Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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
eatfigs · 22/01/2025 09:38

It is anti-trans, and that's a good thing, because trans ideological beliefs when implemented as policy - which is what this Executive Order is about - undeniably curtail women's rights.

Lostcat · 22/01/2025 09:40

Circumferences · 22/01/2025 09:37

Oh give over.
Trans ideology is a blatantly significant threat to women and women's rights.
Anti abortion laws are yet another significant threat.
Do you get that women are facing a double edged sword under patriarchy? Turn safely away from attack only to face another.
Both are as real as the previous threat.

Trans people are not a threat to women’s rights.

Criminalising abortion kills women.

SpidersAreShitheads · 22/01/2025 09:46

Circumferences · 22/01/2025 09:34

It basically implies trans identities are fictional.

Well interestingly, trans identities could be argued to be as fictional as any other metaphysical belief.

Don’t misunderstand me - I don’t believe in trans identities myself. I think it’s a fictional thing which somehow the world has been persuaded to accept as real.

What I was clumsily trying to say is that I’m surprised it went that far - I thought it would outline the prevalence of biological sex without also openly being so critical of gender.

I thought it would pretty much ignore gender while outlining the significance of sex, and clarifying the sole use of biological sex in law.

Perhaps the fact the statement so openly dismisses gender is partly why it’s labelled as anti-trans?

On reflection though, it probably would have been labelled as anti-trans anyway as anything other than complete and unquestioning acceptance is usually “transphobic” anyway 🤷‍♀️

SpidersAreShitheads · 22/01/2025 09:51

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 22/01/2025 09:31

It is more correct. It also gets around anyone potentially being identified incorrectly at birth due to a dsd. For example if they used identified at birth it would set in law that someone with 46xy 5-ard is female and hence entitled to be in female sports (Caster Semenya). Stating conception prevents that, it's a very well thought out piece from someone who knows the ins and outs.

Ah yes, good point. I hadn’t considered that.

I think that because we know their views on abortion and reproduction rights, and the centring of men’s rights within women’s healthcare, any reference to in utero rights will be met with suspicion about what might be coming next.

Chersfrozenface · 22/01/2025 09:56

..any reference to in utero rights will be met with suspicion about what might be coming next.

It's not a reference to in utero rights, though, just in utero facts.

FarriersGirl · 22/01/2025 10:41

I think the EO is dismissive of gender identity because there is no definition of what this actually is/means. Whereas biology of reproduction and sex are established scientific facts. @BaronessEllarawrosaurus is absolutely right to point out the importance of sex being determined at conception. The EO is a well written, clear factual document is what makes it a refreshing read.

SpidersAreShitheads · 22/01/2025 15:01

Chersfrozenface · 22/01/2025 09:56

..any reference to in utero rights will be met with suspicion about what might be coming next.

It's not a reference to in utero rights, though, just in utero facts.

I wasn’t denying that? I’ve already said repeatedly I agree that sex is immutable and fixed at conception. The point that a PP made and that I agree with is that it’s possible the wording might be used to further their pro-life policies which we already know they’re keen to push…

duc748 · 22/01/2025 15:56

Trans people are not a threat to women’s rights.

When a man chooses to insert himself into women's spaces because he's wearing a skirt and lippy, there's a threat right there. Because he's saying, my rights supersede yours.

IwantToRetire · 22/01/2025 19:04

Interesting to read comments but .........

Even these dont address the primary issue of women's sex based rights.

No one is talking about, for instance, is this type of legal directive what those of us who believe in women's sex based rights.

I am not surprised the media is hysterically calling it anti trans because they, as part of the partriarchy dont even register women, let alone women having rights.

The directive is anti trans. It is a political position (whatever the motivation) that states biology is a fact, and governments / countries should not lie about it.

So by default women's sex based rights are "anti trans" because if you believe sex is a fact, there can be no trans.

That is the reality.

So strange that no one, not even hear addresses the basic purpose of this EO.

The fact that this has come about because of a republican (or rather coopter of the Republican Party) doesn't invalidate the basic fact.

Democrats shot themselves in the foot but not going with reality, and instead campaigning for the end of gender stereotyping, which was a common campaign in the 70s and 80s. ie saying because you are one sex or the other, doesn't not stop you being or expressing yourself in a way that social "norms" have claimed are only "natural" to one sex or the other.

That is the really progressive position.

Not some virtue signalling nonsense that means you think it is preferable for people to mutilate their bodies rather than the create the more far reaching campaign or ending gender stereotyping.

Does no one, even on FWR, want to stand up for women's sex based rights.

Or feel you have to apologise if you do?

OP posts:
MarieDeGournay · 22/01/2025 19:37

I think this is a useful definition:
(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.

It's simple, to-the-point and does not say 'there are only two genders', it allows for the existence of umpteen genders, if people want them - 'existing on an infinite continuum.'
Umpteen [legally irrelevant] genders, if you want, but only two sexes. That pretty much sums it up for me.

I am capable of maintaining more than one concept in my brain at a time, so, for the benefit of Lostcat and others who find that difficult to grasp:

I despise Trump, I would never vote for him or anyone with his persona and politics, I recognise him as an enemy of other women's rights such as the right to abortion, I oppose just about all of his other policies that I've read about AND I think this specific EO is very well written, clear, concise, grounded in fact and reality, and I hope it is taken up by other governments.

I somehow manage to hold all those thoughts at once, incredible though that may seem..

IwantToRetire · 22/01/2025 19:51

I somehow manage to hold all those thoughts at once, incredible though that may seem..

Its almost as thought some still seem to think women just dont have the brains to think things through.

Although of course to think that about women, means you think biological sex is a reality!

