Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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
Ereshkigalangcleg · 25/01/2025 10:33

As I said above, that would be an entirely futile exercise.

The reason it is a futile exercise is because you know it doesn't actually make sense and you can't come up with a coherent definition. We all know that here. You're not the first to attempt the "well it's too complicated for you and I'd be wasting my time" gambit and I doubt you'll be the last.

dollybird · 25/01/2025 10:34

hihelenhi · 25/01/2025 10:24

Good grief. Hyperbole, gaslighting, false accusations of what seems to be some implication of, what, genocide? Because unbelievers are all apparently "Nazis" you know.

Well, thanks for the demo, LostCat. It's why "Let them speak" is so very revealing about TRAs. And you are demonstrating very well that why we think that "trans" is an ideology akin to a pretty fundamentalist religion, where all heretics or questioners must be deemed evil, accused of witchcraft and metaphorically (although I'm sure many of you would love it to be literal) burned at the stake.

Let's repeat. If you can't define your terms and instead resort to this absurd level of hyperbole, gaslighting and false accusations, you are not to be taken seriously. People are not stupid - they will question the motives of those who behave like you are doing here. Transactivists really are their own worst enemies.

For the record:

  • I believe that people believe they are "trans" yes. I don't believe such people "shouldn't exist", I believe everyone has the right to self expression as they wish, living their life freely and safely, as long as they are not affecting others' rights to do the same.
  • I don't, however, agree with them that they are in the wrong bodies and I don't agree with them they are really not the biological sex they are Male and female are biological categories, not personality types. That's what conservatively minded sexists think. You do not need your body "correcting" to "fit" a stereotype of the opposite sex if you don't fit. And even if you change your body to a simulcrum of what you imagine the opposite sex is, that does not literally make you a member of that sex.
  • I don't believe in inner "gender souls" - I think gender identity is made up nonsense. You have a body of one sex or another (yes, even if you were to have a DSD) and a human personality and your own personal preferences and experiences, which do not fit neatly into pink and blue boxes called "gender". Human beings are far more diverse and interesting than that,. Once again, man and woman are not personality types - it is SO reductive.
  • So no, I don't believe that men can "really" be women or that women can "really be men "inside, and therefore I don't believe that "trans" is a truthful ideological framework . Because I think that's entirely based on limited, old fashioned stereotypes of what it is to be a man or a woman in terms of behaviour, and I don't believe in those stereotypes, which, as a feminist, I have fought against all my life.
  • I also do not believe that it's reasonable or a "human right" to impose your beliefs that you are the opposite sex on others, particularly not others who actually ARE that sex, nor that your inner identity makes you the same as someone from the demographic you claim to "know" you belong to when objectively you don't. To me, this is the equivalent of a white person blacking up and demanding to be centred in black rights. It is deeply offensive and a form of cultural appropriation and colonisation. It is not a right.
  • I'd love it if the sexed bodies we have didn't matter. But they do. Because we live in a sexist world that continues to treat women (the actual females) as adjunct to and inferior to, often the property of male people, regardless of our personalities or how well we feel we fit "gender stereotypes" I know, and all the evidence and stats back this up, that actual biological sex continues to be socially as well as politically salient. For example in material terms, we know that female people are disproportionately the victims of sexual violence (over 80%) and male people are disproportionately the perpetrators (98-99%). That is why across the globe many women fought to have single sex spaces and services in certain circumstances. We also know from the stats that trans women have similar criminal behaviour patterns to other males, not females. Therefore their inner identity is irrelevant when it comes to things like being housed in prisons.
  • Most of the legislation that came into being over the last century which improved women's rights was based on "sex" - because the discrimination against us was entirely based on our sex. It had nothing to do with "gender identity" and most of it is largely irrelevant to men who claim to be women as it is not experienced by them, at all in many cases.
  • I therefore believe that attempting to replace "sex" in law with "gender identity"as demanded by "trans rights advocates" to give "trans women" the same rights as actual women is fundamentally detrimental to women's legal rights, and we have seen this in action on a number of areas in recent years.

I hope that clarifies for those who are busy claiming that we believe things we do not, and making ridiculous accusations. But I doubt it because I believe that such people are highly invested in not allowing us to discuss this in any way and not allowing anyone to hear what we actually think.

