Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
Lostcat · 26/01/2025 14:21

AlisonDonut · 26/01/2025 14:12

We see trans people as the sex they are.

That's it. It's pretty simple. No exposé needed. It's not cutting edge investigative journalism to report back that some Mumsnet FWR posters think biological sex exists.

We see trans people as the sex they are

Right. Exactly. You don’t see trans people. (it’s like saying “we don’t see colour”; “we see autistic people as neurotypical”, “we see gay people as straight”).

Of course this is obvious that you see things this way, but at the same time you all engage in constant gaslighting about how you aren’t anti-trans, and this EO isn’t anti-trans etc. so this does need to be exposed for the nonsense/ hypocrisy that it is.

Runor · 26/01/2025 14:22

I think LostCat is doing an excellent job of demonstrating why Trump’s EO was necessary. In philosophy, law, or any serious discussion, the first think you have to do is define the key terms. TRA’s have been exploiting the lack of definitions and misunderstandings for far too long

eg Public opinion polls swing strongly towards excluding transwomen from women’s sports, spaces and services (and including them in those for men) once there is a clear explanation that transwomen are male.

I strongly agree with IWantToRetire that these definitions are now necessary to maintain clarity of laws which differentiate between the sexes. I hope it will also clarify other situations, such as enabling grassroots sports teams to properly segregate by sex if they so wish, and enabling community venues to segregate toilets and changing facilities by sex. Forcing women, who would rather not, to risk serious injury by playing sport against fully competitive men, or to share spaces where they are undressed or otherwise vulnerable, is abusive

SeethingHarpie · 26/01/2025 14:23

“It really doesn’t.
recognising another person takes nothing , nought, zero, zilch away from your person or my person.”

It really, really does - it takes TRUTH away from women.

And still no definition, I note. Interesting.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 14:28

SeethingHarpie · 26/01/2025 14:23

“It really doesn’t.
recognising another person takes nothing , nought, zero, zilch away from your person or my person.”

It really, really does - it takes TRUTH away from women.

And still no definition, I note. Interesting.

I’m sorry that you view the existence of trans people as a threat to your TRUTH.
I can understand how terrifying and disorienting that must be for you.

Greyskybluesky · 26/01/2025 14:29

@Runor I think LostCat is doing an excellent job of demonstrating why Trump’s EO was necessary. In philosophy, law, or any serious discussion, the first think you have to do is define the key terms. TRA’s have been exploiting the lack of definitions and misunderstandings for far too long

Agree 100%.
Operation Let Them Speak. Even if they aren't saying anything.

Helleofabore · 26/01/2025 14:32

DeanElderberry · 26/01/2025 11:57

I fail to understand why there’s this constant dismissal of these points

[Sex is really complicated, too complicated for you plebs to comprehend.

Now we're all female, because early embryos are not yet morphologically sex-differentiated , ha ha ha!

If Trump is allowed to say male and female are different, it gives him carte blanche to take away female's rights, just like the Taliban. ]

as “tropes” rather than actually considering them/ taking them on board?

That would be because they are fatuous piffle, the first two of which could only be repeated by someone who has decided to not believe in and/or understand science, as has been explained over and over again.

I have always found that those few posters insisting that sex is 'complicated', while leveraging people's medical conditions to falsely destabilise the sex categories using philosophical theories, don't then recognise the inconsistency in their arguments when they then attempt to argue that there is a group of people who are truly transgender and that not everyone who declares they are transgender really is.

They then resort to ad hominem attacks to cover this inconsistency.

Britinme · 26/01/2025 14:33

I want to see @Lostcat , who has been very responsive on this thread, answer this well-phrased question from @lifeturnsonadime (but I bet he won't):

"So let's turn this on its head, if you want to give a group of males who are trans to be awarded women's rights in law how are you going to define that group so that every male is not included?

In other words what's your definition of trans for the purpose of protecting this particular group?"

Runor · 26/01/2025 14:34

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 14:21

We see trans people as the sex they are

Right. Exactly. You don’t see trans people. (it’s like saying “we don’t see colour”; “we see autistic people as neurotypical”, “we see gay people as straight”).

