Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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
AlisonDonut · 27/01/2025 10:35

But your experience doesn't demonstrate that women are safer by excluding trans people from toilets.

It is about excluding MEN and BOYS from FEMALE toilets.

The rate of sexual assaults in mixed sex/gender neutral toilets skyrocketed after being changed from single sex.

The ability for men to enter female toilets and install micro cameras means women and girls are filmed without their knowledge and it is an epidemic in various countries around the world.

The ability to report a man exposing his penis in female changing rooms if he 'says he is a woman' means incidents like the WII SPA one is happening again, all over the world. Note, the woman gets kicked out and loses all opportunities to then use that space whilst the man, in that case a known sex offender, gets access all areas.

This has all been documented and you are free to look into it as and when you want to.

NecessaryScene · 27/01/2025 10:36

I'm not in favour of gender neutral toilets. We can still have women's toilets and you can still report men for being in them; we can do this while including trans people.

How generous. What would be the point of reporting a man be in this universe?

You're the one now having the bizarre idea - that a man reported and challenged in this situation would for some reason not claim to be trans, given that that's his let-me-do-whatever-I-want pass.

What sort of man would enter a woman's toilet and not manage to figure that out? How stupid do you think men are?

Helleofabore · 27/01/2025 10:36

Greyskybluesky · 27/01/2025 10:30

It is saying, just because a male can access any space they want, we shouldn’t exclude this sub-group of male people.

Yes, but some men are going to attack women anyway @Helleofabore. So let's not bother trying to do anything about that. To quote, "men have plenty of access to women without pretending to be trans!"

How many times have we read this on this board over the years?

Yep.

It really shows the lack of consistency in the formation of what can only be described as an idealist and ideological approach.

I am very sorry greysky that your experience has effectively been dismissed because apparently, some male people have to be included in female single sex spaces despite the complete lack of evidence that they have a risk profile the same as female people generally (and the evidence to the contrary ).

Helleofabore · 27/01/2025 10:39

Greyskybluesky · 27/01/2025 10:32

I'm glad you responded to this comment of mine with an agree emoji, @Lostcat. Confirmation that you don't/won't understand it.

Wow!

NecessaryScene · 27/01/2025 10:39

The ability to report a man exposing his penis in female changing rooms if he 'says he is a woman' means incidents like the WII SPA one is happening again, all over the world.

In the Wi Spa case, the man didn't even need to claim anything himself - a male bystander with no awareness of who he was immediately started attacking the woman making the report for being anti-trans. Because clearly if a man is in there, he must be trans, right?

That is the consistent pattern - men in female spaces being assumed to be "trans" simply by their presence, making them immediately unchallengeable.

What was that set of posters "if you see someone in here who you think doesn't belong - they know better than you" or something?

Greyskybluesky · 27/01/2025 10:39

Helleofabore · 27/01/2025 10:39

Wow!

Twice!

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 10:40

NecessaryScene · 27/01/2025 10:36

I'm not in favour of gender neutral toilets. We can still have women's toilets and you can still report men for being in them; we can do this while including trans people.

How generous. What would be the point of reporting a man be in this universe?

You're the one now having the bizarre idea - that a man reported and challenged in this situation would for some reason not claim to be trans, given that that's his let-me-do-whatever-I-want pass.

What sort of man would enter a woman's toilet and not manage to figure that out? How stupid do you think men are?

Edited

The point is - whether he claims to be trans or not is completely irrelevant. It's not a crime to enter a toilet, it's a crime to sexually assault someone.

If a man wants to sexually assault a woman he can enter a toilet to do so, regardless of claiming to be trans. The whole debate about trans people is a total red herring/ irrelevant.

The statistics on gender neutral toilets have nothing to do with trans people. I'm not in favour of gender neutral toilets. We can have sex segregated toilets and still include trans people (which is, in fact, the current majority status quo as toilets have, and always will be, based on self ID for reasons already covered).

Helleofabore · 27/01/2025 10:43

NecessaryScene · 27/01/2025 10:39

The ability to report a man exposing his penis in female changing rooms if he 'says he is a woman' means incidents like the WII SPA one is happening again, all over the world.