Edited

This a million times. Thank you for saying what I was thinking I. Such clear unequivocal terms.

Floisme · 25/01/2025 11:17

Britinme · 24/01/2025 22:44

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.

I missed this earlier, thanks for responding.

Depends how important they find it for codification
Indeed, and I won't be holding my breath.

and how it survives legal and constitutional challenges.
This is why I'm more concerned that it was tightly written (I'm no lawyer so I can't tell) than with trying to deduce what Trump's reasons might have been for signing it. I'll take the result and move on.

hihelenhi · 25/01/2025 11:22

dollybird · 25/01/2025 10:34

This a million times. Thank you for saying what I was thinking I. Such clear unequivocal terms.

Thank you.

I should also add that not only do sexed bodies matter because we live in a sexist world and people have perceptions about them, but that they are also literally physically different, again in ways that impact us materially. And again, this isn't about "personality" or likes and dislikes - those who claim it is are what we'd call biological determinists. Examples of how our sexed bodies matter materially include:

  • Reproduction. Which humans carry and give birth to the babies, and which humans father the babies. Regardless of whether or not individuals are able to or choose to, a whole swathe of women's rights - some might argue most - and a lot of sexism, patriarchy and oppression of women is based on this material difference. It's why, for instance, women were historically treated as male property; we were how the "male line" got carried on. It's why there is an abortion debate, it's why reproductive rights are such a key tenet of feminism, why some men think it is their "right" to decide whether or not a woman should be the sole decision maker regarding her reproductive choices.
  • Physical size and strength. Women have smaller bodies than men on average and are less strong physically. It isn't "sexism" to say this - it's a demonstrable fact, even if there are outliers. Male puberty confers a lot of physical advantage and strength due to testosterone. One of the reasons it is dangerous for women to be trapped with men in situations where they are physically vulnerable is this strength difference. The average man can physically overpower the average woman or girl easily. This puts women at a disadvantage, both in terms of physical safety but also strength.It's one of the reasons why we have separate women's sport, so women can compete on a fairer, more level playing field.
Lostcat · 25/01/2025 14:23

PS- an “executive order” / piece of government policy / legislation that includes the words “Restoring Truth” in its title- this should be your first clue that it’s a fascist piece of legislation.

https://time.com/7209300/trumps-biological-truth-executive-order-is-not-true/#

hihelenhi · 25/01/2025 14:29

PS- an “executive order” / piece of government policy / legislation that includes the words “Restoring Truth” in its title- this should be your first clue that it’s a fascist piece of legislation.

Ah, the old "so therefore, you're all fascists, ner!" trick. Weak, propagandist tactic from someone who has failed to present any concrete arguments and knows they don't stand up. As others have said - you're not the first to have tried it here, you won't be the last, and yes, dear, we can all see it for what it is. As will lurkers. Well done.

Strangely you still haven't managed a basic definition or a coherent argument, which is why you're resorting to these tactics. Integrity, not being disingenuous or (badly) attempting to gaslight posters here while engaging in good faith might serve you better.

Chersfrozenface · 25/01/2025 14:59

Wait, what, the truth is fascist now?

It is the truth that there are only two sexes in humans.

lifeturnsonadime · 25/01/2025 15:00

Operation let them speak.....

Runor · 25/01/2025 15:20

It’s almost as if a butterfly has metamorphosed into a cat - which can’t find its way home :(

Strange, whenever I hear ‘it’s too complicated, you wouldn’t understand’ I always hear ‘I don’t understand it well enough to explain’. Don’t worry though LostCat, the truth is, nobody does!

AlisonDonut · 25/01/2025 19:03

Biological reality aka the truth is now fascist?

Oh my days.

lifeturnsonadime · 25/01/2025 19:05

AlisonDonut · 25/01/2025 19:03

Biological reality aka the truth is now fascist?

Oh my days.

I've just finished reading 1984 for the first time today.....

black is white
2+2 = 5

IwantToRetire · 25/01/2025 20:21

Just a reminder as has been said on other threads.

Nobody has to reply to de-railers, or re-act when they continue to assert the same thing over and over again.

So for the final time, it would be nice and positive to have a discussion about how a regulation or law that says sex is a biological fact would impact on not just women in the US, but to imagine what it would mean here in the UK.