OP posts:
Perfect28 · 22/01/2025 20:49

Do you really want to be on the same side as trump? When all is said and done?

He is literally a sexual predator.

oakleaffy · 22/01/2025 20:56

Circumferences · 22/01/2025 00:05

The statement is so refreshing it's like a large glass of water on the most hot and dry day.
Times are truly changing.

If the woke nonsense hadn't over reached to the extent it did, we wouldn't be left with Trump in charge but more fool them, because now this is what we have.

Exactly this .
XY men are going to Women’s groups ( meant for vulnerable XX women, yet XY’s were turning up even when specific nurses came along to talk about periods and Women’s issues.

The XY banged on about when the XY started their periods.

A biological impossibility.

Plus XY in Women’s sports.
It’s so wrong.

eatfigs · 22/01/2025 21:03

Perfect28 · 22/01/2025 20:49

Do you really want to be on the same side as trump? When all is said and done?

He is literally a sexual predator.

Hitler was a vegetarian.

oakleaffy · 22/01/2025 21:07

duc748 · 22/01/2025 15:56

Trans people are not a threat to women’s rights.

When a man chooses to insert himself into women's spaces because he's wearing a skirt and lippy, there's a threat right there. Because he's saying, my rights supersede yours.

And mansplaining in women only groups!

Women only groups aren’t “women only” if they allow men in , just because the man says he’s a woman.

duc748 · 22/01/2025 21:07

Perfect28 · 22/01/2025 20:49

Do you really want to be on the same side as trump? When all is said and done?

He is literally a sexual predator.

Did you read @MarieDeGournay 's post? And that is your considered response?

IwantToRetire · 22/01/2025 22:21

Perfect28 · 22/01/2025 20:49

Do you really want to be on the same side as trump? When all is said and done?

He is literally a sexual predator.

I wonder when people post comments like this is they have bothered to read what other on the thread have already said.

Agreeing with a policy doesn't mean you are "on the side of" whoever puts forward the policy.

What is so depressing is the inability to discuss the issue.

Or maybe the purpose of posts like this is to just bore other posters to death and just close down a thread.

Am still waiting to hear of any ideas of how this will work in practice.

OP posts:
OP posts:
DuesToTheDirt · 22/01/2025 23:10

Lostcat · 22/01/2025 02:09

I support women’s rights. I don’t support fascist, anti trans ideology or legislation, which is what this is.

I don't believe it is possible to support women's rights unless we define women in a way that excludes men.

TempestTost · 23/01/2025 01:19

banivani · 22/01/2025 07:35

I partly agree with @SpidersAreShitheads. A government (to be) that openly dismantles abortion rights isn’t going to be primarily pro-woman or come from a place of profound feminist analysis. If they did they’d speak of sex, not gender. They’re not opposing gender ideology really, they just interpret it differently.

It does speak of sex. It's actually really clear.

In so far as Trump himself used gender, he seems to have done so in the way most Americans do, which is to mean the same thing as sex. Not as any kind of philosophical or ideological statement.

TempestTost · 23/01/2025 01:24

SpidersAreShitheads · 22/01/2025 09:51

Ah yes, good point. I hadn’t considered that.

I think that because we know their views on abortion and reproduction rights, and the centring of men’s rights within women’s healthcare, any reference to in utero rights will be met with suspicion about what might be coming next.

If we learned anything from all of this it should be that it is a huge mistake to fudge on scientific material facts just because we think it might serve an ideological end we approve or disapprove of.

It isn't actually talking about a right of the fetus, it is talking about biology. But even if admitting that a fetus has a sex somehow implied a right you don't want to grant, that's a bridge you would be obliged to cross in arguing for your position. It might make it harder but why should it be an easy ride? It should be rooted in reality.

Grammarnut · 23/01/2025 13:20

Lostcat · 22/01/2025 02:09

I support women’s rights. I don’t support fascist, anti trans ideology or legislation, which is what this is.

Explain why a piece of legislation is anti-trans when it talks about making sure that women have their sex-based rights for dignity, safety etc. What is anti-trans about objecting to men (however they identify) using women's showers, where women will most likely be naked.
NB If you support men who identify as women in women's spaces e.g. lavatories, showers, changing rooms, refuges, prizes etc. then you do not support women's rights.

Grammarnut · 23/01/2025 13:30

It's a good statement. It does not need to say '“Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”'
Paragraphs f and g could be omitted without affecting the re-introduction of sex-based rights.
To that extent it is anti-trans, but I suspect whoever drafted this EO needed to make it crystal clear that gender identity was not to replace sex. It has achieved that.

Grammarnut · 23/01/2025 13:52

Wikipedia is entirely captured and pro-trans on this issue. I have no idea how the editors deal with factual articles about historical personages, whose sex is always obvious, and who demonstrate the sex binary e.g. in being fathers, or mothers. They must have very confused brains.

It's annoying because Wikipedia is a useful source on historical events usually giving a wide list of references to consult.

Runor · 23/01/2025 14:31

IWantTo Retire I think that this is a good EO. You’re right, it doesn’t do much, on its own, to further women’s rights. What it does do is clearly define, in law (ish) what is, and importantly, what is not meant by ‘woman’ etc. in order to reclaim our existing, in law rights, we need this definition. In order to further women’s rights we need this definition. It’s the same result as asking in the UK for legal clarity on the term ‘woman’.

I don’t really believe that the Trump government will use this to further women’s rights, but it does at least reinstate what we had (which hasn’t subsequently been changed anyway). I hope this becomes more than just an EO so that it can’t be easily changed by an incoming Dem government - if they haven’t learned their lesson now.

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