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.

It does if they are a transwoman claiming to be a woman. If they think that they belong in the same category of people as me, they are trying to redefine the category of women, and that redefines what I am.

Affirmative care (child mutilation)
Believing males should be incarcerated with females.
Believing males belong in female sports
Trying to criminalise any dissent.
Are all examples of trans ideology.
Away with you and your nonsense. That game has long passed.

Batya Ungar-Sargon keeps saying that polarisation is an elite thing. Working class Americans aren't polarised. I think she's onto something.

There's this weird thing where if you remove the "who" and look at the "what", there's a surprising amount of consensus. Trump supporters like Bernie's healthcare plan if you don't tell them it's Bernie's. Bernie supporters like Trump's immigration plan if you don't tell them it's Trump's.

Same thing in the UK, I think. Of course this consensus is often a consensus for policies that would make James O'Brien or Rory Stewart sad, so I wonder who benefits by keeping the focus on the team instead of the issue.

Good points.......Brings to mind the time that Suella Braverman wrote an excellent assessment of the terrible situation that followed on from the West Yorkshire teacher who had to go into hiding with his family ( and apparently still is) because he had shown an image of the prophet Mohammed in a Religious Studies class. Lots of people read it and thought it hit the nail on the head......and then they realised that the world's most evil woman had wriiten it.

if people tried to over-look the bluster and bombast of Trump and actually focused on the issues on which he was elected, it might help clam the nerves somewhat.

What does 'being trans' mean?

And why should 'being trans' confer additional rights to people to the detriment of others?

But "thinking that" is what ideology is!

They are not redefining who you are in any respect . They are simply telling you- the world- who they are. Stop projecting and centring yourself . It’s not about you.

Right. Ok- So I was right in responding to that poster in saying that trans people are not a threat to women. The distinction between trans people and trans ideology makes no sense if all you mean by “ideology” is being ok with trans people.

And why should 'being trans' confer additional rights to people to the detriment of others?

It doesn’t.

That game has long passed.

Its not a “game” and it will never pass, because trans people will always be here and will always need healthcare, dignity , rights and protection from discrimination, protection of privacy etc. , no matter how angry thar makes you.

Well it's not quite so simple, because whether you call it "ideology" or "thinking that", it tends to have consequences. People act on what they think, and that's where the problems can start.

If they call themselves a "woman" they are absolutely redefining who I am. I am part of the "woman" sex class, and I am not centring myself but all of the women who are part of that same sex class, and whose issues and struggles that are related to being a "woman" derive from being a member of that sex class. A class to which men do not belong, no matter what goes on in their heads.

Lostcat, your points, which incidentally I agree with, do not in any way address Apollo441's issues. "Healthcare" - fine, "child mutilation" - not fine. Are you are deliberately avoiding discussing anything on the list that you quoted?

Why won't you define trans? No one ever defines trans!

Of course it gives additional rights, or privileges if you like. A male who says he is trans believes he has the right to be in women's spaces. This means that single sex spaces no longer exist. This is to the detriment to whichever woman needs those spaces for their own safety and dignity.

So if you are asking me to accept that some men are trans and that means that they should be in single sex spaces, please can you tell me what being 'trans' actually means? You'd think that the answer would be easy and that you would be willing to give it!

@Lostcat
Collins online dictionary definition of ideology:
An ideology is a set of beliefs, especially the political beliefs on which people, parties or countries base their actions.
The tenets of GII are that that sex change is possible, that everybody has a gender identity and that gender identity trumps sex, etc, etc

I'll ask again:
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?

Trans ideology is all about forcing compliance especially by women.

The only damn thing I agree with Donald Trump on.

Of course trans ideology and people impose on other people because they demand that we, specifically women take on their believe and never question it.

This is the same as if a country had a state religion and all people had to support this belief.

The trans ideology that is being imposed on other is a direct attack on other people's, particularly women's, right to define who they are and their right not to have include people who are not part of the sex class.

Been trans for as long as you like, and in any way your like, but never ever tell other people they have to think like you.

Once trans people, or more specificallly trans activists, stop being such autocratic tyrants and accept that they are a tiny minority and do NOT have the right to make other people share their belief set at the expense of their own rights their will not be a problem.

So nobody is anti trans.

Everybody is against a minority dictatorially instructing others to think like them.

Added to which it is really pointless coming on a thread about how women's sex based rights, which acknowledge biology, is something positive.

If you care so much about trans rights why not start a thread and explain how legally imposed trans rights (ie Democrat policy) are not anti woman.

But that isn't the point in posting is it.

The point in posting is to derail a thread that was meant to be an opportunity to talk about how having sex based reality written into law might or could be a way of securing women's rights.

I wonder in whose interest it is to stop that discussion.

MRAs

Yes, probably. However, the Republicans are in a pretty strong position for the next two years (until the midterms in 2026, when the balance in the House or Senate might change). Depends how important they find it for codification, and how it survives legal and constitutional challenges. Given the current make-up of SCOTUS I think it's likely to survive a constitutional challenge, depending on how the law is written - if it's as clear as this EO it would I think.

Please enumerate the rights you think a trans person does not have.

You need to get a dictionary and look up the word fascist, then come back here with that definition and explain exactly how being in favor of women's human rights is "fascist".

im sure this will be news to Judith Butler et al.

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.

No. That isn't "it". Not even close.

Firstly "trans" is most DEFINITELY an ideology. It is just ONE framework of belief, with tenets, and often faith based rather than fact based about "gender roles" and biological sex and particularly where people don't feel they fit what they imagine society's rigid "pink and blue" boxes are for behaviour for their sex.

What you appear not to be aware of is that are other belief frameworks though which also oppose those boxes. One of them is radical feminism. In my view and experience it's much freer, more liberated, and way less conservative than trans ideology, which has far too much in common with the old-fashioned Christian conservatism and traditional roles most of us have spent lifetimes opposing for my liking,

So no, it is NOT "everyone must fit into those boxes and that's normal and anything else isn't okay"

That's the conservative view, NOT the "gender critical" or radical feminist view. And is the complete opposite of what we believe.

I suggest you do your research about who you're actually talking to before making ridiculous fact-free statements like you just have above, because you're coming from a place of ignorance if that's actually what you're telling yourself the women here think.

You're missing a whole group of people and at least half a century's worth of history and thinking.

Just wow.

I think it's inevitable that views will be shared by people yoy dislike. Hitler was a vegetarian.

I've just seen him in a conference with the LA Mayor who wants to force people to apply for permits to go and shovel the remains of their homes and start clearing their land to rebuild, which could take 18 months to issue, whereas he is saying that if they want to go to their own land and clean up, they should be allowed to.

I agree with him on that too.

@AlisonDonut

I've just seen him in a conference with the LA Mayor who wants to force people to apply for permits to go and shovel the remains of their homes and start clearing their land to rebuild, which could take 18 months to issue, whereas he is saying that if they want to go to their own land and clean up, they should be allowed to.

I agree with him on that too.

Do you have a mind of your own, Alison? The Mayor is right. After a fire like that, the hazards left behind on home sites are numerous (and she said a week, not 18 months). Empty pools. Burnt lithium batteries. Asbestos. Power lines, both the street, under the ground and throughout the house. Underground lines of various types. Plants and trees that require removal. Ash in unimaginable amounts. Lots of material you don't want to breathe in or touch.

For context, I have had a home burn down in a bushfire, so I have some experience here. It took 2 weeks before we were able to return to our house.

It's best to have clearance from safety experts, at least, before homeowners return to a site. Then they can clean up. Surely you understand this?