Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
lifeturnsonadime · 26/01/2025 13:38

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 13:34

being trans is not about “what they [a person] are allowed to wear, their behaviour, voice pitch, mannerisms etc”. This is anti-trans stereotyping/ propaganda.

It is not at all “appropriate” to call trans women “men”; indeed it is completely incompatible with their right to dignity of the human person, right to privacy/ family life , right to protection from cruel and degrading treatment.

I hope we get similar clarification in the UK
God help us all if it does. I don’t believe that it will , but anything is possible I suppose - especially while groups like reform are becoming more and more popular.

Edited

So what IS trans if it is not these things Lostcat?

You seem very good at being able to say what it is not, but not what it is?

Why is that?

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 13:42

lifeturnsonadime · 26/01/2025 13:38

So what IS trans if it is not these things Lostcat?

You seem very good at being able to say what it is not, but not what it is?

Why is that?

I believe we have covered this.

lifeturnsonadime · 26/01/2025 13:45

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 13:42

I believe we have covered this.

No we haven't. Not at all.

You seem determined to impose your beliefs on us in a very authoritarian manner, telling us what trans is not and what we are and are not allowed to think a trans woman is.

It is very reasonable for us to ask what you believe trans means.

You keep refusing and suggesting we are fascist aligned for our entirely reasonable belief that women should have sex based spaces and for pointing out that some women are harmed by males who say they are trans entering those spaces without consent.

Runor · 26/01/2025 13:45

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 13:42

I believe we have covered this.

No, you have consistently refused to cover this for the entire thread

AlisonDonut · 26/01/2025 13:46

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 13:30

So is it your position that :

  1. being trans is not real
  2. it’s not possible to identify people who are trans
  3. being trans is no more than a made up identity claimed by rapists after arrest?

?

It is your position that it isn't real bearing in mind you have no definition of it.

SeethingHarpie · 26/01/2025 13:50

“It is not at all “appropriate” to call trans women “men”; indeed it is completely incompatible with their right to dignity of the human person, right to privacy/ family life , right to protection from cruel and degrading treatment.”

It is not at all “appropriate” to call trans women “women”; indeed it is completely incompatible with women’s right to dignity of the human person, right to privacy/ family life , right to protection from cruel and degrading treatment.

Fixed it for you…

Don’t bother responding unless a definition of trans precedes any scolding, thanks…

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 13:55

lifeturnsonadime · 26/01/2025 13:45

No we haven't. Not at all.

You seem determined to impose your beliefs on us in a very authoritarian manner, telling us what trans is not and what we are and are not allowed to think a trans woman is.

It is very reasonable for us to ask what you believe trans means.

You keep refusing and suggesting we are fascist aligned for our entirely reasonable belief that women should have sex based spaces and for pointing out that some women are harmed by males who say they are trans entering those spaces without consent.

You seem determined to impose your beliefs on us in a very authoritarian manner telling us what trans is not and what we are and are not allowed to think a trans woman is.

what a strange thing to say- especially from someone who supports this EO! DARVO perhaps?

You can think whatever harmful / prejudiced things you want about trans people- nobody can stop you (window into men’s souls etc).

but when you are spreading anti trans propaganda online - (being trans isn’t a real thing, no one can define being trans, trans people are sexual perverts, trans is a label claimed by rapists, etc.) and seeking to write such harmful notions into law (!) no less, its entirely appropriate- indeed vital- that other people have something to say about / challenge that.

DeanElderberry · 26/01/2025 13:57

@Lostcat

So is it your position that :

  1. being trans is not real
  2. it’s not possible to identify people who are trans
  3. being trans is no more than a made up identity claimed by rapists after arrest?

No it is my position that :

  1. being trans is not real
  2. it’s not possible to identify people who are trans
  3. being trans is no more than a made up identity

Being a rapist facing prison and wanting continued access to women is only one motivation for making up a 'trans identity' and obviously not that of the very many women identifying as transmen. Or are you ignoring them again? I think they are the majority among 'trans people'.

hihelenhi · 26/01/2025 13:59

Runor · 26/01/2025 13:45

No, you have consistently refused to cover this for the entire thread

Precisely.

As everyone who actually reads this thread can see.

Yet WE have explained our positions in detail, despite the constant derailing, hyperbole and false accusations. And everyone can read them.