If someone wants to drone on about how a decision that supports women's sex based rights is actually anti trans, they could start a thread to discuss it.

But of course they dont.

Because the purpose is to dumb down any attempt at proactive, or useful discussion by boring us all to death.

Dont feed the trolls.

OP posts:
Grammarnut · 25/01/2025 21:42

Lostcat · 25/01/2025 14:23

PS- an “executive order” / piece of government policy / legislation that includes the words “Restoring Truth” in its title- this should be your first clue that it’s a fascist piece of legislation.

https://time.com/7209300/trumps-biological-truth-executive-order-is-not-true/#

Edited

It does restore truth. Sex is binary and immutable. There are two sexes: male/men and female/women. This is objectively provable, not an idea in someone's head, not an idea, or a fantasy. And sex matters as had already been said. Women bear the burden of reproduction and this historically has caused them to be seen as property. That's truth. Gender ideology is more akin to religion, is not subject to proof and cannot be the basis for legislation to protect women's sex class rights.
Not fascist. Do you know what fascism is, btw, Lost Cat?

Britinme · 25/01/2025 22:18

I think for LostCat "fascism" means "anything that goes against something I want everybody else to do the way I want it done."

GailBlancheViola · 25/01/2025 23:14

Chersfrozenface · 25/01/2025 14:59

Wait, what, the truth is fascist now?

It is the truth that there are only two sexes in humans.

I've read some truly batshit stuff but this is hands down the winner:

PS- an “executive order” / piece of government policy / legislation that includes the words “Restoring Truth” in its title- this should be your first clue that it’s a fascist piece of legislation

Do the people who post this risible nonsense know how utterly idiotic they sound? They sound about as sensible as those people who thought the Covid injections were really a way to plant a microchip into people so they could be controlled remotely by China. Then again if you believe people can change sex I suppose it's not much of a leap to believe in the truth being fascist.

TheCourseOfTheRiverChanged · 26/01/2025 00:31

@IwantToRetire "Because the purpose is to dumb down any attempt at proactive, or useful discussion by boring us all to death."
This made me laugh. Which is highly preferable to banging my head against the wall, so, thank you.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 09:31

IwantToRetire · 25/01/2025 20:21

Just a reminder as has been said on other threads.

Nobody has to reply to de-railers, or re-act when they continue to assert the same thing over and over again.

So for the final time, it would be nice and positive to have a discussion about how a regulation or law that says sex is a biological fact would impact on not just women in the US, but to imagine what it would mean here in the UK.

If someone wants to drone on about how a decision that supports women's sex based rights is actually anti trans, they could start a thread to discuss it.

But of course they dont.

Because the purpose is to dumb down any attempt at proactive, or useful discussion by boring us all to death.

Dont feed the trolls.

Just because someone is interrupting your echo chamber, it does not make them a troll.

Your initial OP was about why this was being presented as a piece of anti-trans legislation in the media, rather than a piece of legislation protecting women’s rights.

It’s because it’s a piece of anti trans legislation.

This is demonstrated , not least, by clarifying the opinions of people on this very thread who apparently support this executive order.

People on this thread by their own admission “do not understand what being trans is.” They keep insisting I “define” what being trans means in their efforts to demonstrate/
prove that it (being trans) can’t be coherently defined because it (being trans) makes no sense/ there’s no such thing.

They believe being trans is a fiction, an “ideology”. Furthermore, they fear and hate this “ideology” (being trans) because they believe it is dangerous/ harmful to women and children.

Therefore, they want this “ideology” (being trans) completely eliminated/ eradicated.

Those are the propositions/ beliefs that this Executive Order codifies into US law- under the banner - “Restoring Biological Truth”.

This is fascism.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 09:40

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 09:31

Just because someone is interrupting your echo chamber, it does not make them a troll.

Your initial OP was about why this was being presented as a piece of anti-trans legislation in the media, rather than a piece of legislation protecting women’s rights.

It’s because it’s a piece of anti trans legislation.

This is demonstrated , not least, by clarifying the opinions of people on this very thread who apparently support this executive order.

