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
Greyskybluesky · 26/01/2025 16:04

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.

You evade providing a definition. For what you are defending. Every single time.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:05

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.

I oppose misogyny, homophobia and rigid enforcement of sex/sex-role stereotypes.

I also appose harmful and discriminatory ideas directed against trans people, including the belief that "being trans" is an "ideology" (/not real), and that recognising and respecting trans people is dangerous to women and children.

I find it deeply ironic that you claim to appose sex-stereotypes while supporting an executive order whose entire purpose is to assert sex-stereotypes as "Biological Truth" in law.

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 16:08

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.

Yes, exactly.

The Nazis were extremely keen on men who dressed as women too. Lots of pics of Nazi officers doing exactly that. Similarly keen on the enforcement of sex role stereotypes

They gassed actual gay people though,as "undesirables". Were not so keen on them. Bit like TRAs and their "allies" who'd rather have a 'trans daughter" than a gay son. Although more usually a "trans son" than a lesbian daughter, as was noted by the Tavi whistleblowers. TRAs are largely a bunch of homophobes.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:09

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 16:03

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"?

Once again, tell us who you think the group of people are who will be negatively impacted by this EO

I suppose you are saying there are none? Because there is no such thing as trans people right? Or intersex people?

Makes you wonder why we need the EO then? 🤔 As a pp said, might as well write a piece of legislation refuting the existence of dragons and unicorns ? Isn't that right?

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 16:09

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:05

I oppose misogyny, homophobia and rigid enforcement of sex/sex-role stereotypes.

I also appose harmful and discriminatory ideas directed against trans people, including the belief that "being trans" is an "ideology" (/not real), and that recognising and respecting trans people is dangerous to women and children.

I find it deeply ironic that you claim to appose sex-stereotypes while supporting an executive order whose entire purpose is to assert sex-stereotypes as "Biological Truth" in law.

Edited

How does "trans" differ from sex role stereotypes?

Go on, give us your best explanation. How would someone know that they are "trans"? How would WE know that someone is trans?

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 16:11

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:09

Once again, tell us who you think the group of people are who will be negatively impacted by this EO

I suppose you are saying there are none? Because there is no such thing as trans people right? Or intersex people?

Makes you wonder why we need the EO then? 🤔 As a pp said, might as well write a piece of legislation refuting the existence of dragons and unicorns ? Isn't that right?

Edited

No, I'm asking you to define who you think "trans" people are.

As you have been asked repeatedly on this thread, yet don't appear able to answer. You're not going to get very far legally in supporting this group of people if you can't define who they are, are you?

So come on.

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 16:13

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:09

Once again, tell us who you think the group of people are who will be negatively impacted by this EO

I suppose you are saying there are none? Because there is no such thing as trans people right? Or intersex people?

Makes you wonder why we need the EO then? 🤔 As a pp said, might as well write a piece of legislation refuting the existence of dragons and unicorns ? Isn't that right?

Edited

"Intersex" people aren't a thing btw. It is an outdated term. The correct term is "DSD".

Again, as we have mentioned before on this thread. Did you read it?

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 16:16

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:05

I oppose misogyny, homophobia and rigid enforcement of sex/sex-role stereotypes.

I also appose harmful and discriminatory ideas directed against trans people, including the belief that "being trans" is an "ideology" (/not real), and that recognising and respecting trans people is dangerous to women and children.

I find it deeply ironic that you claim to appose sex-stereotypes while supporting an executive order whose entire purpose is to assert sex-stereotypes as "Biological Truth" in law.

Edited

I oppose misogyny, homophobia and rigid enforcement of sex/sex-role stereotypes.

Do you really?

Not seeing any evidence of this from you so far, I'm afraid

Since "trans ideology" is misogyny, homophobia and the enforcement of sex role stereotypes rolled into one.

I've explained previously and in detail why I and others think this.

Explain, using clear definitions of your terms, please, why and how I and others on this thread are wrong about "trans" being an example of misogyny, homophobia and rigid enforcement of sex/sex-role stereotypes. . We've given you plenty of examples and you clearly believe you are in the right about this, so it should be simple for you to provide a clear argument without prevaricating.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:19

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 16:13

"Intersex" people aren't a thing btw. It is an outdated term. The correct term is "DSD".

