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 14:29

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

Except it's the truth. I don't think you like the truth, do you?

Nothing disgraceful about the truth. Disgusting to deny it. Again, shame on you.

Isla Bryson is a male rapist. Who was placed in a women's prison entirely on the basis of his supposed "inner cognitive identity as female" and was pictured with precisely what that poster said he was.

Pink leggings and his cock bulge.

Women were incarcerated with that male rapist because of people who think like you. How dare you feign "outrage" that someone points out exactly what it is. And exactly what it is you and people like you you are enabling. I think that's far more important than your faux 'delicate' sensibilities about people saying exactly what they saw. And what he was and is.

teentantrums · 27/01/2025 14:30

By this you mean... recognising the humanity of trans people and the realities of trans experience?
If we want to use this sort of hyperbolic language, I ask you why do you not recognise the humanity of women and the realities of the female "experience"?

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:30

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 14:27

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.

Of course not.

Please refer to my previous posts which explain both what sex is and what being trans is

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 14:33

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:30

Of course not.

Please refer to my previous posts which explain both what sex is and what being trans is

Edited

Neither of which addressed the key points being made about the reality of the treatment of the half of the population who have female sexed bodies. Which have literally zero to do with the experiences of males who believe they have "inner cognitions of being female".

Why do you keep failing to address this? People will keep asking you directly until you manage to do so.

AliceNutterWasAWoman · 27/01/2025 14:33

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:26

Then you would be ok with my hypothetical proposal

Actually, can I just butt in to say that my DH and his friends don't want transmen in their spaces. You're gonna need a 4th toilet

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 14:34

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:30

Of course not.

Please refer to my previous posts which explain both what sex is and what being trans is

Edited

So you're just ignoring the points raised in my posts then?

If you acknowledge that sexed bodies are difference why are you ignoring the fact that you are asking for laws that ignore the oppression women have faced based on our sex bodies and how that harms the class of people who have female sex bodies, particularly in respect of sport and single sex spaces?

In other words what you are asking for harms the class of people who have female sexed bodies in favour of people who do not have female sexed bodies.

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 14:36

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 14:33

Neither of which addressed the key points being made about the reality of the treatment of the half of the population who have female sexed bodies. Which have literally zero to do with the experiences of males who believe they have "inner cognitions of being female".

Why do you keep failing to address this? People will keep asking you directly until you manage to do so.

And no, you didn't explain what "being trans" is except for some waffle about "inner cognitions" of a male that they're female, without being able to define what that male person is referring to when they have their "cognition" that this is what "being female is" as opposed to "being what male is".

Cognitions that are entirely unrelated to being an actual female with a female body and what that entails in the real world.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:38

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 14:34

So you're just ignoring the points raised in my posts then?

If you acknowledge that sexed bodies are difference why are you ignoring the fact that you are asking for laws that ignore the oppression women have faced based on our sex bodies and how that harms the class of people who have female sex bodies, particularly in respect of sport and single sex spaces?

In other words what you are asking for harms the class of people who have female sexed bodies in favour of people who do not have female sexed bodies.

Your responses to me don't have anything to do with my posts. You are either not reading my posts or not following them. You keep responding to me with straw man arguments and then demanding I answer them. I'm not going to do that.

To be clear:

I do not support laws that oppress women.

Nor do I support laws that oppress trans people (and intersex people) which is what this executive order does.

hihelenhi · 27/01/2025 14:40

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:38

Your responses to me don't have anything to do with my posts. You are either not reading my posts or not following them. You keep responding to me with straw man arguments and then demanding I answer them. I'm not going to do that.

To be clear:

I do not support laws that oppress women.

Nor do I support laws that oppress trans people (and intersex people) which is what this executive order does.

They have everything to do with your posts. Which have been full of disingenuous nonsense and obfuscation.

Beowulfa · 27/01/2025 14:41

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:28

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

By "indulge" I mean pretending that Isla is actually a woman because Isla is wearing pink leggings. This is what trans ideology asks us to do.

Nicola Sturgeon of course knows that Isla is a bloke; she also knew that if she said so the whole flimsy house of cards falls down. So she puked up some half-digested word salad instead of answering the clear question.

Voters are sick of politicians taking them for fucking idiots.

teentantrums · 27/01/2025 14:42

@Lostcat

Can you tell me what you believe is the correct solution is in the following scenario?

  • Sports club with open showers and changing rooms, separated by sex
  • Trans woman wants to shower with the teenage girls
  • Teenage girls do not want to shower with trans woman.
There is no possibility to build individual cubicles or materially change the changing rooms and facilities. Everyone was happy with single sex spaces up until recently. Trans woman has been offered a separate changing area but has complained.

What is your solution?

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 14:47

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:38

Your responses to me don't have anything to do with my posts. You are either not reading my posts or not following them. You keep responding to me with straw man arguments and then demanding I answer them. I'm not going to do that.

