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.

AI has a lot to answer for…

Even if they 'felt female', they have only the concept of 'feeling like their male interpretation' of female.

There are no "concepts" or "interpretations" involved. "Autonomic cognitions" refer to thoughts or mental processes that occur automatically without conscious control. It's simply a cognitive experience/ awareness of self as female/ a woman, despite being born with observably male physical characteristics.

I understand this feels impossible to you and you have no understanding of it because you cannot relate to this experience. But this is what it is to be a trans woman. It is very much real; it's certainly not trivial, and it's not something over which a person has any control. It's highly likely to have a biological underpinning.

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.

Given that you say "we have to rely on the testimony of the individual", how do we know the difference? What if a person who simply has a fetish for cross dressing says they are trans?

Who would police this?

I think we need to wonder why we are asking these questions? How do we "police" being gay, or "police" being autistic? People can just "claim" to be these things..

I understand that the overwhelming fear is that men pretending to be trans will infiltrate female spaces and abuse women, but how rational is this fear really?

Men have access to women in every sphere of life - sexual predators do not need to pretend to be trans to gain access to women.

If a man wants to put on a dress and enter a female toilet to rape a woman, they can do this now. They can do this with or without Trump's Executive Order. We don't have bars on entry to public toilets that open via devices scanning people's chromosomes. We rely on people not entering the female toilet if they are not female.

I acknowledge there may be some very specific situations where this might be a real concern and we need to think about how to arrange policy to protect against this - prison arrangements being one. However, we can do this without denying/ refusing the entire existence of trans (and intersex) people.

I think we need to wonder why we are asking these questions? How do we "police" being gay, or "police" being autistic? People can just "claim" to be these things.

I am sure people do just claim to be autistic but, as the parent of two autistic teens, I can tell you that their diagnoses must be given in order to qualify for a lot of benefits so this is not really a good example.

For example my son gets extra accommodations at university due to his diagnosis. In order to get those extra accommodation we had to prove that he is diagnosed.

No one is denying trans people exist - they blatantly do exist however they are not and never can physically become the opposite sex. Anything that is single sex needs to be so on factual biological sex not on feelings. It does not mean that trans people can't have protection from discrimination but they should not be classed as the opposite sex ever.

Of course people can claim to be gay or autistic. But if they did, it wouldn't grant them any privileges. Men claiming to be transwomen expect to gain access to women's spaces which for centuries have been denied to 'ordinary' men.

If you build it it, they will come. If you enact legislation which makes it easy for bad actors to access areas they are not entitled to access, they will do so. And we've all seen the results of this.

We define what "being gay" is because it has a clear objective definition, rather than being an "inner identity". Being gay is a person of one biological sex who is sexually attracted to another person of the same biological sex. Usually, this continues over time, including into sexual relationships. So this isn't just to do with how someone perceives themselves.

Autism is also not an inner "identity" or perception; it fits specific objective autism criteria.

A "cognitive knowledge" of being the opposite sex from your actual body appears to have no such definition. Can you provide one and give a definition of that? As in, what are the markers indicating, say, to a biological male, that they are in fact "cognitively female"? or a biological female that they are "cognitively male"?

After all, biological females have a full range of human personality traits, likes and dislikes etc. As do biological males.

Just to point out, again, DSDs (or "intersex") have nothing to do with "cognitive identities". DSDs are about reproductive biology, an individual's physical reproductive system. This is unrelated to any inner "cognitive knowledge".

For sure, and in order to "qualify" for trans-related medical interventions you require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria - which involves a medical assessment / diagnostic process.
As it stands in order to legally change gender you also have to undergo assessment/ diagnosis as well as satisfying other criteria, although there are compelling reasons why people are seeking to change this.

Say it was 'real'.

At what point in your scenario does this man turn into a woman, when he 'comes out' after his wife discovering him dressing in her clothes on his day off?

The moment of discovery?
The moment of explanation?
The moment they got married?
The moment she had his first child?
The moment he had his first erection at the thought of him putting his wife's clothes on?

Or in scenario, was he always a woman?

That's the problem currently you do not need to go through any assessments or get a diagnosis to change most legal documents. Nor do people ask when accessing most single sex provision.

The moment he had his first erection at the thought of him putting his wife's clothes on?

Oh please. What is this comment really?

Actually, no you don't. Not at all.