Again, as we have mentioned before on this thread. Did you read it?

"Intersex" people aren't a thing btw. It is an outdated term. The correct term is "DSD"

Sorry but you are not the arbiter of this I'm afraid.

There are lots of people who use / prefer/ claim the terminology of intersex as apposed to DSD (which has it's roots in the medicalisation/ pathologisation of people with sex variations).

Indeed the Human Rights Council adopted an international resolution on the protection of intersex people from discrimination only last April:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2024/04/big-victory-intersex-people-and-their-rights#:~:text=In%20a%20landmark%20vote%2C%20the,kind%20for%20the%20United%20Nations.

Catiette · 26/01/2025 16:20

@Lostcat, at 1421, you post as follows:

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...

When you "see trans people", or when you refer to "trans people" as a group, how do you distinguish them as being "trans"? To me, being able to do this is contingent on recognising that they are "trans" relative to their birth sex. However one phrases this ("born in the wrong body" / "identifying differently to" / "being a trans woman / trans man" etc.), it's clearly necessary to recognise "sex" to be able to describe them as "trans". If one doesn't at least acknowledge there's a birth sex from which they dissociate, there's no way at all to distinguish this group - no such group, in fact.

To put it another way, I don't understand how an honest acknowledgement by a poster that they recognise that, in trans people, there's a difference between their birth sex and what they actually "are" is a failure to "see" them. How is it possible to acknowledge their existence full-stop, without this initial recognition of birth sex?

Your suggestion that recognising birth sex is a failure to "see" trans people feels fundamentally paradoxical.

Helleofabore · 26/01/2025 16:22

Who are the arbiters of who is and is not 'transgender'? To do that would require a definition.

Thankfully the EO has ensured that federal agencies have a working definition of 'female' and 'male' so that they can be clear who they refer to in laws and policies to protect the needs of female people and male people.

If there is no way to define people who have a transgender identity, this does mean that the term is rendered as a weak descriptor for the people who need the protections that any law or policy can extend to them.

lifeturnsonadime · 26/01/2025 16:22

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.

Where have I made that clear? I have actually said, very reasonably, that until I see a definition I don’t know what you’re asking me to agree with or not.

This is the only minority group I can think of where advocates for protecting the rights of the group are unable / unwilling to define terms.

How you supposed you help the group you seek to protect by refusing to even define them I have no idea whatsoever!

DeanElderberry · 26/01/2025 16:22

@Lostcat
I oppose misogyny, homophobia and rigid enforcement of sex/sex-role stereotypes.

why did you insert 'sex' in there? Sex role stereotypes are oppressive, sex is a basic fact of animal life, universal, unescapable, unopposable.

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 16:24

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:19

"Intersex" people aren't a thing btw. It is an outdated term. The correct term is "DSD"

Sorry but you are not the arbiter of this I'm afraid.

There are lots of people who use / prefer/ claim the terminology of intersex as apposed to DSD (which has it's roots in the medicalisation/ pathologisation of people with sex variations).

Indeed the Human Rights Council adopted an international resolution on the protection of intersex people from discrimination only last April:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2024/04/big-victory-intersex-people-and-their-rights#:~:text=In%20a%20landmark%20vote%2C%20the,kind%20for%20the%20United%20Nations.

Edited

I'd ask people with DSDs themselves and their families if I were you.

Here.

https://www.dsdfamilies.org/faq

As I said, "intersex" is considered by those with DSDs to be an outdated term.

FAQ :: DSD Families

https://www.dsdfamilies.org/faq

DeanElderberry · 26/01/2025 16:24

In fact if that, at long last, is your definition of trans - 'someone who opposes sex' then I do wonder at your understanding of material reality.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:25

lifeturnsonadime · 26/01/2025 16:22

Where have I made that clear? I have actually said, very reasonably, that until I see a definition I don’t know what you’re asking me to agree with or not.

This is the only minority group I can think of where advocates for protecting the rights of the group are unable / unwilling to define terms.

How you supposed you help the group you seek to protect by refusing to even define them I have no idea whatsoever!

