Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth

[IwantToRetire]

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.

Indeed! Despite some posters who believe that people on this board will never consider alternatives, many of us constantly take on board new information, evaluate it in connection to what we had known previously and then adapt our position on something based on that new information.

Of course, to do that does require interrogation of the new concept or point of view to see how and where it fits into our known information.

Ok I am going to take you at your word and give it a try.

The first thing that is difficult in offering a definition is the lack of consensus around terminology - people understand sex and gender in different ways. So I am going to avoid using these short hands and try to describe this in full.

First of all 'biological sex' has multiple components/ is a complex process of development. There are our chromosomes, there is our reproductive anatomy , there is our external genitalia, there are gametes, there are our hormones. All of these together make up biological sex.

Although for the overwhelming majority of people, these aspects all align into one of two cluster typologies, there are also a minority of people who develop differently, producing a range of complex variations so that different aspects of these sex axes/characteristics do not 'align' (in typical ways) with other 'axes'.

Most of these variations have only become visible with the development of contemporary medical technologies that have made previously hidden differences/ aspects of the body observable (when previously they weren't).

There is still so much we don't know/ are learning about biological sex development - for example, there is a lot of interesting research into neurobiological development/ differences. Scientific understanding of the physiology of the brain is still very much developing.

There is also an aspect to 'sex' which is cognitive. This is what some people call 'gender identity'. I am going to avoid that terminology as I understand it triggers people / is associated with being "woo" "ideology". Instead, I am going to call this cognitive aspect to sex "automatic cognitive sex". I am using the word "automatic" to signify that this is related to automatic processing in the brain (e.g. it is not "deliberate" "conscious" or "chosen").

We all have a cognitive sex. This is simply the awareness/ recognition/ understanding of self as being male/a man/ a woman/ female etc. For the vast majority of people, just as their different physical sex characteristics (chromosomes, gametes, genitals, hormones) align, their cognitive sex aligns with their physical sex characteristics. This is so common/ obvious that we take this alignment entirely for granted - indeed we presume that one simply leads to the other - i.e. "I know I am a woman because I was born female".

HOWEVER, just as there are some people who are born with variations in sex development, there are some people for whom their "automatic cognitive sex" does not align with their physical sex characteristics as observed at birth. We don't know why this is or what causes it, but it is very possible that it has a durable developmental biological underpinning - there is some interesting research into this looking at sex development, hormones and neurobiological differences, although the science is in its infancy.

This is what it is to be trans. Although we do not know what causes being trans, we do have a huge body of scientific evidence that being trans does in fact exist (it always has - everywhere) and is very much real. It can be extremely painful/ distressing - particularly when it is repressed/ denied by self and others. It is not something over which a person typically has control, and it is typically not able to be changed/ altered - therapy and other mental health interventions to "cure" transness do not help, but cause significant harm. Being trans often starts very early in life, even if people do not always have the conscious words, ideas, cultural references to identify/ understand/ express their experience until later in life.

This is what being trans is/ means. Nothing to do with gender stereotypes, clothes, behaviour, someone's voice, hating women, hating gay people, belief in "gender woo" or any of the other things people have so far suggested on this thread and many others.

Ok you can all commence getting angry and ridiculing me now. 3, 2,1....

OR... Maybe just read and think about it for a while, and who knows we could have a productive exchange.

The EO is crystal clear on what sex is:

(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.

There is no point trying to complicate that.

No game playing, no theories, no need for anything cognitive. Just sex.

The only relevance people with DSDs have to the trans movement is as a cynical way to attempt to muddy the waters, to say, 'oh, it's complicated' it's not straightforward. And to be a Trojan Horse for men in women's sports, as we've seen all too vividly lately.

Do you think Imane Khelif is a man or a woman, lostcat?

There's really nothing cynical about it at all. It's impossible to have this conversation without discussing biological sex, and what it actually is. The title of this EO is "Restoring Biological Truth" no less. We have to be allowed to discuss it.

And if trans is a universal phenomenon, where were all the trans people a hundred years ago? Five hundred years ago? Cruelly imprisoned by the social structures of the time, no doubt. 🙄

And your "automatic cognitive sex" is just a fancy phrase for our old friend, the gendered soul. Which I don't believe exists.

@Lostcat I find it fascinating that you are spending lots of words saying why biology is not/cannot be simply binary but you talk about people being 'trans' as though there is only one reason for this (i.e. the convoluted biology you are positing, based largely on DSDs - which are BTW not anything to do with trans).

