Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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
Imnobody4 · 23/01/2025 15:01

The Democrats have a hell of a lot to answer for.

Janice Turner in the Times www.thetimes.com/article/38798305-a66c-49b5-bc96-8b142c0f8f37?shareToken=b9237c2ea829d89fdba6a1f90b667a29

To any Floridian football fan or Montanan marathon runner, this was an unarguable truth. Yet all Democrats (except two from Texas) opposed the bill, rebranding it the “child predator empowerment act” and arguing it would lead to the appointment of genital inspectors — “Taliban-like enforcers” and paedophiles — to look inside the underwear of girls as young as four.

If that sounds deranged, it’s because it was. But what else did the Democrats have? They couldn’t dispute biological advantage or fairness, so they ended up sounding like QAnon loons.

Floisme · 23/01/2025 15:24

Thanks for that article @Imnobody4.

And thank you, Janice Turner, for articulating so clearly how I'm feeling this week. I'm really struggling to process how a convicted felon, found guilty by a jury of sexual assault, can appear (whatever his reasons) to demonstrate a better grasp of women's rights than the average Democrat politician. But this, it seems, is where we are, and the Democrats show no sign whatsoever of learning from this. What a world.

DeanElderberry · 23/01/2025 17:10

The directive is anti gender rather than anti trans. There's nothing in it to stop anyone being an old-style transvestite or cross-dresser. It is a clear recognition that clothing doesn't change a person's sex, or either add or remove rights.

DeanElderberry · 23/01/2025 17:13

It is anti Big Pharma and they're going to be wondering how to make good on their R&D investment. I hope they don't do like tobacco and move to the developing world or even Europe.

IwantToRetire · 23/01/2025 18:07

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.

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’.

Yes - I think it is a step forward (which a few decades ago nobody would have thought we needed) to have a clear legal definition of the sex based reality of being a female.

And what's interesting is it has raised the question which maybe some of us had not really thought of, which is in saying that the biological fact is the only reality, then you are denying the arguement / belief of (the current) idea of being trans.

And maybe for some that has been something to stop and think about (not that the trans community ever bothered to think about women).

ie in saying you are fighting for a legal, political system recognition that sex is a biological fact you are saying you do not believe in the claim that you can be trans.

You might think you can be trans, you might believe you can be trans, but you can not make others believe that, and having a law that backs that up is a set forward for women's sex based rights.

OP posts:
banivani · 23/01/2025 20:10

TempestTost · 23/01/2025 01:19

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.

Yeah I’ll backtrack - I’ve read the statement now and I think it’s clear and usefully defines sex and gender. The person who wrote it has a head on her shoulders. I do however think I’ve heard it spoken of by the Trump administration in pure gender terms so cynically I don’t think they understand it and I’d maintain that they too are genderists - just the other side of the coin. As you say Americans mix the words sex and gender but the wording in the statement is clear and when others in the administration aren’t clear on this point I wouldn’t trust them as far as I can throw them ;)

JanesLittleGirl · 23/01/2025 21:51

banivani · 23/01/2025 20:10

Yeah I’ll backtrack - I’ve read the statement now and I think it’s clear and usefully defines sex and gender. The person who wrote it has a head on her shoulders. I do however think I’ve heard it spoken of by the Trump administration in pure gender terms so cynically I don’t think they understand it and I’d maintain that they too are genderists - just the other side of the coin. As you say Americans mix the words sex and gender but the wording in the statement is clear and when others in the administration aren’t clear on this point I wouldn’t trust them as far as I can throw them ;)

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that Trump didn't understand the EO that he signed?

Grammarnut · 23/01/2025 22:05

JanesLittleGirl · 23/01/2025 21:51

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that Trump didn't understand the EO that he signed?

I think he understands it. He is reinstating women's rights to sex-segregated spaces. If this EO becomes a statute (?) then it means that e.g. women's only conferences, concerts, dating sites can now be legally opened - they cannot be challenged because they only allow biological women, in the way that Mich Fest was closed down by trans allies a few years back. I hope it becomes law. Something similar is going through Congress, I think, as well as a 'bathroom' act.