Are you back to pretending to be sincerely curious and open minded on this issue?

So if I (once again) explain what being trans is you are genuinely interested in reading that, thinking about it, giving it serious consideration and then discussing it? (Not just arguing and ridiculing and trying to use whatever opportunity you think you can seize on to demonstrate your (already decided) position that being trans is a nonsense?).

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:26

Catiette · 26/01/2025 16:20

@Lostcat, at 1421, you post as follows:

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...

When you "see trans people", or when you refer to "trans people" as a group, how do you distinguish them as being "trans"? To me, being able to do this is contingent on recognising that they are "trans" relative to their birth sex. However one phrases this ("born in the wrong body" / "identifying differently to" / "being a trans woman / trans man" etc.), it's clearly necessary to recognise "sex" to be able to describe them as "trans". If one doesn't at least acknowledge there's a birth sex from which they dissociate, there's no way at all to distinguish this group - no such group, in fact.

To put it another way, I don't understand how an honest acknowledgement by a poster that they recognise that, in trans people, there's a difference between their birth sex and what they actually "are" is a failure to "see" them. How is it possible to acknowledge their existence full-stop, without this initial recognition of birth sex?

Your suggestion that recognising birth sex is a failure to "see" trans people feels fundamentally paradoxical.

Edited

This is a little muddled, but I totally agree that in order to understand trans experience you need to be able to recognise/ describe/ identify a thing called "birth sex" (of course the terminology here is disputed, but terminology aside, yes identifying this thing is important to understanding trans experience).

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/01/2025 16:26

I'm sure plenty of us will listen to your explanation, @Lostcat. Go for it.

Catiette · 26/01/2025 16:27

I'd be interested. Disappearing again, possibly for a while, possibly not, but will catch up at some point.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:28

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 16:24

I'd ask people with DSDs themselves and their families if I were you.

Here.

https://www.dsdfamilies.org/faq

As I said, "intersex" is considered by those with DSDs to be an outdated term.

Edited

Do you seriously believe and are you seriously trying to claim that people living with sex variations all have one brain, one opinion, one voice and that this singular opinion/ voice can be referenced in that one web link you've come across?

lifeturnsonadime · 26/01/2025 16:29

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:25

Are you back to pretending to be sincerely curious and open minded on this issue?

So if I (once again) explain what being trans is you are genuinely interested in reading that, thinking about it, giving it serious consideration and then discussing it? (Not just arguing and ridiculing and trying to use whatever opportunity you think you can seize on to demonstrate your (already decided) position that being trans is a nonsense?).

Edited

yes I’m open minded provide the definition.

what I can’t do is promise I think it will be workable until I understand what it is,

DeanElderberry · 26/01/2025 16:31

I think we've got there. We need the EO in order to establish that sex does, in fact, regardless of what trans advocates may like to believe, exist.

Why did that take hours?

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 16:32

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:28

Do you seriously believe and are you seriously trying to claim that people living with sex variations all have one brain, one opinion, one voice and that this singular opinion/ voice can be referenced in that one web link you've come across?

Edited

It's not "one web link I've come across".

It's from talking to people with DSDs.

Doubt you'd understand that though.

Any news on providing us with a workable definition of "trans" yet that would actually be useful for legislative purposes? We're waiting.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/01/2025 16:32

@DeanElderberry

Yes, exactly. We can now look at what some people with "gender identities" claim and whether there is a need for any special treatment, respecting the already established rights of other groups, of course.

AlisonDonut · 26/01/2025 16:35

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 16:05

I oppose misogyny, homophobia and rigid enforcement of sex/sex-role stereotypes.

I also appose harmful and discriminatory ideas directed against trans people, including the belief that "being trans" is an "ideology" (/not real), and that recognising and respecting trans people is dangerous to women and children.

I find it deeply ironic that you claim to appose sex-stereotypes while supporting an executive order whose entire purpose is to assert sex-stereotypes as "Biological Truth" in law.

Edited

How do you feel when you find out that puberty blockers were given to girls whose parents wanted to 'trans' their lesbian daughters?

And what in that law is 'asserting sex-stereotypes'? Can you give us an example of which sex stereotypes you are talking about?

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