Of course this is obvious that you see things this way, but at the same time you all engage in constant gaslighting about how you aren’t anti-trans, and this EO isn’t anti-trans etc. so this does need to be exposed for the nonsense/ hypocrisy that it is.

But while gay people are not straight, transpeople do have a sex - and it can’t be changed. If a transwoman (male) could change sex, then presumably they would - then they wouldn’t be transwomen, they’d be women. But changing sex is not possible

DeanElderberry · 26/01/2025 14:37

the endless games on these threads

They aren't games. They are reasonable questions from rational people. But well done, you're helping any doubters realise how vacuous the genderist position is.

Runor · 26/01/2025 14:44

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 14:28

I’m sorry that you view the existence of trans people as a threat to your TRUTH.
I can understand how terrifying and disorienting that must be for you.

It’s not the existence of transpeople which is a problem.

Some transwomen rightly choose not to encroach on women’s sports, spaces and services. Some men declare themselves to be trans solely so they can.

The problem is always about men being in places where they shouldn’t be. Most men don’t (even though they themselves would never be a threat) because they understand and care about the social boundaries which keep women safe.

Some men don’t care about the harm they (directly or indirectly) cause, and yes, that can be terrifying

DeanElderberry · 26/01/2025 14:49

Transmen matter too. The vile stereotypes and caricatures of women pushed by some transwomen and the people who encourage them make life even harder than it already is for young women coming of age in a deeply sexist world.

The trans project is all about misogyny.

Also homophobia of course.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 14:56

DeanElderberry · 26/01/2025 14:49

Transmen matter too. The vile stereotypes and caricatures of women pushed by some transwomen and the people who encourage them make life even harder than it already is for young women coming of age in a deeply sexist world.

The trans project is all about misogyny.

Also homophobia of course.

The trans project is all about misogyny

The trans project? Tell us more please.

Runor · 26/01/2025 15:04

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 14:56

The trans project is all about misogyny

The trans project? Tell us more please.

Surely you’ve seen the Denton’s paper?

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 15:18

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 15:34

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

"pathetic, lacking intelligence, lying, delusional, TRA propagandist, feeble, manipulative, disingenuous, ignorant, easily led, deliberately obtuse, not a grown up, absurd, immature."

Where are those posters who always tell me I'm inventing the abuse I receive when participating on these threads?

Calling me names might be cathartic for you @hihelenhi , but I truly believe that it won't help you win this argument.

duc748 · 26/01/2025 15:38

Can't we all just tiptoe away from the thread now? 😀

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 15:39

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 15:34

"pathetic, lacking intelligence, lying, delusional, TRA propagandist, feeble, manipulative, disingenuous, ignorant, easily led, deliberately obtuse, not a grown up, absurd, immature."

Where are those posters who always tell me I'm inventing the abuse I receive when participating on these threads?

Calling me names might be cathartic for you @hihelenhi , but I truly believe that it won't help you win this argument.

Edited

No, it's not "cathartic". I'm laughing at you.

We've already won, LostCat. As you have demonstrated, you have no arguments, let alone winning ones. What do you think you've "won"?

That you can't see that is what is laughable.

Because other people can see you too. Don't you understand that? They can see the nonsense you have written, the tactics you have attempted to use on this thread and they will draw their own conclusions about you and the ideology you are (extremely badly, it must be said) attempting to promote and defend.

It's hilarious. Carry on, do.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 15:43

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 15:39

No, it's not "cathartic". I'm laughing at you.

We've already won, LostCat. As you have demonstrated, you have no arguments, let alone winning ones. What do you think you've "won"?

That you can't see that is what is laughable.

Because other people can see you too. Don't you understand that? They can see the nonsense you have written, the tactics you have attempted to use on this thread and they will draw their own conclusions about you and the ideology you are (extremely badly, it must be said) attempting to promote and defend.

It's hilarious. Carry on, do.

Edited

As above, I really don't think all this vitriol is helping your argument.