To be clear:

I do not support laws that oppress women.

Nor do I support laws that oppress trans people (and intersex people) which is what this executive order does.

It's not a straw man though.

When you are asking for laws that remove protections based on the lived reality that women face as a class based on oppression based on our sexed bodies it is entirely reasonable for women to raise these issues.

I have given you lots of time on this to prove that you will consider the issues that women face in connection with your demands. But you have no intention to, which is disappointing.

I am sorry but what you are asking for is sexist. It harms women and girls as a class of people who face a form of oppression based on the realties of our world experience within the confines of our sexed bodies and assumptions of our reproductive capability.

The discrimination we face is not the same as any experience a male bodied person can face no matter what their cognitive brain tells them they are.

I find the fact that you dismiss the real lived experience of women as transphobic highly disturbing to be honest with you.

I can't stand Trump and I know he doesn't care about women's rights but your intention is that women shouldn't have laws that protect our lived reality. If we can't name it we can't protect it. No thank you.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/01/2025 14:49

Actually, can I just butt in to say that my DH and his friends don't want transmen in their spaces. You're gonna need a 4th toilet

Nah, the genderists should be fine, sex doesn't matter. They can all share their inclusive spaces.

AliceNutterWasAWoman · 27/01/2025 14:51

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:38

Your responses to me don't have anything to do with my posts. You are either not reading my posts or not following them. You keep responding to me with straw man arguments and then demanding I answer them. I'm not going to do that.

To be clear:

I do not support laws that oppress women.

Nor do I support laws that oppress trans people (and intersex people) which is what this executive order does.

The cognitive dissonance must be huge. I wonder if that is why Lostcat repeatedly comes here. To see if, by arguing with us, s/he will finally be able to construct a line of reasoning that relieves the awful pressure?

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:54

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 14:47

It's not a straw man though.

When you are asking for laws that remove protections based on the lived reality that women face as a class based on oppression based on our sexed bodies it is entirely reasonable for women to raise these issues.

I have given you lots of time on this to prove that you will consider the issues that women face in connection with your demands. But you have no intention to, which is disappointing.

I am sorry but what you are asking for is sexist. It harms women and girls as a class of people who face a form of oppression based on the realties of our world experience within the confines of our sexed bodies and assumptions of our reproductive capability.

The discrimination we face is not the same as any experience a male bodied person can face no matter what their cognitive brain tells them they are.

I find the fact that you dismiss the real lived experience of women as transphobic highly disturbing to be honest with you.

I can't stand Trump and I know he doesn't care about women's rights but your intention is that women shouldn't have laws that protect our lived reality. If we can't name it we can't protect it. No thank you.

Edited

When you are asking for laws that remove protections

I am not asking for laws that remove protections for women and girls. This is entirely your projection. I can’t help you with it. I’ve tried.

i am a woman, a feminist , I have daughters and there is little that is closer to my heart than fighting misogyny, inequality between men and women and gender based violence.

I can't stand Trump

I am relieved to hear this at least. We can find common ground and understanding in this.

teentantrums · 27/01/2025 14:58

@Lostcat As a mother to daughters, could you answer my question? What if they were in this situation?

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 15:01

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:54

When you are asking for laws that remove protections

I am not asking for laws that remove protections for women and girls. This is entirely your projection. I can’t help you with it. I’ve tried.

i am a woman, a feminist , I have daughters and there is little that is closer to my heart than fighting misogyny, inequality between men and women and gender based violence.

I can't stand Trump

I am relieved to hear this at least. We can find common ground and understanding in this.

Edited

Yes you are. By saying that male bodied people are entitled to enter women's spaces and sports on the basis of being trans you are asking for the removal of protections that women had based on our sexed bodies.

I appreciate to some extent the toothpaste is out of the tube in the UK's but Trump's EO has reinstated rights for people based on their sexed bodies, and you say this is transphobic.

The EO itself is not transphobic, that is not to say that there is no transphobia in the US and that there are not issues in the US on the basis that there are inadequate laws to protect people who are trans from discrimination in housing, education, employment and from harassment.

In this country we could reinstate laws to reverse the erosion of sexed based laws which were misrepresented by the likes of Stonewall and its EDI scheme, trans people could respect the needs of women based on our sexed bodies by staying out of places where women are vulnerable which would include toilets and trans people would remain protected (as they already rightly are) from discrimination in respect of provision of housing and employment.

But you have already strongly suggested that you would find this transphobic, precisely because you think that the sex based oppression that women and girls encounter based on the reality of our sexed bodies is less important.

If I have that wrong then please correct me.

Greyskybluesky · 27/01/2025 15:03

By saying that male bodied people are entitled to enter women's spaces and sports on the basis of being trans you are asking for the removal of protections that women had based on our sexed bodies.

It cannot be said any clearer than this.