So there is no social contagion aspect? No detransitioning aspect? No sexual gratification aspect? No trauma-inducted body dysphoria aspect? All trans people have the same biological underpinnings, and its not to do with desire, mental illness, internal homophobia at all. Ever? Just by chance we have suddenly more MtF transitioners in friendship groups in their teens.

I never said there is "one reason" for being trans at all - I certainly didn't mean to imply this with my post; in fact I think I was very clear that we have very little understanding of what "causes" a person to be trans. I think it's highly unlikely that there is always and in every case one singular "cause", any more than there I think there is always and in every case one single cause/ reason for being gay.

But do I think "social contagion" is a significant problem? No. For the most part people are who they are. Young teenagers might "experiment" with different identities (e.g. dress, names, labels, perhaps even pronouns) as they are learning about themselves/ others/ the world, but is there some kind of transgender-pox being caught by children and causing them to go through extensive medical interventions? Is there a serious risk of this, because we are recognising and giving visibility to trans experience? No.
This is fear mongering and transphobia. The same type of fear mongering and homophobia that led to section 28 in the 80s.

I would like to thank Lost for taking the time to type and post that.

However, when I read it it reminded me of the following from 'Rationality' by Steven Pinker: "Kahneman has observed that humans are never so irrational as when protecting their pet ideas".

There is also an aspect to 'sex' which is cognitive. This is what some people call 'gender identity'. I am going to avoid that terminology as I understand it triggers people / is associated with being "woo" "ideology". Instead, I am going to call this cognitive aspect to sex "automatic cognitive sex". I am using the word "automatic" to signify that this is related to automatic processing in the brain (e.g. it is not "deliberate" "conscious" or "chosen").
We all have a cognitive sex. This is simply the awareness/ recognition/ understanding of self as being male/a man/ a woman/ female etc.

When you say "cognitive sex", and that it's "an awareness/ recognition/ understanding of self as being male/a man/ a woman/ female " what is that 'awareness' based on, in your view? What are the markers of it?

For example, I only have an "awareness" of being a female from the fact that I am physically female, a member of the half of the population that is physically female. There is no other reason for this "awareness" than my physical body and knowing all my life this made me a girl and then a woman as I grew to adulthood. I have been accused of being "unfeminine" on occasion by people who are heavily invested in conservative sex stereotypes (eg if I cut my hair short, or swore, or wanted to get muddy, hated tea sets, or liked riding a bike, or showed myself interested in maths and logic) but that hasn't impacted any "inner" awareness that I am female or made me consider that I might not be. Instead, I think "that's sexist rubbish and the only thing determining whether or not I am female is my body. Expecting me to be different - or more "feminine" - than I am is just someone else wanting me to fit their stereotypical notion of what they think a woman should be."

So if MY 'marker' that I am female is my physical body and nothing else, despite me not fitting what some people think a woman or girl should be in terms of behaviour, interests etc, what markers are someone who has the "cognitive sex' of "female" despite having a male body using to inform that "inner knowledge" that are in fact not really 'matching' the biological sex they are?

We know it has nothing to do with DSDs, as they are solely to do with physical reproductive systems and hormones, not cognition or beliefs. (There is also no evidence as far as we know of DSDs 'mapping' onto any personality traits).

So trans people are people whose "automatic cognitive sex" does not align with their physical sex characteristics as observed at birth".

How can that be codified into law? There is no known test for "automatic cognitive sex", unlike biological sex.

Are we talking about categorising people according to what the say they are?

How should people "whose "automatic cognitive sex" does not align with their physical sex characteristics as observed at birth" be treated? Should a biological man, for instance, whose "automatic cognitive sex" he says is female be treated as if he were actually female? In all circumstances? And would others be punished if they did not treat an obvious physically biological male as a female?

Just for starters.

I’d also like to that Lost for that contribution, and ask for references to the research mentioned

i’d also like to ask, does a difference in brain structures (let’s assume that exists for a moment) entitle someone to access women’s sports spaces and services? I’d say not, because the whole point of their existence (and therefore the need for the EO) is to address the physical differences between male and female bodies - but interested to hear your argument.

I think this EO could equally be followed up with legislation to address the needs of trans people without encroaching on the single-sex structures already in place. Obviously this will not be Trump’s next step.

There is no known test for "automatic cognitive sex".

