Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
duc748 · 26/01/2025 19:25

Again, when did all this start happening? Some time around the first decade of the twenty-first century? How come we heard so little of it prior to then? Especially as, as you contend, social media contagion is an insignificant factor.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 19:25

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 19:21

Except this isn't "progress" is it? It is dismantling important, relatively recent rights that women had to fight for and managed to gain for ourselves against men

Nor is it some "new" scientific understanding. It's false. It has no bearing in reality.

Please answer my question about what this "automatic/ direct experience/ understanding of self" as female, which appears to be solely a perception or "essence", have to do with the physical reality of being the half of the human race that is biologically female and all that this has entailed for women in across the globe in reality?

Because I see no correlation whatsoever. Can you show us where there is any or how your "automatic understanding of self as female" bears any relation to what happens or has happened to actual females globally on the basis of their belonging to the biological sex class of female?

Please answer my question about what this "automatic/ direct experience/ understanding of self" as female, which appears to be solely a perception or "essence", have to do with the physical reality of being the half of the human race that is biologically female and all that this has entailed for women in across the globe in reality?

Trans women and (non trans) women have their cognitive sex in common. They differ in their physical/ observable sex characteristics.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 19:27

duc748 · 26/01/2025 19:25

Again, when did all this start happening? Some time around the first decade of the twenty-first century? How come we heard so little of it prior to then? Especially as, as you contend, social media contagion is an insignificant factor.

No trans people have existed throughout human history and across all cultures. We just have more recognition/ understanding/ visibility in contemporary societies - which has also provoked the type of backlash as observed on this thread - as with lots of other axes of human diversity.

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 19:29

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 19:25

Please answer my question about what this "automatic/ direct experience/ understanding of self" as female, which appears to be solely a perception or "essence", have to do with the physical reality of being the half of the human race that is biologically female and all that this has entailed for women in across the globe in reality?

Trans women and (non trans) women have their cognitive sex in common. They differ in their physical/ observable sex characteristics.

Ah, so you DO have a "cognitive" understanding of what "female" is after all.

As I've explained, I have an objective, observable reference point for that I can define clearly and easily. So it isn't a mysterious "inner knowing" in any way. There is nothing "unconscious" about it. I know I am female because I am physically a member of the female sex. There is nothing more than that that defines me as "female".

Whereas you claim your understanding is based on something that you can't define and is entirely subjective.

How are these the same in any way?

MrsOvertonsWindow · 26/01/2025 19:29

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 19:25

Please answer my question about what this "automatic/ direct experience/ understanding of self" as female, which appears to be solely a perception or "essence", have to do with the physical reality of being the half of the human race that is biologically female and all that this has entailed for women in across the globe in reality?

Trans women and (non trans) women have their cognitive sex in common. They differ in their physical/ observable sex characteristics.

Only women give birth - no matter how desperately some try to insist otherwise. "Cognitive sex" or what goes on inside a man's head has no bearing on the reality of women's lives and the potential for sex based discrimination

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 19:32

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 19:27

No trans people have existed throughout human history and across all cultures. We just have more recognition/ understanding/ visibility in contemporary societies - which has also provoked the type of backlash as observed on this thread - as with lots of other axes of human diversity.

Edited

Explain how we would recognise "trans people" in history. It seems you do have a definition after all.

What is the difference between a "trans person" and a "non trans person" in your view?

Which historical figures would you say were "trans"?

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 19:33

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 19:32

Explain how we would recognise "trans people" in history. It seems you do have a definition after all.

What is the difference between a "trans person" and a "non trans person" in your view?

Which historical figures would you say were "trans"?

Edited

There’s a tonne of historical literature that evidences the existence of trans people in history. Read some.

Chersfrozenface · 26/01/2025 19:34

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 19:33

There’s a tonne of historical literature that evidences the existence of trans people in history. Read some.

Links / bibliography, please.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 19:36

Chersfrozenface · 26/01/2025 19:34

Links / bibliography, please.

I think I have given you enough of my time. I’m sure you are capable of researching this yourself.

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 19:36

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 19:33

There’s a tonne of historical literature that evidences the existence of trans people in history. Read some.

No, that's not good enough, just another deflection because you can't answer. I know (from what I've read, incidentally) that some people who are "claimed" to be trans historically. I can't say I agree.Convince me otherwise.

Why don't YOU define it here. Since it appears so self evident to you, it should be easy to do. Why can't you just say?

And are you going to answer the other questions?

My previous question again, in case you have forgotten:

"As I've explained, I have an objective, observable reference point for that I can define clearly and easily. So it isn't a mysterious "inner knowing" in any way. There is nothing "unconscious" about it. I know I am female because I am physically a member of the female sex. There is nothing more than that that defines me as "female".
Whereas you claim your understanding is based on something that you can't define and is entirely subjective.
How are these the same in any way?"

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/01/2025 19:39

Trans women and (non trans) women have their cognitive sex in common.

I have zero in common with "trans women", as a woman.

Chersfrozenface · 26/01/2025 19:42

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 19:36

I think I have given you enough of my time. I’m sure you are capable of researching this yourself.

Are you referring to women who disguised themselves as men in order to gain education or undertake activities from which women were banned?

Or homosexual men who dressed in women's clothes in order to subvert and satirise attitudes towards them?

Or artistes who wore clothes stereotypical of the other sex in order to provide entertainment and earn a living?

Because none of them claimed to actually be the other sex. They cannot be considered "trans".

NecessaryScene · 26/01/2025 19:48

I have zero in common with "trans women", as a woman.

I don't think you get any say in the matter.

The transwoman gets to determine both what's in his own head and in women's heads.

