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
Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:48

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.

Sorry it's hard when you are having to quickly respond to multiple people.

teentantrums · 27/01/2025 13:48

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

I honestly dont know how anyone can say type this with a straight face. It is not 2016 anymore. A lot of us have direct experience of our rights being threatened and even removed. Even if you do not have direct experience, do you not read the news?

AliceNutterWasAWoman · 27/01/2025 13:49

Just to remind everyone, this was @Lostcat on another thread (which also ended up the same weird toilet suggestion). Let boys share sleeping accomodation with girls because they are going to get them pregnant anyway:

Lostcat · 03/01/2025 22:08
So Two very specific scenarios (although let’s be real I think the school one has more to do with prudery than anything else- if teenagers want to do stuff that can result in pregnancy they’ll find a way regardless of a school trip 😉).

Beowulfa · 27/01/2025 13:49

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

Your proposals are ridiculous, hence incur ridicule.

You can't organise society around "cognitive" concepts in which things sometimes mean the opposite.

Trump's EO has pointed out the absurdity of basing laws on fantastical thinking. Now the Democrats can explain to US voters how, actually, it's a brilliant idea to have men taking College sports scholarships from women. Over to you, Dems....

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 13:53

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:44

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".

No Lost Cats, I said I would be able to further engage once you answered my reasonable questions and you haven't done that.

We seem to be down to a distinction between bodies and cognitive feelings from your original post.

Since the oppression women have faced through the ages is based on our sexed bodies and the laws we've had to protect us from that oppression are nothing to do with our thoughts or feelings what you are asking for is for the reason for the oppression to be ignored and replaced by defining being a woman as a 'cognitive reality' rather than a reality based on our sexed bodies.

This doesn't work for me because I know that this will remove protections (and indeed it has).

What I am asking you is why you believe it is now reasonable to ignore the complete history of female oppression (based on our sexed bodies and assumptions of our reproductive abilities) in favour of a new definition based on cognitive thoughts?

I am asking you why you have no empathy for the problems that will create for women who will continue to be discriminated and disadvantaged based on our sexed bodies, with particular reference to sports and to the fact that we are more at risk from harm from not have spaces separate from male bodied people?

On the basis of all of the above I am asking you why you choose to ignore the reality of oppression of women based on our sexed bodies? In other words why don't you care about the rights of female bodied people?

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:53

Beowulfa · 27/01/2025 13:49

Your proposals are ridiculous, hence incur ridicule.

You can't organise society around "cognitive" concepts in which things sometimes mean the opposite.

Trump's EO has pointed out the absurdity of basing laws on fantastical thinking. Now the Democrats can explain to US voters how, actually, it's a brilliant idea to have men taking College sports scholarships from women. Over to you, Dems....

To be clear - my explanation of what being trans is, is not a "proposal".

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:56

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 13:53

No Lost Cats, I said I would be able to further engage once you answered my reasonable questions and you haven't done that.

We seem to be down to a distinction between bodies and cognitive feelings from your original post.

Since the oppression women have faced through the ages is based on our sexed bodies and the laws we've had to protect us from that oppression are nothing to do with our thoughts or feelings what you are asking for is for the reason for the oppression to be ignored and replaced by defining being a woman as a 'cognitive reality' rather than a reality based on our sexed bodies.

This doesn't work for me because I know that this will remove protections (and indeed it has).

What I am asking you is why you believe it is now reasonable to ignore the complete history of female oppression (based on our sexed bodies and assumptions of our reproductive abilities) in favour of a new definition based on cognitive thoughts?

I am asking you why you have no empathy for the problems that will create for women who will continue to be discriminated and disadvantaged based on our sexed bodies, with particular reference to sports and to the fact that we are more at risk from harm from not have spaces separate from male bodied people?

On the basis of all of the above I am asking you why you choose to ignore the reality of oppression of women based on our sexed bodies? In other words why don't you care about the rights of female bodied people?

Edited

For a start there is a erroneous conflation here of "cognitions" and "feelings".

