy, dignity and safety for years

Those who use tactics to undermine were part of the problem.

@EasternStandard What has your post got to do with anything I have said? You are continuing to post the same repetitive statements and obtuse questions, it adds nothing of value.

It is in response to your posts which are repetitive.

Fortunately you are not the thread police or any sort of arbiter of what has value.

TG

No it isn't hard, you are right, but my point still stands, from my experience nobody cares about womens&childrens rights. Also I can't see that you have a point to be honest.

You see the problem I have with this (and I absolutely believe you can't change sex) is that this is a hammer to crack a nut. Can you see the list of resources being banned? These include at least two that I feel have no reason to be banned.

“Supporting Intersex Students: A Resource for Students, Families, and Educators” (October 2021);
(H) “Confronting Anti-LGBTQI+ Harassment in Schools: A Resource for Students and Families” (June 2021);

Where is the thought and the support for people who want to expresss themselves outside their sex sterotypes? Something that is common in the LGB community . Trans presenting children should be supported. They can present as the opposite sex if they want to and can be supported to do this at the same time as making it clear that they can't actually change sex. It can be treated as period of experimentation for young people. This is something adults can help them within kindness. For most children it will be a transitory period of experimentation and is fine, some of them may turn out to be gay or bi or just straight but wanting to experiment a bit. What is the probelm with any of that? None that I can see but it is up to the adults to guide them kindly with the facts

I can't see that this is what will happen with this legislation.

Conflating sex and gender expression is an issue for women's rights and I have no problem with strengthening the definitions but I am worried this will just lead to more extreme categorisation of gender sterotypes, leading to the 'women are like this and men are like this and nothing else is acceptable' type argument