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 26/01/2025 19:54

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 19:25

Please answer my question about what this "automatic/ direct experience/ understanding of self" as female, which appears to be solely a perception or "essence", have to do with the physical reality of being the half of the human race that is biologically female and all that this has entailed for women in across the globe in reality?

Trans women and (non trans) women have their cognitive sex in common. They differ in their physical/ observable sex characteristics.

Nope, our knowledge about sex and the cognitive is based only on our treatment by society and by the biological behavior of our body. No one of the opposite sex can have a cognitive understanding of what that means, they can only ever think they do but they can't "know"

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 20:04

NecessaryScene · 26/01/2025 19:48

I have zero in common with "trans women", as a woman.

I don't think you get any say in the matter.

The transwoman gets to determine both what's in his own head and in women's heads.

And to decide what it is about actual women's own life experiences being treated as women in the world is allowed to be recognised and acknowledged.

Great pity that nobody with just an "automatic cognition that they are female" but not a female body suffered from ANY of the discriminations those with female bodies did, isn't it?

You know, all those discriminations that led to ALL the women's rights legislation we had to have because it was ONLY THE PEOPLE WITH FEMALE BODIES who were treated as property, second class citizens, refused education, property, life outside the home, reproductive autonomy, financial autonomy, sexual autonomy, made to marry men old enough to be their fathers as a child, made to undergo FGM with the sole purpose of removing their sexual pleasure and thus supposedly making them more controllable and "pure" in their reproductive function, refused spaces of their own to be physically safe from violent or sexually abusive men, refused the right to say no to sex with their husbands, expected to "obey" him in the marriage vows and could be beaten if she defied him, refused their own sports where they could compete on an equal and fair footing,...

I suggest LostCat does some reading about the history of women's rights legislation and how it came about, and has a think about whether or not biological men with mysterious "automatic cognitions" that they are somehow female but who have male bodies are in any way the same group of people as the actual, biological females for whom legislation to counter the above had to be fought for every step of the way.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 20:05

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 26/01/2025 19:54

Nope, our knowledge about sex and the cognitive is based only on our treatment by society and by the biological behavior of our body. No one of the opposite sex can have a cognitive understanding of what that means, they can only ever think they do but they can't "know"

As I said.

Cognitive sex is simply the awareness/ recognition/ understanding of ourselves as female/ male/ man / woman. We all have it.

For the vast majority of people, just as their chromosomes, gametes, genitals, hormones all align, their cognitive sex aligns with their physical sex characteristics. This is so common/ obvious that we take this alignment entirely for granted - we presume that one directly/ simply leads to the other - i.e. "I know I am a woman because I was born female".

However, there are some people for whose 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 we know it is the case for some people. It’s not something that a person typically has any control over or can change/ be changed. These people are trans. Being trans in most cases is very likely to have a durable biological underpinning.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/01/2025 20:07

NecessaryScene · 26/01/2025 19:48

I have zero in common with "trans women", as a woman.

I don't think you get any say in the matter.

The transwoman gets to determine both what's in his own head and in women's heads.

Good point.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/01/2025 20:08

Cognitive sex is simply the awareness/ recognition/ understanding of ourselves as female/ male/ man / woman. We all have it.

I know I'm a woman, because I was born female. I have a female body. A man has no such knowledge.

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 20:09

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 20:05

As I said.

Cognitive sex is simply the awareness/ recognition/ understanding of ourselves as female/ male/ man / woman. We all have it.

For the vast majority of people, just as their chromosomes, gametes, genitals, hormones all align, their cognitive sex aligns with their physical sex characteristics. This is so common/ obvious that we take this alignment entirely for granted - we presume that one directly/ simply leads to the other - i.e. "I know I am a woman because I was born female".

However, there are some people for whose 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 we know it is the case for some people. It’s not something that a person typically has any control over or can change/ be changed. These people are trans. Being trans in most cases is very likely to have a durable biological underpinning.

Edited

And as we said, your sense of "misalignment" is based on your own personal "cognition" of what female and male are. It cannot exist without those definitions.

How would a man "know" that he is "female" and not "male" without some sense of what each of those means?

What you are calling "cognitive sex" is ALWAYS based on some reference point, otherwise you wouldn't be able to define whether you were one thing or another.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 20:10

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/01/2025 20:08

Cognitive sex is simply the awareness/ recognition/ understanding of ourselves as female/ male/ man / woman. We all have it.

I know I'm a woman, because I was born female. I have a female body. A man has no such knowledge.

Right. As I said:

This is so common/ obvious that we take this alignment entirely for granted - we presume that one directly/ simply leads to the other - i.e. "I know I am a woman because I was born female".

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/01/2025 20:10

We don't know why this is or what causes it, but we know it is the case for some people.

We don't. We know they think it means something tangible. But I don't agree.

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 20:11

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 20:10

Right. As I said:

This is so common/ obvious that we take this alignment entirely for granted - we presume that one directly/ simply leads to the other - i.e. "I know I am a woman because I was born female".

You haven't answered the questions put to you.

How do you know that what your "inner cognition" is is "female"?

And how do you know that it bears any relation whatsoever to what actual females experience?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/01/2025 20:11

This is so common/ obvious that we take this alignment entirely for granted - we presume that one directly/ simply leads to the other - i.e. "I know I am a woman because I was born female".

Yes @Lostcat I was born female. That's what a woman is. What is a woman, if not an adult female person?

NecessaryScene · 26/01/2025 20:12

Cognitive sex is simply the awareness/ recognition/ understanding of ourselves as female/ male/ man / woman. We all have it.

Hang on...

Again, there is no assessment or evaluation or interpretation of female involved - it's an automatic/ direct experience/ understanding of self. [...] I don't believe I have once on this thread called this "female".

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/01/2025 20:13

So "woman" is sex when it refers to some people, but not others?

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