It's almost as if LostCat is entirely disingenuous, a lazy, easily-led, immature cultist who spouts mantras and propaganda with zero facts or analysis. and is not remotely interested in engaging in good faith because it's clear that's not their purpose here. And continues to demonstrate they have no concrete arguments or even a definition of "trans" because they know the whole movement and ideology they are supposedly advocating for is built on sand. Embarrassing to watch. But a great demonstration, as we keep saying, for all those reading this thread.

Frankly, if I identified as trans, I'd certainly be looking for better advocates than LostCat. People like this are why backwards, misogynist, homophobic and batshit gender ideology is finally in its death throes.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 13:59

SeethingHarpie · 26/01/2025 13:50

“It is not at all “appropriate” to call trans women “men”; indeed it is completely incompatible with their right to dignity of the human person, right to privacy/ family life , right to protection from cruel and degrading treatment.”

It is not at all “appropriate” to call trans women “women”; indeed it is completely incompatible with women’s right to dignity of the human person, right to privacy/ family life , right to protection from cruel and degrading treatment.

Fixed it for you…

Don’t bother responding unless a definition of trans precedes any scolding, thanks…

It is not at all “appropriate” to call trans women “women”; indeed it is completely incompatible with women’s right to dignity of the human person, right to privacy/ family life , right to protection from cruel and degrading treatment.

It really doesn’t.
recognising another person takes nothing , nought, zero, zilch away from your person or my person.

AlisonDonut · 26/01/2025 14:01

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 13:59

It is not at all “appropriate” to call trans women “women”; indeed it is completely incompatible with women’s right to dignity of the human person, right to privacy/ family life , right to protection from cruel and degrading treatment.

It really doesn’t.
recognising another person takes nothing , nought, zero, zilch away from your person or my person.

I recognise men as men.

Pretending that some of them for some special reason would definitely take away from me as a woman.

Especially when they turn up at work dressed as Little Bo Peep with fancy frilly knickers on. Yeah, no, not gonna happen.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 14:02

DeanElderberry · 26/01/2025 13:57

@Lostcat

So is it your position that :

  1. being trans is not real
  2. it’s not possible to identify people who are trans
  3. being trans is no more than a made up identity claimed by rapists after arrest?

No it is my position that :

  1. being trans is not real
  2. it’s not possible to identify people who are trans
  3. being trans is no more than a made up identity

Being a rapist facing prison and wanting continued access to women is only one motivation for making up a 'trans identity' and obviously not that of the very many women identifying as transmen. Or are you ignoring them again? I think they are the majority among 'trans people'.

*No it is my position that :

  1. being trans is not real
  2. it’s not possible to identify people who are trans
  3. being trans is no more than a made up identity*

Thank you for clarifying. This is why you support this EO as this it the viewpoint it seeks to codify into law.
This is why it is anti-trans legislation- it is written to declare that being trans is not real- does not exist - in law.

Runor · 26/01/2025 14:02

So, no definition of trans. No definition of ‘man’ except that it obviously isn’t ‘adult human male’ since it is an insult to use it for certain adult human males. If I ask for a definition of ‘woman’ then that’s a transphobic dog-whistle. Yet we must all agree that transwomen are women, and biological women are somehow included in the definition because they “know that they are” even without knowing exactly what that now means……

I’ve got a funny feeling that the definition of ‘woman’ is going to involve a ‘feeling’, even though I’ve never yet met a (biological) woman who understands what that feeling is

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 14:03

AlisonDonut · 26/01/2025 14:01

I recognise men as men.

Pretending that some of them for some special reason would definitely take away from me as a woman.

Especially when they turn up at work dressed as Little Bo Peep with fancy frilly knickers on. Yeah, no, not gonna happen.

Especially when they turn up at work dressed as Little Bo Peep with fancy frilly knickers on.

Is this you image of/ attitude towards trans people?
Very demeaning/ disparaging depiction would you acknowledge?

AlisonDonut · 26/01/2025 14:04

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 14:03

Especially when they turn up at work dressed as Little Bo Peep with fancy frilly knickers on.

Is this you image of/ attitude towards trans people?
Very demeaning/ disparaging depiction would you acknowledge?

Edited

Well, for the man who said he was a woman that I used to work with, it apparently is. Why don't you think that's what it is?

If not, why not?

Britinme · 26/01/2025 14:05

AIBot · 26/01/2025 11:25

Why is there so much Republican energy from the US being directed to a UK based message board?