In the Wi Spa case, the man didn't even need to claim anything himself - a male bystander with no awareness of who he was immediately started attacking the woman making the report for being anti-trans. Because clearly if a man is in there, he must be trans, right?

That is the consistent pattern - men in female spaces being assumed to be "trans" simply by their presence, making them immediately unchallengeable.

What was that set of posters "if you see someone in here who you think doesn't belong - they know better than you" or something?

They have popped up in numerous places now.

They are out there by the support groups for trangender people. It is yet another inconsistency in the arguments that have been shaped by those groups and are then repeated here on MN. And the people who repeat those scripted lines don’t seem to ever acknowledge those inconsistencies.

Helleofabore · 27/01/2025 10:44

Greyskybluesky · 27/01/2025 10:39

Twice!

Fucking hell!

This is like the conversation that had to be had around the laughing emoji. These reaction emojis are being used to harass posters in private.

AliceNutterWasAWoman · 27/01/2025 10:46

Ending the patriarchy by queering biology can never work.

Firstly, the patriarchy can still see who the biological women are and who the biological men are. There is no sex change occuring, there is simply unconvincing mimicry of secondary sex characteristics and attempts to project sex-stereotypes.

Secondly, patriarchy is already conscripting this movement to its own ends. @Lostcat , you are making the world less safe for women and girls. Academics in ivory towers are being used by an entity far older and more well entrenched than they ever realised, in their privilige.

Greyskybluesky · 27/01/2025 10:47

The point is - whether he claims to be trans or not is completely irrelevant. It's not a crime to enter a toilet, it's a crime to sexually assault someone.
If a man wants to sexual assault a woman he can enter a toilet to do so, regardless of claiming to be trans.

Just keep talking and proving you don't get it Lostcat

Greyskybluesky · 27/01/2025 10:51

Helleofabore · 27/01/2025 10:44

Fucking hell!

This is like the conversation that had to be had around the laughing emoji. These reaction emojis are being used to harass posters in private.

I think it's illuminating that the poster has used that particular emoji twice to respond to me in private but hasn't actually engaged with me on that specific point in the open on this board.

RoyalCorgi · 27/01/2025 10:53

The point is - whether he claims to be trans or not is completely irrelevant. It's not a crime to enter a toilet, it's a crime to sexually assault someone.
If a man wants to sexual assault a woman he can enter a toilet to do so, regardless of claiming to be trans.

This isn't about committing a crime. The fact that it's not a crime for a man to enter women's toilets is irrelevant. The point is that we have separate men's and women's toilets for a reason. (Two reasons, in fact: safety and privacy.)

The salient fact is that humans can't change sex. Men can't become women. It doesn't really matter how much you bang on about trans people: if you accept, as most of us do, that men can't become women, then men have no place in women's toilets, however they identify.

Helleofabore · 27/01/2025 10:54

If a man wants to sexually assault a woman he can enter a toilet to do so, regardless of claiming to be trans. The whole debate about trans people is a total red herring/ irrelevant.

Again, you don’t seem to be able to acknowledge several significant points.

Some being:

Female people are being educated to not report male people who are in female toilets and changing rooms, so therefore the historical informal and formal reporting systems are now gone. Apparently, we can now only report if some kind of incident occurs. And women cannot tell other women there is a male person in that space for fear of negative repercussions.

The need for single sex spaces is not just because of direct physical safety. They are for female people feeling safe from any male interaction, for not sharing any of that space with a male person.

And of course, how many of these male people will use the opportunity to enter, to not attack at that time, but to scope out their means of doing so? All the while, female people cannot do anything about alerting security or police that a male person is in the single sex space they should not be in.

There are more.

If a man wants to sexually assault a woman he can enter a toilet to do so, regardless of claiming to be trans. The whole debate about trans people is a total red herring/ irrelevant.

No. It is not irrelevant.

AlisonDonut · 27/01/2025 10:58

Remember that teenage girl who was harassed in Primark and who did a video on it and took great pain through her tears to explain that she 'wasn't transphobic'.

Yeah, nobody has been hurt by this. It DOES make a difference to women's safety. It DOES have everything to do with this ideology that allowsmen in female spaces.