JanesLittleGirl · 23/01/2025 22:28

Grammarnut · 23/01/2025 22:05

I think he understands it. He is reinstating women's rights to sex-segregated spaces. If this EO becomes a statute (?) then it means that e.g. women's only conferences, concerts, dating sites can now be legally opened - they cannot be challenged because they only allow biological women, in the way that Mich Fest was closed down by trans allies a few years back. I hope it becomes law. Something similar is going through Congress, I think, as well as a 'bathroom' act.

Yeah, I'm with you. I just found the suggestion that he didn't understand what the EO that he signed fucking hilarious.

TempestTost · 23/01/2025 23:27

The idea of gender as cultural things that attach to sex without being related to sex in a real way is really an academic usage. I don't think we can read anything into people using it in everyday speech as a synonym for sex.

The fact is that most people across the political spectrum think that aside from entirely biological differences between men and women:

There are some behaviours and tendencies in terms of personality, etc,that are likely biologically influenced or determined, and that is ok.

There are some cultural things that arise to differentiate men and women, like clothing styles, and these are often ok, but sometimes they are bad.

There are cultural, legal and social norms and attitudes and structures that treat men and women differently, and sometimes these can be exploitative, and sometimes they can be protective.

From that perspective the whole "gender is bad and oppressive" argument seems pretty silly and not something to bother about. So people mostly don't.

banivani · 24/01/2025 08:06

My impression of Trump is that he decides for himself what things mean. What I feel I can say with certainty is that he is not a feminist ally.

JessaWoo · 24/01/2025 08:50

@JanesLittleGirl

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that Trump didn't understand the EO that he signed?

Are you suggesting he read it?

Floisme · 24/01/2025 09:34

As long as the signature on the EO is legitimate I'm not sure I care whether Trump understands it or what his motives are. What matters for me is whether the woman who wrote it understands it and whether she's made it as secure from challenge as it's possible for these things to be.

That WoLF statement linked upthread - 'Win!' - nails it for me. This is a result and I'm taking it. I'm not going to beat myself up because it comes from the 'wrong side'.

But I also note this, from the same WoLF statement:
'However, we also recognize the limitations of executive orders, and hope to see further steps taken to solidify these policies in laws that can not be so easily reversed. For example, we call on Congress to work together to pass the Women’s Bill of Rights, which codifies biological definitions of sex and protects women’s single-sex spaces.
'All of these policies and new laws will also likely face multiple levels of legal challenges, and WoLF will be there every step of the way providing a feminist voice.'

So my take, as someone who doesn't understand US politics very well, is that a lot of the people charged with implementing this EO will, at best, be dragging their feet, and also that, unless the Women's Bill of Rights gets codified in the next four years or unless the Democrats wean themselves off the stupid pills, we could be back where we started in 2029 - is that correct?

PaleBlueMoonlight · 24/01/2025 09:53

TempestTost · 23/01/2025 23:27

The idea of gender as cultural things that attach to sex without being related to sex in a real way is really an academic usage. I don't think we can read anything into people using it in everyday speech as a synonym for sex.

The fact is that most people across the political spectrum think that aside from entirely biological differences between men and women:

There are some behaviours and tendencies in terms of personality, etc,that are likely biologically influenced or determined, and that is ok.

There are some cultural things that arise to differentiate men and women, like clothing styles, and these are often ok, but sometimes they are bad.

There are cultural, legal and social norms and attitudes and structures that treat men and women differently, and sometimes these can be exploitative, and sometimes they can be protective.

From that perspective the whole "gender is bad and oppressive" argument seems pretty silly and not something to bother about. So people mostly don't.

Agree with this. There is a difference between being gender critical (which I understand as critiquing gendered norms) and being a gender abolitionist.

lifeturnsonadime · 24/01/2025 10:14

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.

If the Democrats had actually considered the impact of trans privileges on women and Biden hadn't destroyed women's sporting opportunities in his first day executive order they may not have handed this open goal to Trump.

I can't stand Trump but he's right about this issue.

I cannot for the life of me understand how people are still defending the Democrats on this issue.