The requirement to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria used to be the case many years ago, but is now considered old fashioned and intrusive by all major trans rights advocates. According to them, this should be the case no longer, with the advent of "Self ID", which has no medical gatekeeping. The idea is that if you identify as female, you ARE female. Questioning this is largely deemed transphobic. So no, this is not the current situation, and hasn't been for some years now.

Transsexual people who underwent the medical gatekeeping process and diagonoses of gender dysphoria are often referred to as "truscum' by trans advocates.

So we're back to how do we ensure that only the genuine trans people gain access.

And whether, either way, the right of those male people should trump the rights that women want and need to have based on the fact that we are female people.

Because at the moment this seems like an unpoliceable scenario that benefits male people to the detriment of female people.

This is where I always get stuck. There can be no meaningful cognition without a concept to be the subject of it, and cognition of being "this" rather than "that" requires differentiation between two concepts.

So a concept of the "woman" they are as opposed to the "man" they are not (or vice versa) must be there in some shape or form, even if it's not verbalised.

When a person with a male body says "I am really a woman" they obviously don't mean "I am a person with a female body" because they aren't.

Posters on this board from time to time have also said that they don't mean "my character conforms to social stereotypes of feminity'" either, which is fair enough, going by the behaviour of some transwomen, who certainly don't.

So what do they mean by being a woman if it's not their body and it's not their character?

It's not nice thinking about men like that, is it? Would you like to share a toilet with one of them? is that the sort of thing women should just 'put up with'?

To legally or medically change your gender you need diagnosis / assessment.

Regarding the rest its a moot point as above.

The vast majority of single sex provision (e.g. toilets) always has, and always will, rely on self ID.

This goes for people who are not trans as much as it does for people who are trans.

I do not have to prove I am female to enter the female toilet.

We do not have barriers on toilets scanning our chromosomes or relying on people showing documentation to enter. Nor is this practical/ feasible.

This will be the same with or without Trump's executive order.

Sorry - my previous message was meant to link to yours above but I lost the quote somehow.

The reality, as experienced and observed by many women. Look up "transwidows" and listen to their stories.

A great many "trans women" are in fact quite open about this aspect of their lives as "women". You can tell by the fetishized wanking videos a great many post on social media (not to mention the sexual offences stats of "trans women" prisoners which are the same as or worse than other males)

How come you're unaware of this? It's been open knowledge for several years now, and, aside from the criminal aspects, often proudly advocated.

Autogynephilia (not to mention transvestism, a term which mysteriously appears to have been memory-holed) has long been a key feature of many "trans women's" experiences of supposed "womanhood". Ditto "sissification porn".

And this is what self ID is about. The vast majority of men who id as "trans women" do not in fact have diagnoses of gender dysphoria and would not meet the criteria for that. This, in fact, was what the prior gatekeeping model was for; it was designed to keep such individuals out. You must know this, surely?

So what do they mean by being a woman if it's not their body and it's not their character?

This.

How come you're unaware of this? It's been open knowledge for several years now, and, aside from the criminal aspects, often proudly advocated.

Lostcat has no true Scotsmanned them away with one wave of a hand.

Reality.

I would like you to actually answer the question, at what point does this man become a woman? In your scenario.

These are really good questions and honestly I cannot answer them.

But this is what it is to be trans - it is an automatic cognitive understanding of self as female despite having male physical characteristics. It's not something a person typically has any control over/ something that can be changed, and it can be deeply disorienting and painful.

This is how I've sometimes had it described to me by children and young people:

"I just feel it in my body. My bones. my heart".

"It's like this complete disconnect between idea of self and physical embodiment of self".

"I knew I would have to be a boy in school in stuff, but in my head I just thought 'no I'm a girl', and when I imagined myself I always imagined a girl".

We do not have barriers on toilets scanning our chromosomes or relying on people showing documentation to enter. Nor is this practical/ feasible.

Previously we took it for granted that people using the women's toilets were female. And just looking at them was enough to check that, because humans are very good at recognising sex.

If we saw them as male, we could challenge them and if necessary and possible, could rely on support from other users/staff.

If any male can enter women's toilets and expect not to challenged, in case he claims trans status, and women can no longer expect support, then that is no longer true. Women have to just suck up the risk and the loss of privacy and dignity, or self-exclude. That's any male, including predators and fetishists of all kinds.

But this is what it is to be trans - it is an automatic cognitive understanding of self as female despite having male physical characteristics. It's not something a person typically has any control over/ something that can be changed, and it can be deeply disorienting and painful.

At what point between knowing he is a man and fathering kids is this cognition switch between automatic cognition as a man to one as a woman?