Secondly, there is false distinction being made between "cognition" and the "sexed body".

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 13:59

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:56

For a start there is a erroneous conflation here of "cognitions" and "feelings".

Secondly, there is false distinction being made between "cognition" and the "sexed body".

Please expand on what you mean by these statements and why this means that the needs of female bodied people who have faced oppression based on our female bodies (which will not include anyone with a male body no matter how they feel about themselves) shouldn't be recognised in law?

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 14:06

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 13:56

For a start there is a erroneous conflation here of "cognitions" and "feelings".

Secondly, there is false distinction being made between "cognition" and the "sexed body".

Well, it's not "false" is it?

Given men who identify as women, sorry, "have an automtatic cognition tht they are female despite male sexed bodies" have't been treated the same as actual women (the ones with female bodies) across history. You know, the entire reason for pretty much all of the legal rights women have had to fight for over the last century or more.

Care to provide any evidence that they have? In any way?

These so-called "arguments" are insane. Not based in reality. Factually illiterate. And beyond offensive.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:07

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 13:59

Please expand on what you mean by these statements and why this means that the needs of female bodied people who have faced oppression based on our female bodies (which will not include anyone with a male body no matter how they feel about themselves) shouldn't be recognised in law?

Please expand on what you mean by these statements

Cognitions are distinct from "feelings". You keep conflating the two.

Secondly it is widely recognised these days that the distinction between mental and physical process is far too simplistic- cognition has a physical basis in the brain, which itself of course is part of the entire system of the human body: https://cambridgecognition.com/what-is-cognition/. As I have repeatedly tried to say on this thread, it is very possible that transness has a biological basis/ underpinning.

And why this means that the needs of female bodied people who have faced oppression based on our female bodies (which will not include anyone with a male body no matter how they feel about themselves) shouldn't be recognised in law?
Straw man which bears no relation to anything I have contributed on this thread.

What is cognition? - Cambridge Cognition

A guide to the basics of cognition and the importance of cognitive research, along with examples of cognitive impairment and how to measure cognition with cognitive testing.

https://cambridgecognition.com/what-is-cognition

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 14:11

I despair.

Your "cognition" is what's in your mind.

It's a thought. A belief.

It is not an objective reality.

I might have an "inner cognition" that I am Mother Theresa. Or that I am seriously overweight when I am seriously underweight.

I might truly believe them.

Neither of those things would be objectively true.

Can you answer the questions put to you please about what relation a man's "inner cognitions that he is female" have to do with the reality of how actual female people (the ones with the female bodies) are treated all over the world on the basis that they are the humans with the female bodies.

And try to do it without being obtuse. Otherwise we'll have to assume that you are simply timewasting again,

teentantrums · 27/01/2025 14:12

As I have repeatedly tried to say on this thread, it is very possible that transness has a biological basis/ underpinning.
And it is very possible that it does not. In fact, there has been no evidence put forward that this is a thing. But putting aside the facts for a minute, even if there was a biological basis for men thinking they are actually women, what would that actually change? For women, nothing. A male body in a female space is still a threat, is still uncomfortable to change in front of, is still faster and stronger in sport. What that male person feels and why is irrelevant to the situations outlined on this thread. That does not mean that we are going to exclude that person from society (which would be transphobia). We are simply insisting that laws be based on physical reality.

Put another way, there are some adults who have biological reasons (development disorders) that mean they truly believe that they are toddlers. Does that mean we should treat them as such? Should we put middle-aged men into nursery classes?

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 14:15

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:07

Please expand on what you mean by these statements

Cognitions are distinct from "feelings". You keep conflating the two.

Secondly it is widely recognised these days that the distinction between mental and physical process is far too simplistic- cognition has a physical basis in the brain, which itself of course is part of the entire system of the human body: https://cambridgecognition.com/what-is-cognition/. As I have repeatedly tried to say on this thread, it is very possible that transness has a biological basis/ underpinning.