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 27/01/2025 15:03

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 14:26

Then you would be ok with my hypothetical proposal

Actually yes however it would still be the transwomen being othered and then forcing their way in because what they really want is validation of all "women" together

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 15:04

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 15:01

Yes you are. By saying that male bodied people are entitled to enter women's spaces and sports on the basis of being trans you are asking for the removal of protections that women had based on our sexed bodies.

I appreciate to some extent the toothpaste is out of the tube in the UK's but Trump's EO has reinstated rights for people based on their sexed bodies, and you say this is transphobic.

The EO itself is not transphobic, that is not to say that there is no transphobia in the US and that there are not issues in the US on the basis that there are inadequate laws to protect people who are trans from discrimination in housing, education, employment and from harassment.

In this country we could reinstate laws to reverse the erosion of sexed based laws which were misrepresented by the likes of Stonewall and its EDI scheme, trans people could respect the needs of women based on our sexed bodies by staying out of places where women are vulnerable which would include toilets and trans people would remain protected (as they already rightly are) from discrimination in respect of provision of housing and employment.

But you have already strongly suggested that you would find this transphobic, precisely because you think that the sex based oppression that women and girls encounter based on the reality of our sexed bodies is less important.

If I have that wrong then please correct me.

The EO is transphobic, and intersexist and by the way misogynistic .

It does not protect women’s rights- in fact it is designed to pave the way to remove them. It is no accident that it is written by the very same people who criminally assault women, and are rapidly dismantling access to abortion rights. This should be your first clue, and it’s baffling to me how anyone could fail to see this.

I do not support such legislation coming to the UK- I vehemently appose it.

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 15:06

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 27/01/2025 15:03

Actually yes however it would still be the transwomen being othered and then forcing their way in because what they really want is validation of all "women" together

because what they really want is validation of all "women" together

What a bizarre thing to believe and claim

NecessaryScene · 27/01/2025 15:09

It does not protect women’s rights- in fact it is designed to pave the way to remove them.

This is one of lostcat's other contradictions I find interesting.

The EO is apparently designed to pave the way to the government removing women's rights by recognising that women exist.

But it's also vitally important to for the government to recognise that "gender identity" / "trans" / "cognitive sex" exists.

Given that the claim is that the EO is denying the existence of "trans", doesn't that mean trans people are going to be spared the fate that Trump has planned for women via the diabolical scheme of recognising them? Seems like trans people should be relieved, tbh.

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 15:10

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 15:04

The EO is transphobic, and intersexist and by the way misogynistic .

It does not protect women’s rights- in fact it is designed to pave the way to remove them. It is no accident that it is written by the very same people who criminally assault women, and are rapidly dismantling access to abortion rights. This should be your first clue, and it’s baffling to me how anyone could fail to see this.

I do not support such legislation coming to the UK- I vehemently appose it.

Edited

So to be clear you don't believe women should have the rights we historically had to prevent oppression, harassment and physical harms we faced based on the reality of our sexed bodies and assumptions made about our reproductive capabilties?

That's quite something you know.

You might believe you are not misogynistic in much the way you believe that women shouldn't have rights based upon our lived experiences based on the oppression we face due to our sexed bodies. But you are misogynistic.

In your world women's lived experiences are to be ignored in favour of the wishes of males who will never ever be able to experience women's lived experiences because it is impossible.

That is men's rights activism no matter what sophistry you try to apply to it.

teentantrums · 27/01/2025 15:12

teentantrums · 27/01/2025 14:42

@Lostcat

Can you tell me what you believe is the correct solution is in the following scenario?

  • Sports club with open showers and changing rooms, separated by sex
  • Trans woman wants to shower with the teenage girls
  • Teenage girls do not want to shower with trans woman.
There is no possibility to build individual cubicles or materially change the changing rooms and facilities. Everyone was happy with single sex spaces up until recently. Trans woman has been offered a separate changing area but has complained.

What is your solution?

Just to be clear - this is the question I was referring to, @Lostcat

Lostcat · 27/01/2025 15:14

lifeturnsonadime · 27/01/2025 15:10

So to be clear you don't believe women should have the rights we historically had to prevent oppression, harassment and physical harms we faced based on the reality of our sexed bodies and assumptions made about our reproductive capabilties?

That's quite something you know.

You might believe you are not misogynistic in much the way you believe that women shouldn't have rights based upon our lived experiences based on the oppression we face due to our sexed bodies. But you are misogynistic.

In your world women's lived experiences are to be ignored in favour of the wishes of males who will never ever be able to experience women's lived experiences because it is impossible.

That is men's rights activism no matter what sophistry you try to apply to it.

Edited

So to be clear you don't believe women should have the rights we historically had to prevent oppression, harassment and physical harms we faced based on the reality of our sexed bodies and assumptions made about our sexed bodies?

Eh ?

Ok, I shall have to be done with this exchange.

I cannot do anything about the projection and repeated assertions I believe things I don’t, or I have said things I haven’t.

However, I can disengage.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.