Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth

1000 replies

IwantToRetire · 21/01/2025 18:51

Purpose.

Ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women’s domestic abuse shelters to women’s workplace showers. This is wrong. Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being. 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 unhealthy road is paved by an ongoing and purposeful attack against the ordinary and longstanding use and understanding of biological and scientific terms, replacing the immutable biological reality of sex with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts. 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.

This will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.

Policy and Definitions.

The policy is to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality:

(a) “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”

(b) “Women” or “woman” and “girls” or “girl” shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively.

(c) “Men” or “man” and “boys” or “boy” shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively.

(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

(f) “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.

(g) “Gender identity” reflects a fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum, that does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.

Recognizing Women Are Biologically Distinct From Men.

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

Every news outlet is reporting this as anti trans legisliaton.

Not one has reported it is about women's rights.

That's why I started this thread, although there are others as hoping the search engines will pick it up.

Seems that women's rights are so unimportant to anyone, that even when there is a political statement about them, the media reports it is about something else.

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

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7301 of title 5, United

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
DuesToTheDirt · 21/01/2025 21:55

You're not wrong.

AnnaKing81 · 21/01/2025 21:58

I agree with you

Hairyesterdaygonetoday · 21/01/2025 22:16

Wow. Women are half the population, and have had several of their basic human rights withdrawn over the past decade. Yet the media are describing the restoration of some rights as an attack on the small number of people it inconveniences.

Shows how unimportant women are.

PaleBlueMoonlight · 21/01/2025 22:51

That is very eloquent and well written. Agree with all PPs comments.

NPET · 21/01/2025 23:54

Well we're only women. We're only 50% of the world's population. Only the lifegivers. Only considered by many people of both sexes to be "the caring sex".

Why should we be thought important?

Circumferences · 22/01/2025 00:05

The statement is so refreshing it's like a large glass of water on the most hot and dry day.
Times are truly changing.

If the woke nonsense hadn't over reached to the extent it did, we wouldn't be left with Trump in charge but more fool them, because now this is what we have.

nocoolnamesleft · 22/01/2025 00:09

I despise Trump with every fibre of my being, but he does know what a woman is. Okay, it's mainly so he knows who to sexually assault, or deny reproductive rights to...

IwantToRetire · 22/01/2025 00:47

I suspect Trump has just used this as a vote winner.

On one of the other threads somebody said the actually wording was written by a woman. Well whoever she is, she should be thanked for wording it so clearly.

But as I said in the OP to the world at large this is just Trump being anti trans.

The BBC "gender" reporting was asked to comment during a news report on the implications of this EO. She just sort of giggled and said we all know Trump is anti trans.

So whoever thought that this means the tide is turning is in cloud cuckoo land.

Not only is the media not acknowledging it being about women's sex based rights, but feminists all over the place are hurling accusations at each other and making it a pro or anti Trump issue.

So even us (well some of us) dont feel that women's rights could actually be the primary issue to be discussed.

I heard there are already legal challenges.

Which will probably take 4 years!

OP posts:
IwantToRetire · 22/01/2025 02:00

Wikipedia (although not a surprise) writes it up as anti trans legislation.

But also says, not as stated on one of the other threads, that it was written by a man. (Maybe Trump's notions of women's rights dont extend to women speaking or writing for themselves.)

But does state that KJK is the inspiration or some such!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DefendingWomenfromGenderIdeologyExtremismandRestoringBiologicalTruthtotheFederalGovernment

edited to add, which I didn't know wikipedia did, as that there is a linked "talk" page to the entry ot allow constructive criticism of the published article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Defending_Women_from_Gender_Ideology_Extremism_and_Restoring_Biological_Truth_to_the_Federal_Government

Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_Women_from_Gender_Ideology_Extremism_and_Restoring_Biological_Truth_to_the_Federal_Government

OP posts:
Lostcat · 22/01/2025 02:04

It’s facist, anti trans legislation

IwantToRetire · 22/01/2025 02:06

Lostcat · 22/01/2025 02:04

It’s facist, anti trans legislation

So you dont support women's sex based rights?

You must feel at home here on FWR where most threads are about how to achieve, re-establish, women's sex based rights.

OP posts:
Lostcat · 22/01/2025 02:09

I support women’s rights. I don’t support fascist, anti trans ideology or legislation, which is what this is.

SpidersAreShitheads · 22/01/2025 07:15

I sort of see why it’s primarily being described as anti-trans.

The statement basically refuses to acknowledge that trans is real by being extremely dismissive of gender identity. It could be argued that the same net outcome could have been reached simply by saying that gender identity does not replace or usurp biological sex.

So while it starts out by focusing on biological sex and the dangers to women, it drifts into denying that gender identity is real. It basically implies trans identities are fictional.

As it happens, I agree with the sentiments whole-heartedly. I don’t think you can “feel like a woman” etc and I find the notion of trans really offensive. I also think non-binary is nonsense and I just have no truck with gender identity as a concept. It’s just made-up bollocks that doesn’t help anyone.

It’s almost overwhelming to hear someone publicly and irrevocably describe the definition of a woman in clear and simple terms.

But if I’m trying to be fair and unbiased, they probably could have achieved the same outcome without being so dismissive of gender ideology. And that’s probably part of the reason it’s seen as anti-trans.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m delighted. But I think we need to always ensure that we differentiate ourselves from the TRAs by being scrupulously honest and even-handed. So I think it’s probably fair to acknowledge that Trump could have re-established women’s rights and biological sex without trashing gender identity simultaneously.

I mean, I don’t actually care much tbh because I believe gender ideology is deeply harmful and the sooner this cult vanishes, the better. But I can probably see why this is considered as anti-trans sentiment.