And why this means that the needs of female bodied people who have faced oppression based on our female bodies (which will not include anyone with a male body no matter how they feel about themselves) shouldn't be recognised in law?
Straw man which bears no relation to anything I have contributed on this thread.

I'm sorry Loscat but the fact that women have faced oppression through the ages based on the reality of our sexed bodies and assumptions about the reproductive capabilities of our sexed bodies has everything to do with what you are posting on this thread.

You are asking for laws to be changed which removes protection of the class of people who have faced oppression on the basis of the above in favour of people who have not faced that form of oppression because it is impossible for them ever to do so.

Acknowledging the above is neither transphobic nor does it ignore the exist of a group of male people who have the differences in cognition that makes them believe that they are female.

I am asking why you think that you should protect your group of trans women at the expense of the lived reality of oppression based on sexed bodies that there is evidence of from the beginning of time?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/01/2025 14:18

As I have repeatedly tried to say on this thread, it is very possible that transness has a biological basis/ underpinning.

And if it does? Why does that mean women need to share spaces with men?

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 27/01/2025 14:18

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

Nope. Our aim is to exclude male born transpeople from female spaces, female born transpeople are welcome.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:20

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 27/01/2025 14:18

Nope. Our aim is to exclude male born transpeople from female spaces, female born transpeople are welcome.

Our aim is to exclude male born transpeople from female spaces, female born transpeople are welcome.

Which was exactly acknowledged/ anticipated and reflected in what I wrote.

Beowulfa · 27/01/2025 14:20

"Cognitive sex" means Isla Bryson's pink leggings and cock-bulge.

Trans ideology means Nicola Sturgeon squirming furiously when asked if Isla is a man or a woman.

US voters have said No Thank you.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:21

"Cognitive sex" means Isla Bryson's pink leggings and cock-bulge.

Again, please. What is this comment. Disgraceful.

AliceNutterWasAWoman · 27/01/2025 14:21

Beowulfa · 27/01/2025 14:20

"Cognitive sex" means Isla Bryson's pink leggings and cock-bulge.

Trans ideology means Nicola Sturgeon squirming furiously when asked if Isla is a man or a woman.

US voters have said No Thank you.

No, no you don't understand. Isla Bryson doesn't count. He's not tru trans 🙄

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 27/01/2025 14:23

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:20

Our aim is to exclude male born transpeople from female spaces, female born transpeople are welcome.

Which was exactly acknowledged/ anticipated and reflected in what I wrote.

You you said we want to eliminate transpeople, we don't, we just want to remove male people from single sex spaces designated for female people.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:23

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/01/2025 14:18

As I have repeatedly tried to say on this thread, it is very possible that transness has a biological basis/ underpinning.

And if it does? Why does that mean women need to share spaces with men?

This comment was in relation to the false distinction that keeps being made between "male feelings" on the one had and "female sexed bodies" on the other.

Beowulfa · 27/01/2025 14:25

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:21

"Cognitive sex" means Isla Bryson's pink leggings and cock-bulge.

Again, please. What is this comment. Disgraceful.

Edited

I am pointing out that when you indulge people who say they are something they're clearly not, you end up with convicted rapists saying they are entitled to women's prisons. Like you say, it's disgraceful.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:26

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 27/01/2025 14:23

You you said we want to eliminate transpeople, we don't, we just want to remove male people from single sex spaces designated for female people.

Then you would be ok with my hypothetical proposal

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 14:27

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:23

This comment was in relation to the false distinction that keeps being made between "male feelings" on the one had and "female sexed bodies" on the other.

So are you saying that a female sexed body is something that a male person can have?

Are you saying there is no difference between a female sexed body and the sexed body of a trans woman.

Because it is starting to look like you are doing exactly what you accuse us of, denying the lived experience of the class of people based on your prejudices and beliefs.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:28

Beowulfa · 27/01/2025 14:25

I am pointing out that when you indulge people who say they are something they're clearly not, you end up with convicted rapists saying they are entitled to women's prisons. Like you say, it's disgraceful.

Indulge people?
By this you mean... recognising the humanity of trans people and the realities of trans experience?

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.