If you really believed you have "won", you wouldn't be spending your time trying to put down, ridicule and demean my person. We all know these are the tools of the desperate and afraid.

Of course I know people can read what I am writing - that is why I am writing it. Because god knows it's important.

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 15:47

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 15:43

As above, I really don't think all this vitriol is helping your argument.

If you really believed you have "won", you wouldn't be spending your time trying to put down, ridicule and demean my person. We all know these are the tools of the desperate and afraid.

Of course I know people can read what I am writing - that is why I am writing it. Because god knows it's important.

Edited

Hardly.

Calling women who disagree with you "fascists" is pretty vitriolic, as well as being false and defamatory.

I'm not sure what arguments you imagine you've made here, but given you can't even give us a definition of "trans" and have failed to address most of the simplest points made to you (in good faith), I'm not sure what you imagine you've contributed to your cause.

Any chance of coming up with that basic definition of "trans" yet or answering any of the questions put to you across the thread?

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 15:53

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 15:47

Hardly.

Calling women who disagree with you "fascists" is pretty vitriolic, as well as being false and defamatory.

I'm not sure what arguments you imagine you've made here, but given you can't even give us a definition of "trans" and have failed to address most of the simplest points made to you (in good faith), I'm not sure what you imagine you've contributed to your cause.

Any chance of coming up with that basic definition of "trans" yet or answering any of the questions put to you across the thread?

I didn't call you or any other individual on this thread a "fascist", I said that this EO is a piece of fascist legislation.

Fascist is an appropriate descriptor for this legislation which seeks to deny/ delegitimise/ eliminate/ eradicate the existence of a group of people (trans people - as well as intersex people btw), under the rhetoric of restoring "Truth".

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 15:56

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 15:53

I didn't call you or any other individual on this thread a "fascist", I said that this EO is a piece of fascist legislation.

Fascist is an appropriate descriptor for this legislation which seeks to deny/ delegitimise/ eliminate/ eradicate the existence of a group of people (trans people - as well as intersex people btw), under the rhetoric of restoring "Truth".

Edited

Yes, you did.

And no it isn't. Not even close.

Top DARVO though.

Are you going to tell us how you define "trans" yet?

lifeturnsonadime · 26/01/2025 15:56

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 15:53

I didn't call you or any other individual on this thread a "fascist", I said that this EO is a piece of fascist legislation.

Fascist is an appropriate descriptor for this legislation which seeks to deny/ delegitimise/ eliminate/ eradicate the existence of a group of people (trans people - as well as intersex people btw), under the rhetoric of restoring "Truth".

Edited

Define this group of people otherwise I don’t know who you are talking about. Who are trans people? What does ‘trans’ mean?

if you are fighting against what you call the removal of rights of a group of people the bare minimum you need to do is be able to define in clear terms who those people are.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 15:59

lifeturnsonadime · 26/01/2025 15:56

Define this group of people otherwise I don’t know who you are talking about. Who are trans people? What does ‘trans’ mean?

if you are fighting against what you call the removal of rights of a group of people the bare minimum you need to do is be able to define in clear terms who those people are.

You've made it clear that you don't believe that being trans is a real thing and that you want this written into law. I understand this.

I am also well aware that nothing I can say will persuade you otherwise, I am not trying to do so.

DeanElderberry · 26/01/2025 16:00

otoh, I see 'trans' as a belief system that combines misogyny, homophobia, and the rigid enforcement of sex-role stereotypes, and Trans Rights Advocates as people who push that unpleasant and dangerous doctrine.

Misogyny, homophobia and sex-role stereotypes were things actual historical fascists were all in favour of. Just like those TRAs.

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 16:03

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 15:59

You've made it clear that you don't believe that being trans is a real thing and that you want this written into law. I understand this.

I am also well aware that nothing I can say will persuade you otherwise, I am not trying to do so.

We have explained our terms and reasoning. Repeatedly.

You have failed to do so.

Once again, tell us who you think the group of people are who will be negatively impacted by this EO. How will we know who they are? What is it about them that will identify them as "trans"?

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