People on this thread by their own admission “do not understand what being trans is.” They keep insisting I “define” what being trans means in their efforts to demonstrate/
prove that it (being trans) can’t be coherently defined because it (being trans) makes no sense/ there’s no such thing.

They believe being trans is a fiction, an “ideology”. Furthermore, they fear and hate this “ideology” (being trans) because they believe it is dangerous/ harmful to women and children.

Therefore, they want this “ideology” (being trans) completely eliminated/ eradicated.

Those are the propositions/ beliefs that this Executive Order codifies into US law- under the banner - “Restoring Biological Truth”.

This is fascism.

Edited

*Those are the propositions/ beliefs that this Executive Order codifies into US law- under the rhetoric - “Restoring Biological Truth”.

This is fascism

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 09:43

Britinme · 25/01/2025 22:18

I think for LostCat "fascism" means "anything that goes against something I want everybody else to do the way I want it done."

They are being ridiculous.

"Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler" is not a sign of a strong argument. It's embarrassing.

Strangely still hasn't managed to provide a definition for "trans".

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 09:59

People seem to have very strong reactions to my characterisation of this EO as “fascist”. This is understandable.
However, this is indeed a reasonable descriptor of a piece of legislation whose core purpose is to eradicate / make illegitimate the existence of a group of people (and does so under the rhetoric of restoring the “Truth”).

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 26/01/2025 10:11

Did anyone else notice that the Guardian has at last caught up with this discussion, and supplied exactly the tropes one expected of them:

Sex is really complicated, too complicated for you plebs to comprehend.

Now we're all female, because early embryos are not yet morphologically sex-differentiated , ha ha ha!

If Trump is allowed to say male and female are different, it gives him carte blanche to take away female's rights, just like the Taliban.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/25/trump-executive-order-sex

It was the most read opinion piece this morning but not open for comments. Nor did they solicit letters for the letters page.

After his executive order on sex, is Trump legally the first female president?

The confusing and vague executive order underscores how complex sex is and why it’s hard to reduce it into a neat binary

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/25/trump-executive-order-sex

Runor · 26/01/2025 10:12

IwantToRetire · 23/01/2025 18:07

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.

That’s an interesting point. I don’t know enough to understand how it plays in the US, but in the UK we have the protected characteristic of gender transition - ie you can’t be discriminated against because you have transitioned. I think that it is correct to protect people’s jobs/rental agreements/treatment by the authorities against discrimination on the basis of transition - although the failure to define transition doesn’t really help! I also think the current law is correct to compare treatment with others of the same sex where treatment differs by sex. This (in theory anyway) protects single sex spaces, and shouldn’t compel pronoun use etc.
i think the UK should have a similar clarification of the definitions of sex/woman/man etc (as you say, who’d have thought we would need it!) and also some clearing up after Stonewall’s attempt to rewrite the law around what is and isn’t required.
Beyond that, I think we’re back to good old-fashioned feminism of trying to address sexism - on which we would have been able to make rather more progress without the GI intervention - but that was at least part of the point, wasn’t it!

AlisonDonut · 26/01/2025 10:19

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 26/01/2025 10:11

Did anyone else notice that the Guardian has at last caught up with this discussion, and supplied exactly the tropes one expected of them:

Sex is really complicated, too complicated for you plebs to comprehend.

Now we're all female, because early embryos are not yet morphologically sex-differentiated , ha ha ha!

If Trump is allowed to say male and female are different, it gives him carte blanche to take away female's rights, just like the Taliban.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/25/trump-executive-order-sex

It was the most read opinion piece this morning but not open for comments. Nor did they solicit letters for the letters page.

I think this needs it's own thread as exactly the sort of demented take that handed Trump the presidency.

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 26/01/2025 10:20

AlisonDonut · 26/01/2025 10:19

I think this needs it's own thread as exactly the sort of demented take that handed Trump the presidency.

Roger.

Chersfrozenface · 26/01/2025 10:21

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 09:59

People seem to have very strong reactions to my characterisation of this EO as “fascist”. This is understandable.
However, this is indeed a reasonable descriptor of a piece of legislation whose core purpose is to eradicate / make illegitimate the existence of a group of people (and does so under the rhetoric of restoring the “Truth”).

Edited

So this group of people, who are they?

Certainly not people who have changed sex, since that is impossible. No human has ever changed sex.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.