Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth

[IwantToRetire]

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.

They were for women who are oppressed on the basis of our sexed bodies.

Also I disagree that this was the reason single sex toilets were invented. It wasn’t because of feminism.

Strangely, quite a lot happened between then and now.

It involved the concept of Self ID, the removal of medical gatekeeping and the mysterious disappearance of the word "transvestites" from the lexicon - now came the "trans umbrella" which included a great many more "trans women" suddenly than the "transsexuals" of old. It also involved the rise of a very well funded drive on behalf of "trans women" to dismantle all women's legal rights and spaces by replacing sex with gender identity. This was done underhandedly through the regulatory capture of key organisations, notably LGB ones such as Stonewall (this only happened in 2015 in the UK, as had been resisted by SW leadership prior to that on the grounds "trans' had nothing to do with gay rights) and, more appallingly, women's rights organisations. Also entryism in multiple key organisations and places of power. Universities, the media (in universities it began in the late 1980s via the promotion of queer theory and the dismantling of women's studies depts). Rights began to be dismantled by stealth.

And yet as most women are not in fact the naturally subservient saps of gender identity lore, we objected to this and wanted to talk about it. Which many of us tried first in good faith, not really understanding yet that the trans movement really REALLY does not like women or feminism (it mostly denies most of the central tenets of it).

Our efforts were then met with violent threats and demonisation by transactivists and we were told there was "no debate" about our legal rights. To which, quite rightly, women who realised what was happening objected and started fighting back, with the dawning realisation that this was the same old abusive patriarchy again, in a new outfit.

It's not a "rise in transphobia". It's a rise in overreach by the "trans" movement and a concerted, often underhanded, often hateful, highly misogynistic attack on women's legal rights. And women's response to that happening.

I know this is hard for you, but please, get your facts straight.

please explain why you disagree with this?

I have read a detailed history on the history of public toilets and I can assure you you are quite wrong.

I used to be an ally. As a naive young woman, back when the only trans were transsexuals, I felt sympathy for them. Back when the aim was full surgical transition. I tended to think that if a man was so convinced he was a woman that he would go through multiple painful surgeries, including removal of his genitals, then I would be kind and pretend they were a woman. I used preferred names. I used prefered pronouns. And it was only a tiny number of individuals, most of whom just wanted to quietly get on with their own lives. In hospitals, they used side rooms. They certainly didn't share communal showers.

And then things changed. Suddenly the trans umbrella included not just those with enduring severe gender dysphoria, but also autogynophiles and fetishists, cross dressers and drag queens. And I thought what the hell? And TRAs started demanding entrance to toilets and changing rooms, to prisons and sports. And I thought what about the women? And TRAs starting issuing threats of death and violence. And I thought what the fuck? And autistic and gay children started being transed in vastly increasing numbers, put on a pathway to sterilisation and mutilation. And I thought what about safeguarding? And TRAs started demanding that lesbians accept males in their dating pool. And I thought , but that's deeply homophobic.

And I was concerned, and worried. But everywhere I looked the TRA ideology and religion was being pushed, and endorsed, and glorified. Then I stumbled across this marvellous forum. Where intelligent, educated, compassionate, caring women could explain why I was so worried. They could articulate what I had felt. They could describe the threats to women, and children, and lesbians. They understood about the need for safe spaces, and the importance of safeguarding. They understood biology. And I became a born again feminist.

Well I have no doubt you know very much more about the history of public toilets than me in that case! It’s certainly not something I’ve read into. But it is my understanding that public toilets were historically designed as single-sex facilities due to social norms around privacy, modesty, and the protection of women's virtue, particularly during the Victorian era (not a very feminist time) which led to the "separate spheres" ideology where women were expected to remain primarily in the home, thus necessitating separate public restrooms to limit their exposure in public spaces.

If LostCat believes they are correct, they are 100% correct. That's how this all works in their world, yes?

Facts and evidence don't really matter, naturally. As changeable as the wind. They have to be changed and overwritten to meet LostCat's "automatic cognitions" about what they are. Even if it's glaringly obvious to other people that there just MIGHT be a perception and comprehension problem here.