The statistics on gender neutral toilets have nothing to do with trans people. I'm not in favour of gender neutral toilets. We can have sex segregated toilets and still include trans people (which is in fact the current majority status quo as toilets have and always will be based on self ID). It will make no difference to women's safety.

Helleofabore · 27/01/2025 10:58

Greyskybluesky · 27/01/2025 10:51

I think it's illuminating that the poster has used that particular emoji twice to respond to me in private but hasn't actually engaged with me on that specific point in the open on this board.

The message from MNHQ about posters who you feel are using the reaction emojis to harass you is to report your posts and explain what is happening. And if the poster has a history of this, MN will issue a warning.

Certainly, MNHQ are still gathering data on how those emojis are working so your reports will contribute to their decision about them.

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 11:03

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 10:40

The point is - whether he claims to be trans or not is completely irrelevant. It's not a crime to enter a toilet, it's a crime to sexually assault someone.

If a man wants to sexually assault a woman he can enter a toilet to do so, regardless of claiming to be trans. The whole debate about trans people is a total red herring/ irrelevant.

The statistics on gender neutral toilets have nothing to do with trans people. I'm not in favour of gender neutral toilets. We can have sex segregated toilets and still include trans people (which is, in fact, the current majority status quo as toilets have, and always will be, based on self ID for reasons already covered).

Edited

But from a rights point of view this is unfair on female bodied people.

It puts women at risk of harm.

More women are being harmed by the fact that we can no longer tell male bodied people (even the ones that feel cognitively female) to stay out of women's single sex spaces.

I will ask again on what basis do you think laws should be enacted that favour male bodied people over female bodied people?

To me laws do not work in this way and should not because they remove the rights of a class of people (female bodied).

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 11:06

And as for sport, my daughter is an aspiring professional sports woman.

In her sport any cognitively female male bodied person is without a doubt going to displace female bodied people due to anatomical differences.

Why should female bodied people as a class of people lose opportunities when male bodied people can still enjoy sport with other male bodied people even though they feel cognitively female?

Helleofabore · 27/01/2025 11:09

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 11:06

And as for sport, my daughter is an aspiring professional sports woman.

In her sport any cognitively female male bodied person is without a doubt going to displace female bodied people due to anatomical differences.

Why should female bodied people as a class of people lose opportunities when male bodied people can still enjoy sport with other male bodied people even though they feel cognitively female?

Edited

I agree. I have had a number of elite level sportswomen in my family and in my life. If they had been bumped out because of male inclusion, they certainly would never have progressed to achieve their potential.

It is an act of misogyny to include any male in female sports.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 11:10

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 10:01

Hey, I can't spend all day on mumsnet again 😅but I just wanted to try and offer some kind of response here.

I am not an expert in the policy of sex segregation and I don't have fixed or definite opinions on this. And I think it's complex.

The answers in each case would surely depend on the space, what the needs of service users are and evaluation of various risks are etc.. These would be different in every context.

As I stated earlier, the vast majority of sex segregated spaces - toilets/ changing, etc., have always been and always will be based on self ID, whether a person is trans or not. There is no other practical way to manage this. I don't have to prove I am female to enter the female toilet. This will remain the case with or without Trump's EO. We cannot manage access to these spaces through biological tests, legal documents, or subjective judgements about gender presentation/ conformity. All of these measures are impractical and have harmful/ discriminatory consequences.

When it comes to prisons - the situation is entirely different. I am by no means an expert in prison security management, but there are security provisions for isolating prisoners who pose a risk.

Sports is a whole other matter again - and both the ethical and scientific considerations are much more complex than the public discourse cares to recognise.

What I do think is that the discourse on "sex-segregation" (one group of people "trumping" another group of people, etc) is based on a number of really problematic assumptions/ stereotypes/ prejudices. These include:

  • The naturalisation of sexual violence (the idea that sexual violence in rooted in biology - not patriarchy)
  • The bizarre idea that sexual predatory men who want to assault women would choose do so by pretending to be trans and entering a sex segregated space - (men have plenty of access to women without pretending to be trans!)
  • The total dismissal of trans people's experience - the idea that trans people are fakers/ pretenders. The idea that being trans is an "ideology" "philosophy", "about menz feels", a type of sexual perversion, a deliberate choice made out of a desire to erode women's boundaries etc etc, and all the other awful and flagrantly transphobic things people say on these forums about trans people.