Also, Trump would never centre women unless it was to sexually assault them, so there’s that too 🤷‍♀️

banivani · 22/01/2025 07:35

I partly agree with @SpidersAreShitheads. A government (to be) that openly dismantles abortion rights isn’t going to be primarily pro-woman or come from a place of profound feminist analysis. If they did they’d speak of sex, not gender. They’re not opposing gender ideology really, they just interpret it differently.

SpidersAreShitheads · 22/01/2025 07:47

banivani · 22/01/2025 07:35

I partly agree with @SpidersAreShitheads. A government (to be) that openly dismantles abortion rights isn’t going to be primarily pro-woman or come from a place of profound feminist analysis. If they did they’d speak of sex, not gender. They’re not opposing gender ideology really, they just interpret it differently.

It’s too early for be me to be eloquent or even vaguely coherent really 😂 But absolutely this - I was going to mention the whole issue of women’s health rights but got carried away trying to explain myself 🤦🏻‍♀️ It’s never been about women for Trump and it never will be - it’s what the worthy menfolk deem to be right, not what’s actually best for us.

Sparklywolf · 22/01/2025 08:06

It's mostly spectacular and everything it should be. Little concerning though that the wording specifies " "female" means a person, belonging at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell."

I suspect that wording is setting up for anti-abortion legislation by establishing that life begins at conception.

SpidersAreShitheads · 22/01/2025 08:11

Sparklywolf · 22/01/2025 08:06

It's mostly spectacular and everything it should be. Little concerning though that the wording specifies " "female" means a person, belonging at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell."

I suspect that wording is setting up for anti-abortion legislation by establishing that life begins at conception.

I noticed the oddity of that phrase but good lord, you’re right. I hadn’t even thought of that possibility,….

Lostcat · 22/01/2025 09:04

SpidersAreShitheads · 22/01/2025 07:15

I sort of see why it’s primarily being described as anti-trans.

The statement basically refuses to acknowledge that trans is real by being extremely dismissive of gender identity. It could be argued that the same net outcome could have been reached simply by saying that gender identity does not replace or usurp biological sex.

So while it starts out by focusing on biological sex and the dangers to women, it drifts into denying that gender identity is real. It basically implies trans identities are fictional.

As it happens, I agree with the sentiments whole-heartedly. I don’t think you can “feel like a woman” etc and I find the notion of trans really offensive. I also think non-binary is nonsense and I just have no truck with gender identity as a concept. It’s just made-up bollocks that doesn’t help anyone.

It’s almost overwhelming to hear someone publicly and irrevocably describe the definition of a woman in clear and simple terms.

But if I’m trying to be fair and unbiased, they probably could have achieved the same outcome without being so dismissive of gender ideology. And that’s probably part of the reason it’s seen as anti-trans.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m delighted. But I think we need to always ensure that we differentiate ourselves from the TRAs by being scrupulously honest and even-handed. So I think it’s probably fair to acknowledge that Trump could have re-established women’s rights and biological sex without trashing gender identity simultaneously.

I mean, I don’t actually care much tbh because I believe gender ideology is deeply harmful and the sooner this cult vanishes, the better. But I can probably see why this is considered as anti-trans sentiment.

Also, Trump would never centre women unless it was to sexually assault them, so there’s that too 🤷‍♀️

Thank you for your honesty.

Lostcat · 22/01/2025 09:14

SpidersAreShitheads · 22/01/2025 08:11

I noticed the oddity of that phrase but good lord, you’re right. I hadn’t even thought of that possibility,….

Right because everyone is too busy revelling in the hatred directed at trans people to notice the actual threat to women’s rights.

Chersfrozenface · 22/01/2025 09:15

Sparklywolf · 22/01/2025 08:06

It's mostly spectacular and everything it should be. Little concerning though that the wording specifies " "female" means a person, belonging at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell."

I suspect that wording is setting up for anti-abortion legislation by establishing that life begins at conception.

No, it's just biological fact

Humans aren't just male or female at birth. They are male or female from conception.

It's how tests for sex in utero are possible.

SpidersAreShitheads · 22/01/2025 09:22

Chersfrozenface · 22/01/2025 09:15

No, it's just biological fact

Humans aren't just male or female at birth. They are male or female from conception.

It's how tests for sex in utero are possible.

Genuine question - aren’t these kind of references usually made about sex at birth though? Rather than in utero?

You’re not wrong about sex at conception but it does seem strange that’s the point they’ve chosen to reference rather than the usual reference of birth sex?

I may be completely wrong though - happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable.

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 22/01/2025 09:31

It is more correct. It also gets around anyone potentially being identified incorrectly at birth due to a dsd. For example if they used identified at birth it would set in law that someone with 46xy 5-ard is female and hence entitled to be in female sports (Caster Semenya). Stating conception prevents that, it's a very well thought out piece from someone who knows the ins and outs.

Circumferences · 22/01/2025 09:34

It basically implies trans identities are fictional.

Well interestingly, trans identities could be argued to be as fictional as any other metaphysical belief.

Circumferences · 22/01/2025 09:37

Lostcat · 22/01/2025 09:14

Right because everyone is too busy revelling in the hatred directed at trans people to notice the actual threat to women’s rights.

Edited

Oh give over.
Trans ideology is a blatantly significant threat to women and women's rights.
Anti abortion laws are yet another significant threat.
Do you get that women are facing a double edged sword under patriarchy? Turn safely away from attack only to face another.
Both are as real as the previous threat.

Chersfrozenface · 22/01/2025 09:38

It basically implies trans identities are fictional.

They are certainly counterfactual, that is, contrary to the facts.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread