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.

You recognise/ understand yourself to be a woman. A trans woman understands / recognises themself to be a woman.

The woman is using the definition 'adult human female'. What definition is the transwoman using? And why is he insisting on using the word woman for it? It's taken.

How do I, as a man (by the adult human male definition), know whether or not I'm a woman, as per the transwoman's definition? I've got nothing to go on.

The woman is using the definition 'adult human female'. What definition is the transwoman using? And why is he insisting on using the word woman for it? It's taken.

Exactly. Use another fucking word.

I would argue it is "fascist" to claim that sex-based definitions of women, when ALL our rights have had to be based on what physical sex we are, is somehow a negative thing because it doesn't include "men who identify as women on the basis of a mystery "inner cognition". It is irrelevant to their needs.

Ridiculous and unconvincing, as well.

It's all a bit irrelevant really whether they truly believe themselves to be women or not because the fact remains on a biological level they are not and women need single sex facilities, services and sports on a biological level. Still doesn't mean transwomen should be discriminated against, they shouldn't be sacked or refused suitable housing but that is suitable jobs and housing for people of the male biological sex ie not jobs with a requirement for female sex ie providing personal care to females or housing set up for females ie female dorms in universities.

All this "cognitive sex" stuff is just pseudoscience. It's completely made up, there is nothing to support it.

People are welcome to their personal weird theories but if they want to demand other people accept them and social policy be based on them they are going to need more than that.

This. Not really a great deal more that can be said about it.

If it was even a miniscule bit true, then there would be examples of men who say they are women doing the actual housework rather than just putting the rubber gloves on for photoshoots. FOR INFO SEE: Dave/Debbie Hayton.

Going back to this, I think you are partly right, but that there are several "stages" involved (by "stages" I'm not implying that the person is sitting there reasoning from A to B rather than just feeling it, but I'm trying to tease out the cognitive implications):

1. A visceral feeling that your body "isn't you'' /doesn't represent what you are
2. And so what you are would have been better represented by some other kind of body (whether or not you are actually troubled enough by your present body to need to alter it).
3. And so what you must be is the kind of person who usually has the other kind of body (woman) or possibly a kind of person who is not well represented by either kind of body (non-binary etc).

Stages 1 and 2 don't need any other person as a reference point or comparison at all.
But Stage 3 does, and would produce a different self-definition in a different world. For example a world where humans were all hermaphrodites and had the same kind of body.

So 1 and 2 are internal and independent but the "answer" in 3 is contingent on what appears to be the range of answers available.

I think we can all agree that women’s spaces, services and sports were put in place because of the very real differences between male and female bodies, and (interestingly) male and female behaviours. Note, these differences persist whether the males in question see themselves as men or transwomen.

Because of that, women’s spaces, sports & services need to remain single sex, so the EO definition is very much needed. Males, however they identify, should stay out. If transpeople can show that they need their own stuff to meet their particular needs then they should work towards that rather than trying to take over stuff which is specifically not for them.

I think transpeople would get a much better reception in society in general if they a) stopped trying to take over stuff which isn’t theirs and b) stopped trying to separate confused children from their families - the very people who are best placed and most motivated to keep them safe. Maybe that should have been the approach recommended by Dentons? But then, we’ll never know what question it was that Dentons was trying to answer…..

Why is the word "Trans" needed if some men believe/know they are actually women?. Surely they would call themselves female and women and not trans? Is it because transwomen still retain their male genitals or what? Is that why the distinction is necessary? Seems odd to me that if they believe they are women they shouldn't need another label. But the reason is what? Maybe Malewomen is a better term.

I'm late to the party and am still in a big learning curve about many of the issues involved. I am aware of the incursion of female spaces, sports, prisons, rape crisis centres, DV shelters, hospitals and so though and it has to stop. Now. Farcical nonsense IMV.

Yes.

Again we have a person who is not even transgender again arbitrating who is and is not transgender with such clarity so as to exclude people who have declared themselves as being transgender.

It is always remarkable to see this in action and we so often do, don't we?

I actually think it's carefully worded (it was written by lawyer May Mailman) and attacks the ideology not trans people which is really good. It doesn't say anywhere that trans people should be discriminated against or don't exist, it just says that in policy and law, biological sex is what will be recognised and that gender ideology can't be taught in schools. If trans people identify as something other than their biological sex then that's up to them and they should be entitled to do that without harm or discrimination, but others must not be compelled to agree with them. Law and policy that reflect biological sex and are grounded in material reality make good sense.

Well, googling it (because we have been told that enough work for us has been done and we should do our own research) brings up nothing in the first lot of pages of results. So, does that mean if there is nothing linked up as evidence of this, we have to assume it is a term someone made up?

And if I remember, someone recently attempted to convince us using the term 'subconscious sex'.... oh that is right. So now we have 'cognitive sex' and we still supposedly have this 'cognitive sex' in common with a male who has a brain that simply cannot have a 'cognitive sex' that is female because it by logic can only ever be a cognitive / subconscious understanding of their own body. Which is male.

And someone just declaring that it is not 'impossible' because they believe it is possible, and invoking the earth being flat as an example is trying to appeal to a far into the future possible discovery to explain something that we are supposed to legislate and create policy for now.

For something to be grouped, there needs to be enough commonality to create a grouping.

If a person's perceptions (conscious or subconscious) are unique, then that is a unique experience and should not be categorised as sharing a 'commonality' with another group.

Whether it is conscious or subconscious (just for the sake of discussion) the categorisation of that 'perception' is entirely a conscious act. Because it is then interpreted and evaluated against a range of things and then it is described by that person.

And remember, that description is also a social construct. Whereas, female people will indeed have a range of shared conscious and subconscious perceptions based on having a body type that is common between them. And that 'perception' would remain the same regardless of the words used to describe it. No male person will have this commonality.

Trans-identifying males may think that there is a mismatch between their 'cognitive sex' and their biological sex. They can call that feeling 'non-man' or 'snoogles', but they can't call it 'woman' until that day, thousand of years in the future (if ever), when we can move them into a female body, put them through a process of re-progamming as if they had gone through a female socialisation from birth, eradicate all traces of male programming and finally have scientific evidence that the mismatch has been completely and permanently cured, for all of them. Whether they will still be the same person at that point is the domain of science fiction though.

Exactly. Trans-identified males have a male body and pose the same threat to females as all the other males. The female spaces exist precisely because of that threat. All males are kept out because there is no way of identifying which are dangerous and which aren't. All decent males understand and support that.

Yes.

And there entire 'conscious' experience is that of them interacting the world with a male body, regardless of how they feel inside. There is absolutely no commonality with a female person in that regard at all. The concept does not withstand basic analysis and relies on what at this point can be considered a mythical future discovery to explain it.

It is also then something impossible to diagnose. Because in becoming 'aware' of this feeling, removes the potential for scientists and medical professions to evaluate its authenticity. Because in a person describing it, the diagnosing professional can only ever take someone's word that they have this 'cognitive sex / subconscious sex' as there is no test for it.

Just saw this short interview with Kara Dansky on GB News. It is a good 4 minute run down on the EO and she, of course, keeps the framing on women’s rights.

x.com/gbnews/status/1883608476804366693?s=46

All this "cognitive sex" stuff is just pseudoscience. It's completely made up, there is nothing to support it.

And recognising that makes it easier to explain. Rebecca Reilly-Cooper did this in a lecture many years ago - "Critically Examining the doctrine of gender identity".

Gender identity exists to justify the policies that transsexuals and others want. To get those policies it needs to have certain characteristics, and hence those are what it has been given.

Despite it those characteristics not making any internal logical sense in the theory, being assigned those characteristics makes perfect sense from an "evolutionary policy-making" view.

Snipped some slides from the video badly - let's see if they come out.

Very strong recommendation to watch the whole thing if you haven't - helped me get my head around what people like lostcat were trying and failing to explain many years ago, and I don't recall seeing anything better since.

And it is at this point where a psychiatrist could be asking more pertinent questions and trying to explore what “I am a girl” means to someone who is a boy.

What meaning do they attach to being a girl?
Is it a physical body map thing (I know I have a penis but it doesn’t fee like it’s part of my body) or do they see aspects of behaviour in many girls that are “feminine coded” that they are attracted to, eg closer supportive friendship groups, or not playing physically rough games.

Where does gender fluidity fit into the explanation we have been given?

If someone’s cognitive / subconscious sex changes over time, what does this do to the explanation lostcat has given us?

And where do the 130+ other genders fit in?

Are we really back to "lady brain" again?

And where do the 130+ other genders fit in?

Yes, this is often ignored.

If a man can have a “cognitive sex” that gives him a “woman gender”, what sort of cognitive brain issue does someone have that gives them gender of:

Ambigender
Bigender
Demiboy
Eunuch
Femme
Genderfae
Hirja
Ipsogender
Kathoey
Metagender
Neutrois
Omnigender
Polygender
Xenogender?

Because either the same logic can be applied to these or it’s all made up, and just descriptions of people’s personalities.

It is a similar message packaged with a slightly different wrapping.

I have not been able to understand it past ‘someone’s subsconscious thought creation somehow replicates a female interaction with life despite all stimuli feeding that subconscious thought creation being processed as having a male body as a reference’. And ‘you will not understand because you cannot think like a person with a transgender identity’.

Which to me shows the inconsistency in the explanation.

But I am really looking forward to having it explained because if the explanation cannot be made to be coherent, it fails to be a working explanation. This has been pointed out before to some posters across many threads where those posters have posited explanations that resolve around ‘you cannot know because you are not transgender’.

Where does gender fluidity fit into the explanation we have been given?

That's where Chase Strangio floundered at the US Supreme Court recently - under questioning from the justices she ended up conceding on the "innate/fixed" characteristic, which a number of commentators seem to think has holed that side's case below the waterline.