Radicalised by Mumsnet! Join the club👋

Sounds very much like a process of radicalisation via anti trans propaganda online and via certain advocacy groups 😨

@Lostcat - can you explain what you mean by transphobia?

Well men didn't have a problem because their , ahem, anatomy meant that they could urinate with ease in the street.

You can see imagine that ladies could not do the same, particularly given the fashions of the time.

Not to mention the fact that ladies were not in the habit of frequenting public houses which contained toileting facilities, at least not without a man with them.

So public toilets may not have originally been invented to keep men out but they were invented to meet the needs of females and to prevent women from being on the urinary leash. They were designed for both men and women to use in separate facilities eventually. And the rest is history.

Trans women didn't have anything to do with it.

Wel.. I mean let’s face it - women can also urinate in the street, it just wouldn’t be very “modest” would it?

It wasn't about "modesty." As has been explained.

At least partly because the numbers were so much smaller and because in general these much smaller numbers of men made real efforts to at least try to pass as female. Now we have employers who have been so thoroughly Stonewalled that as soon as John decides he is really Joan they tell their employees he can use all the female single-sex facilities whatever he happens to be wearing and despite the fact he's still sporting his beard. Of course I'm exaggerating, but not much.

No, again as explained, it was about the increased overreach by the now much larger trans movement and the attacks on women's legal rights (and women) which began in earnest. And began to be noticeable. And women fought back. There is plenty of evidence of that.

Have you read the Dentons Document by the way?

Please learn to keep your irrational prejudices out of your interpretations. You don't seem able to read what people are actually saying or understand facts and how they might differ from your own "cognitions".

You're providing the anti trans propaganda Lostcat. Everything you have written does absolutely nothing to help transwomen find a peaceful and productive co-existence with women.

You tell us they are coming into our spaces whether we like it or not. Penis-exposure will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis for every transwoman in every context. Prisons - "complex, case-by-case." Sport - "complex, case-by-case, science waffle". Men pretending to be trans to predate - "they don't exist"

All because cognitive sex thingy has to completely override every other aspect of sex. Despite the cognitive thingy being unable to tell men that they are women. It just tells them they are not happy with their body being male.

Yes there’s definitely truth to this. Women were more accepting of trans women when there were fewer of them and when they passed or made an effort to pass.

So what was your answer, women should stay on a urinary leash rather than interact as full humans in public?

Kind of figures really since your preference is the resurrection of the urinary leash for women who can't be in spaces for male bodied people for whatever reason, clear examples being religious minority women whose needs you fail to consider giving preference to male bodied people or female SA victims who are triggered in the presence of male bodied people.

We do love a TRA to help the shine the light in Lostcst.

There’s no inevitability to the urinary leash! Its rooted in sexist constructs of modesty.

No we put up with them. It was easy to go elsewhere and avoid them. Which is what we did. Not so easy these days

And perhaps when they weren't sending us incel-like threats of violence for standing up for the legal rights they were attempting to dismantle?

Plenty of evidence of that as well.

As well as their enablers, sorry, "allies", spreading misinformation and lies about the beliefs and characters of the women who were smart enough to notice and brave enough to speak out. Which they have been doing for years. Because they understand what's at stake.

Sadly, many of the enablers who are female and still don't "get it" are either too sheltered or naive or ill informed to comprehend what has happened or what it means. And there have always been women who pandered to men at the expense of other women, very similar to what we're seeing here from LostCat. Just like the women in the anti suffrage movement.

It was easy to go elsewhere and avoid them.

charming.

So I googled "automatic cognitive sex". I got plenty of hits on the impact of automatic cognition on sexual function but none, not a single hit, that associated the term with transgender identity.

Yeah we don't want males in our spaces so we found different spaces. Problem is that isn’t possible anymore

Just like the women in the anti suffrage movement

😂😂 ooo I’ve successfully ignored most of the utterly incoherent, abusive garbage you’ve contributed to this thread, but that’s a low blow 🤣🤣