It is true that (as medical technologies currently stand) there is no singular, objective 'test' that can be used to determine someone's "automatic cognitive sex" - we have to rely on the testimony of the individual. But this is true of so many conditions, - ASD, sexuality!, depression, - I could go on and on. That doesn't mean these things aren't real or that there is no way to assess/ identify them in medicine or law.

By the way there is no scientific/ medical consensus concerning one singular , objective test for "biological sex" either.

By the way there is no scientific/ medical consensus concerning one singular , objective test for "biological sex" either.

Oh dear Lord...

I think this EO could equally be followed up with legislation to address the needs of trans people... Obviously this will not be Trump’s next step.

❤

As for the policy questions - these are hard, and there is a legitimate conversation to be had about different spaces etc. But we cannot begin to have a reasonable conversation around that when there is still so much misunderstanding around what being trans is, and when half the people participating don't actually believe that being trans is even a real thing.

..we have to rely on the testimony of the individual. But this is true of so many conditions, - ASD, sexuality!, depression.

But none of those things, and the ways people with them are treated, impact on, amongst other things, safety, dignity, privacy and fairness for another group which is already disadvantaged, women.

But we cannot begin to have a reasonable conversation around that when there is still so much misunderstanding around what being trans is, and when half the people participating don't actually believe that being trans is even a real thing.

All you've done is posited your own theory. I'm not convinced that "trans" is a meaningful descriptor in any way other than an identity label.

Thanks @Lostcat , as you say I will take time to consider the implications of your definition and will come back to you.

The issue that immediately springs to mind is given that there is no testing are you saying that laws should be based on self identification?

What about the people who do not feel this misalignment and have a preference for cross dressing as a part of a kink? We know they exist because they say so themselves, would they come within this definition ?

And if they don’t how do you propose we police spaces so only the first group enter single sex provisions and not the second?

And finally what about women’s identity as being female being important to us, why should a group of outwardly male people be put in the same category.? Why does the rights of the male group trump those of the females?

Why would a slight difference in the brain mean that a group of men should be considered women instead of outlier men?

So trans people are people whose "automatic cognitive sex" does not align with their physical sex characteristics as observed at birth"

This is patently a completely made up concept.

Males can only ever automatically cognate as male, because their whole life experience is male. Even if they 'felt female', they have only the concept of 'feeling like their male interpretation' of female. They can never automatically cognate as a female because they aren't one. It is just another made up attempt to try and persuade people that men can be women. Which they can't.

No matter how many different word salad descriptions of how men can think they are women with different concepts and names of different conditions the failure here is that not one thing can ever be more than 'he said it so it must be true'. There are no tests, there are no checklists, no experiments, nothing. And definitely no definitions.

Thank you . I will in turn see if I can come up with some helpful responses to your questions.

The one that is the easiest to immediately answer is this:

What about the people who do not feel this misalignment and have a preference for cross dressing as a part of a kink? We know they exist because they say so themselves, would they come within this definition ?

And that would be - no, a person who simply has a fetish for cross dressing should not fall within a definition of transgender.

Males can only ever automatically cognate as male, because their whole life experience is male. Even if they 'felt female', they have only the concept of 'feeling like their male interpretation' of female. They can never automatically cognate as a female because they aren't one.

Exactly.

..a slight difference in the brain...

Which cannot be detected by any provable and replicable process, AFAIK.

Edit to add: even Lostcat says "we have to rely on the testimony of the individual".

There is also an aspect to 'sex' which is cognitive. This is what some people call 'gender identity'.

Except the problem is that this clearly isn't true, from observation. Or at least if it was a condition that could be true, there's no sign of it occurring in general among those who claim to have it.

If it was true, you'd see transmen exhibiting male behaviour patterns and transwomen exhibiting female behaviour patterns, which they clearly don't.

There was something in the NYT recently puzzling over why "transwomen" are 15 times over-represented in the US prison stats versus women.

But there's no mystery - their offending rate is in line with other males. The only way that this is remotely puzzling is if you subscribe to gender identity theory - something that doesn't fit observation (let along basic logic).

And then if you're going to argue that this "gender identity" is a cognitive thing, then why the push to have physical things like sports separated by it?

As well as defining this "gender identity", you also need to explain why it should replace sex. Otherwise it seems like you're just trying to pretend sex doesn't exist.

It is true that (as medical technologies currently stand) there is no singular, objective 'test' that can be used to determine someone's "automatic cognitive sex" - we have to rely on the testimony of the individual.

Perhaps we should hold off on that until we have the cognitive sex brain scan up and running.