Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 13:22

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:19

Anyway I think we have exhausted the illustrative purpose of this thought experiment.

This was the proposal.

Women (inclusive of trans people)
Men (inclusive of trans people)
Third space: people with XX chromosomes who don’t want to share with trans women.

It doesn't involve any gender neutral space. It protects your privacy and boundaries so there should be no objection if your goal is simply this.
But your goal isn't boundaries and protection for women. Your goal is to other / exclude/ out and ultimately eliminate trans people.

Edited

I'd stop making childish arguments then, if I were you.

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 27/01/2025 13:22

LostCat is imagining that Room 1 would be full and Room 3 empty. In reality, Room 3 will need to be large while LostCat's Room 1 could be very small indeed. (Room 2 will probably be as it's always been)

There's a legal case upcoming about that too -- the NHS nurses whose management offered them a single-sex cupboard to change in while the TW was offered the whole women's changing room to use (presumably in splendid solitude)

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/01/2025 13:22

This was the proposal.

Yes, and others have a fairer one, so we aren't interested in yours.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:23

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/01/2025 13:22

This was the proposal.

Yes, and others have a fairer one, so we aren't interested in yours.

The purpose of mine was to demonstrate how and why yours isn't the least proportionate, reasonable or fair.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/01/2025 13:25

It is though. "You can pee next to me" women are in the minority so you can all share the third space with all males who identify as women.

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 13:25

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:21

And women say 'no'. Simples.

Except that I'm a woman. So it's not that "simples" is it?

You don't get to consent for other women. Many of whom are very loudly saying no.

Do you not understand how consent works? It's not transferable. It is not up to you to consent to the removal of rights on behalf of the many women who do not consent.

So no, not "simples". You do not speak for me.

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 13:25

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:14

Your lives are not at threat because of the existence of trans people.

I wish you would take that on board, but I understand that you won't.

My daughter's livelihood might be though if she end's up displaced in sporting success by a male bodied person.

The trouble is Lostcat is you lose people when you fail to have a shred of empathy for any one seeking to restore sex based rights and you fail to engage with their issues.

It starts to look very selfish and quite sexist in that it's all about giving away the rights of female bodied people to a group of males.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/01/2025 13:26

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/01/2025 13:25

It is though. "You can pee next to me" women are in the minority so you can all share the third space with all males who identify as women.

What could be fairer than that? Why should all other women suffer for the virtue of a few "inclusive" ones?

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:27

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 13:25

You don't get to consent for other women. Many of whom are very loudly saying no.

Do you not understand how consent works? It's not transferable. It is not up to you to consent to the removal of rights on behalf of the many women who do not consent.

So no, not "simples". You do not speak for me.

I'm not consenting to anything for any other woman. I've never claimed to speak for "women" as a singular collective. Only you have done that.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/01/2025 13:27

You're free to use women only spaces of course, as much as anyone else. But leave your male friends in their own spaces, please.

Beowulfa · 27/01/2025 13:27

Just caught up with this thread after the weekend.

Loving the "cognitive sex" invention. Do you reckon the concept will catch on Lostcat?

You can have your root canal done by a dentist, or a cognitive dentist.
You can have a bank loan, or a cognitive bank loan.
You can call 999 and ask for the fire service, or the cognitive fire service.

Your silly word games are over. Trump's EO clearly states that society needs to base legislation on biological reality. There is no coherent argument for doing otherwise.

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 13:28

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:19

Anyway I think we have exhausted the illustrative purpose of this thought experiment.

This was the proposal.

Women (inclusive of trans people)
Men (inclusive of trans people)
Third space: people with XX chromosomes who don’t want to share with trans women.

It doesn't involve any gender neutral space. It protects your privacy and boundaries so there should be no objection if your goal is simply this.
But your goal isn't boundaries and protection for women. Your goal is to other / exclude/ out and ultimately eliminate trans people.

Edited

Incidentally, the category of "woman" is only "inclusive" of one kind of "trans people". The actually female ones. The females who ID as male. Because they are the actual females. Believe me, those who abuse female people know exactly which ones they are.