A transwoman fondled their breasts on the lawn of the white house, had a female done that she would have been presumably convicted for a felony such as indecent exposure.

Kamala Harris wrote a White House letter to applaud a grown ass male You Tuber for 100 days of 'being a girl' at the same time that millions of ordinary women go about their lives without ever seeking or receiving such validation.

And as for reproductive rights, has everyone forgotten the promised Obama first day executive order? If he'd have actually done what he'd promised and made codifying Roe v Wade his first day order then reproductive rights would be enshrined.

But no, the only executive order that the Democrats sought fit to go through was destroying women's sport, not protecting reproductive rights.

Neither side gives an actual fuck about women.

WandaSiri · 24/01/2025 10:31

Lostcat · 22/01/2025 09:40

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

Criminalising abortion kills women.

The poster you are responding to said that trans ideology is a threat. Not trans people.

Shortshriftandlethal · 24/01/2025 10:46

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 stopped joining tag teams and trying to be popular when I left primary school. Now I judge issues on the merits of the arguments that under-lie them - regardless of which 'team' is promoting them.

duc748 · 24/01/2025 12:11

lifeturnsonadime · 24/01/2025 10:14

If the Democrats had actually considered the impact of trans privileges on women and Biden hadn't destroyed women's sporting opportunities in his first day executive order they may not have handed this open goal to Trump.

I can't stand Trump but he's right about this issue.

I cannot for the life of me understand how people are still defending the Democrats on this issue.

A transwoman fondled their breasts on the lawn of the white house, had a female done that she would have been presumably convicted for a felony such as indecent exposure.

Kamala Harris wrote a White House letter to applaud a grown ass male You Tuber for 100 days of 'being a girl' at the same time that millions of ordinary women go about their lives without ever seeking or receiving such validation.

And as for reproductive rights, has everyone forgotten the promised Obama first day executive order? If he'd have actually done what he'd promised and made codifying Roe v Wade his first day order then reproductive rights would be enshrined.

But no, the only executive order that the Democrats sought fit to go through was destroying women's sport, not protecting reproductive rights.

Neither side gives an actual fuck about women.

Edited

The Democrats have been rubbish for ages. When are they are going to wake up? Talk about living in a bubble!

Lostcat · 24/01/2025 13:19

WandaSiri · 24/01/2025 10:31

The poster you are responding to said that trans ideology is a threat. Not trans people.

There's no such thing as "trans ideology". There are people who are trans and people who think that's normal and ok, and other people who think that's not normal and not ok.
That's it.

Lostcat · 24/01/2025 13:20

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.

this

Lostcat · 24/01/2025 13:24

Grammarnut · 23/01/2025 13:20

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.

Edited

It's anti-trans because it denies/ refuses/ makes illegitimate/ a mockery of trans experience.

I support women's rights. I also recognise and support the rights of trans people. The two are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite, they are part of the same fight against patriarchy.

duc748 · 24/01/2025 13:27

And if people think 'the trans experience' is making a mockery of women?

Lostcat · 24/01/2025 13:28

duc748 · 24/01/2025 13:27

And if people think 'the trans experience' is making a mockery of women?

Someone else being trans says absolutely nothing whatsoever about you as a woman, or any other woman.

Shortshriftandlethal · 24/01/2025 13:39

Lostcat · 24/01/2025 13:28

Someone else being trans says absolutely nothing whatsoever about you as a woman, or any other woman.

.....Only if you don't really consider the consequences and implications, and only if you don't really think or consider it in any depth.. Which clearly many haven't...which is why the logic of the arguments fall apart at the slightest nudge.

WandaSiri · 24/01/2025 14:22

Lostcat · 24/01/2025 13:19

There's no such thing as "trans ideology". There are people who are trans and people who think that's normal and ok, and other people who think that's not normal and not ok.
That's it.

Edited

Why are laws and policies around the world being changed to reflect the beliefs that sex change is possible, that everybody has a gender identity and that gender identity trumps sex?
Why are there criminal penalties in some jurisdictions for not going along with these beliefs?
Why are people hounded out of their jobs or careers for not pretending to believe?

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