Where I feel able to intervene and usefully contribute to this debate is regarding the last bullet point, as I have expertise in this area. Furthermore, I think this is the first and most fundamental issue to be addressed. We will never be able to organise society fairly and reasonably while people continue to view trans people in this way.

That's why I have (once again) taken the time to try to explain on this thread what being trans is. Being trans is simply something that some people are - another axis of diversity like any other. It has nothing to do with ideology or philosophy; it has nothing to do with gender stereotypes; it has nothing to do with being a pervert; it has nothing to do with "claiming that a person can change sex".

Sex has multiple components - one of these components is cognitive. In the overwhelming majority of cases the different components of sex align, in some minority cases they don't. Just as a person's chromosomes may not align with their sexual phenotype, a person's cognitive sex may not align with their other (observable, physical) sex characteristics This is not "wrong"; it's just different. Therapy to try to change someone's cognitive sex to align with their physical sex characteristics is rarely effective and usually profoundly harmful. Someone's cognitive sex is not something over which a person typically has any control. Cognitive sex typically develops very early in life and is highly resistant to change. It very possibly has a biological underpinning. It can be deeply painful when it is denied/ repressed by self and others. This is why many trans people seek social, legal and medical transition, because doing so is fundamental to their dignity and wellbeing. This is not an attack on (non-trans) women, or a movement to redefine their persons, any more than medical, social, legal interventions for people with DSDs is an attack on women without DSDs, or a movement to re-define their persons.

I hope that makes sense to at least someone - anyone - reading this thread.

Thank you for your respectful engagement @lifeturnsonadime and willingness to consider different points. That is so appreciated.

Edited

Leaving you all with this.

Greyskybluesky · 27/01/2025 11:12

We read it once @Lostcat. We don't need it again. Your points have been challenged and you've failed to engage properly. That tells us everything we need to know.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 11:14

Greyskybluesky · 27/01/2025 11:12

We read it once @Lostcat. We don't need it again. Your points have been challenged and you've failed to engage properly. That tells us everything we need to know.

no problem. Your opinion (of me and my engagement ) is acknowledged and noted. That’s all I meant with the 👍🏻 emoji.

My perspective and experience of this thread and this debate is obviously very different.

”some recollections may differ” in the ingeniously diplomatic words of our late queen . ☺️

AliceNutterWasAWoman · 27/01/2025 11:16

The proponents of this ideology, like @Lostcat know that it is unfair and dangerous for women. They know that women (and trans-people) are going to be harmed in many different ways. There is no point talking to them about sports or toilets or prisons. They don't care because the ends justifies the means in their view. We have to break a few eggs to make a utopian omelette.

It reminds me of the stalinists at uni arguing that the loss of a few million people was a small price to pay

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 11:23

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 11:10

Leaving you all with this.

@Lostcat

It's a shame you won't engage further with my posts. I am really interested why you think that female bodied as opposed to female cognitive people's need should be disregarded when it comes to writing laws?

Any chance you could respond to this?

MrsOvertonsWindow · 27/01/2025 11:24

When @lostcat talks about "sex segregation" and states upthread at 10.01 :

"...What I do think is that the discourse on "sex-segregation" (one group of people "trumping" another group of people, etc) is based on a number of really problematic assumptions/ stereotypes/ prejudices". * *

That's the patriarchy in action right there!

It reframes the evidenced and well founded experiences of women and girls of sexual and physical violence. It's an almost Talibanesque view of women's right to safety, privacy and dignity - denying women any agency, instead insisting that women and girls will serve up their undressed bodies when required by a certain group of men.

Viewing single sex spaces as "problematic" or evidence of "prejudice" is effectively campaigning to de criminalise voyeurism and indecent exposure - the latter being well evidenced as a gateway crime to other sexual crimes against women and girls.

It's always a jolt to see such open hostility to women and girls being allowed to retain hard fought for single sex spaces but it's also an education. When someone shows you who they really are and all that......

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.