It is not "inclusive" of the males. As they are literally not female, whatever their fictitious "automatic cognition that they are female" claims.

Hope that's clear. It's really not complicated.

AliceNutterWasAWoman · 27/01/2025 13:28

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:27

I'm not consenting to anything for any other woman. I've never claimed to speak for "women" as a singular collective. Only you have done that.

Edited

And surveys back us up

Helleofabore · 27/01/2025 13:28

So, who again are the 'trans people' who would be included in that mixed sex toilet?

Because there is no coherent definition of people who are transgender that doesn't rely on incoherent and flawed logic.

And will any female only provision have the wording 'FEMALE ONLY' with a sign underneath stating the exception under the EA that is being used, and on the 'Women' door will it have that this is a fully inclusive space but directions to the female only space, just so all the female users know they have a choice?

Otherwise, the solution is misleading and deceptive if the doors don't make this very clear.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 27/01/2025 13:29

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:19

Anyway I think we have exhausted the illustrative purpose of this thought experiment.

This was the proposal.

Women (inclusive of trans people)
Men (inclusive of trans people)
Third space: people with XX chromosomes who don’t want to share with trans women.

It doesn't involve any gender neutral space. It protects your privacy and boundaries so there should be no objection if your goal is simply this.
But your goal isn't boundaries and protection for women. Your goal is to other / exclude/ out and ultimately eliminate trans people.

Edited

😂
I see that the patriarchal campaign to reframe women and girl's right to single sex spaces as "based on a number of really problematic assumptions/ stereotypes/ prejudices" isn't going down well?

As women most of us have experienced the reality of sexual assault, voyeurism, flashing and more. And as we see it happening to the next generation - our daughters and their friends - we're just not enthused about this male initiated campaign to eradicate safety for women.

Trying to redefine safeguarding girls and women as "transphobia" just demonstrates the coercive aspect of these demands.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:31

Beowulfa · 27/01/2025 13:27

Just caught up with this thread after the weekend.

Loving the "cognitive sex" invention. Do you reckon the concept will catch on Lostcat?

You can have your root canal done by a dentist, or a cognitive dentist.
You can have a bank loan, or a cognitive bank loan.
You can call 999 and ask for the fire service, or the cognitive fire service.

Your silly word games are over. Trump's EO clearly states that society needs to base legislation on biological reality. There is no coherent argument for doing otherwise.

Yes I fully predicted the ridicule, (I have a lot of experience of it on these forums). which is why I was reluctant, yet again, to offer my time and energy to explain. But people insisted that I do and promised that they were not seeking to argue or mock but to have a productive exchange. Predictably that did not happen to any serious degree. There was one poster who offered some relevant / thoughtful counter arguments/ points, I can't remember her username.

AliceNutterWasAWoman · 27/01/2025 13:32

Yeah, #BeKind peeps

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 13:33

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:27

I'm not consenting to anything for any other woman. I've never claimed to speak for "women" as a singular collective. Only you have done that.

Edited

This really is beyond tedious now. Not to mention embarrassing.

If YOU are campaigning for males ("trans women") to be in women's spaces, then yes, you are attempting to consent on behalf of all other women, despite the fact that many are objecting, then you are effectively attempting to both "speak for" and "consent for" their legal rights and boundaries to be removed.

As I said, clearly consent not being transferable is not a concept you're familiar with.

And as I also said, you have consistently failed to engage with the serious points that have been made to you.

Come on, this really isn't difficult. Is it?

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 13:35

Beowulfa · 27/01/2025 13:27

Just caught up with this thread after the weekend.

Loving the "cognitive sex" invention. Do you reckon the concept will catch on Lostcat?

You can have your root canal done by a dentist, or a cognitive dentist.
You can have a bank loan, or a cognitive bank loan.
You can call 999 and ask for the fire service, or the cognitive fire service.

Your silly word games are over. Trump's EO clearly states that society needs to base legislation on biological reality. There is no coherent argument for doing otherwise.

I know. It's been quite the demonstration of the (now very familiar) tactics.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:37

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 13:33

This really is beyond tedious now. Not to mention embarrassing.

If YOU are campaigning for males ("trans women") to be in women's spaces, then yes, you are attempting to consent on behalf of all other women, despite the fact that many are objecting, then you are effectively attempting to both "speak for" and "consent for" their legal rights and boundaries to be removed.

As I said, clearly consent not being transferable is not a concept you're familiar with.

And as I also said, you have consistently failed to engage with the serious points that have been made to you.

Come on, this really isn't difficult. Is it?

Actually, I repeatedly said I don't have a fixed policy position on these issues. My engagement on this thread has simply been to challenge transphobia and ignorant ideas spread about trans people, and the pretence that Trump's EO isn't anti-trans legislation.
Regarding policy, I simply pointed out that the current status quo for most everyday single sex spaces (e.g. toilets) is currently self ID - and I cannot see another practical way of managing this .
The only policy proposal for reform that I offered protected the boundaries, consent of you and other women who feel differently to me.

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 13:37

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:31

Yes I fully predicted the ridicule, (I have a lot of experience of it on these forums). which is why I was reluctant, yet again, to offer my time and energy to explain. But people insisted that I do and promised that they were not seeking to argue or mock but to have a productive exchange. Predictably that did not happen to any serious degree. There was one poster who offered some relevant / thoughtful counter arguments/ points, I can't remember her username.

Edited

I'm not ridiculing you. But you are not answering my reasonable questions.

I can't see how you can reasonably expect laws to be based on the wishes of a minority of males to the detriment of females.

And that is what you want.

That's not how reasonable societies enact laws. Particularly when the people who are having rights removed by your wishes are the well established majority of women who have faced sexism through the ages.

I am flummoxed by the idea that you think that laws should be formed in the way you ask them to be.

How can you say that a minority of males are more at risk than the majority of women who have faced sex based oppression on the basis of our sexed bodies (not our cognitive processes) through the history of time?

Ultimately female bodied people are not less important than male bodied people and no amount of sophistry will make it so.

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 13:39

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:31

Yes I fully predicted the ridicule, (I have a lot of experience of it on these forums). which is why I was reluctant, yet again, to offer my time and energy to explain. But people insisted that I do and promised that they were not seeking to argue or mock but to have a productive exchange. Predictably that did not happen to any serious degree. There was one poster who offered some relevant / thoughtful counter arguments/ points, I can't remember her username.

Edited

Oh you poor thing. It must be terrible.

Of course, the rest of us taking the time and effort to explain, which many of us did, over and over only to have you continuing to ignore the key points, wasting time, make false accusations, claiming we're all "fascists" and playing silly manipulative word games while failing to engage in good faith or answering most of the points put to you while you wanged on about fictional "automatic cognitions of being female" despite zero evidence for that, or anything to back up what you're saying, matters not one jot.

Greyskybluesky · 27/01/2025 13:40

@Lostcat can I make a polite request please. Not related to the topic of this thread.

Your constant edits are making your posts hard to follow. Especially when posters have already replied to you.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:44

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 13:37

I'm not ridiculing you. But you are not answering my reasonable questions.

I can't see how you can reasonably expect laws to be based on the wishes of a minority of males to the detriment of females.

And that is what you want.

That's not how reasonable societies enact laws. Particularly when the people who are having rights removed by your wishes are the well established majority of women who have faced sexism through the ages.

I am flummoxed by the idea that you think that laws should be formed in the way you ask them to be.

How can you say that a minority of males are more at risk than the majority of women who have faced sex based oppression on the basis of our sexed bodies (not our cognitive processes) through the history of time?

Ultimately female bodied people are not less important than male bodied people and no amount of sophistry will make it so.

Edited

I answered the questions you asked me thoughtfully and at length as best I felt I was able. You didn't engage at all with what I wrote.

This is also clear when you continue making straw man claims that I have said the "wishes of males" are more important than "female bodied people".

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:46

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

Again, here @iamallofme

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.