It's not Republican energy. It's reality energy. I live in the USA and I have consistently voted Democrat since I became a citizen in time to vote for Obama in 2008. I didn't vote for Trump because he is an appalling human being but I had to hold my nose to vote for Harris because of the ludicrous positions the party held on sex-based rights for women. A lot of Democratic some of my acquaintance feel the same, and I seriously think this is one reason Trump won.

Britinme · 26/01/2025 14:07

@Lostcat is doing a splendid job of "let them speak" by consistently refusing to give any kind of definition of what trans is, but is also exemplifying the OP's reasons for not feeding the trolls.

duc748 · 26/01/2025 14:09

But at the cost of enshitting yet another thread.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 14:09

Britinme · 26/01/2025 14:07

@Lostcat is doing a splendid job of "let them speak" by consistently refusing to give any kind of definition of what trans is, but is also exemplifying the OP's reasons for not feeding the trolls.

I’m actually letting you all speak. People are being very honest/ graphic about how they really see/ feel about trans people.

It’s helpful to highlight this, as it shows what this EO, and the support for it, is all about.

DeanElderberry · 26/01/2025 14:11

It can't be anti trans if there is no such things as trans. You might as well declare legislation as anti-werewolves or anti-unicorns.

lifeturnsonadime · 26/01/2025 14:11

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 13:55

You seem determined to impose your beliefs on us in a very authoritarian manner telling us what trans is not and what we are and are not allowed to think a trans woman is.

what a strange thing to say- especially from someone who supports this EO! DARVO perhaps?

You can think whatever harmful / prejudiced things you want about trans people- nobody can stop you (window into men’s souls etc).

but when you are spreading anti trans propaganda online - (being trans isn’t a real thing, no one can define being trans, trans people are sexual perverts, trans is a label claimed by rapists, etc.) and seeking to write such harmful notions into law (!) no less, its entirely appropriate- indeed vital- that other people have something to say about / challenge that.

I haven't said that being trans isn't real.

I have said I don't know what it is because I've never actually seen a defined term.

Those two things are completely different.

I think you demonstrate prejudice towards women and you are online spreading anti woman propaganda by suggesting that women should allow without question an undefined group of males into single sex spaces for females, even though there is mounting evidence that some women are harmed (and many just simply do not consent to the presence of those males).

How you can use the word DARVO unironically is totally laughable. It is the demands of males that caused the need for this 'change' in law to regain the status quo for the safety and dignity of females, so you have a cheek to tell women that it is our demands that are unreasonable.

AlisonDonut · 26/01/2025 14:12

We see trans people as the sex they are.

That's it. It's pretty simple. No exposé needed. It's not cutting edge investigative journalism to report back that some Mumsnet FWR posters think biological sex exists.

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 14:15

DeanElderberry · 26/01/2025 14:11

It can't be anti trans if there is no such things as trans. You might as well declare legislation as anti-werewolves or anti-unicorns.

It can't be anti trans if there is no such things as trans

Right.
So logically there is no such thing as being “anti trans” right?
There’s no such thing as transphobia.

This is exactly the logic which dictates the endless games on these threads:

  • we are not transphobic / anti trans - there’s no such thing!
  • point out the transphobia on mumsnet - you can’t because nothing js transphobia!
  • define being trans! You can’t, because being trans doesn’t exist!

Let’s write it into law that trans people don’t exist! That can’t be anti trans because there is no such thing as trans!

See how that works?

Helleofabore · 26/01/2025 14:16

lifeturnsonadime · 26/01/2025 13:45

No we haven't. Not at all.

You seem determined to impose your beliefs on us in a very authoritarian manner, telling us what trans is not and what we are and are not allowed to think a trans woman is.

It is very reasonable for us to ask what you believe trans means.

You keep refusing and suggesting we are fascist aligned for our entirely reasonable belief that women should have sex based spaces and for pointing out that some women are harmed by males who say they are trans entering those spaces without consent.

I suspect from previous experience that some of the reluctance is that when some posters define what it means to be transgender, they end up being an exemplar of transphobia in that they end up gatekeeping who is transgender and who is not.

And if that doesn't give them pause, that they only support a segment of who is transgender and who isn't and that maybe they are supporting a wider group that they don't want to admit to supporting, then I don't know what will cause them to deeply analyse why their definitions don't stand up to a skerrick of analysis.

When a person who insists they have a degree qualification in a 'related field' yet rejects transmaxxers as being transgender, then it does shine a beacon on the issues at hand.

lifeturnsonadime · 26/01/2025 14:16

Lostcat · 26/01/2025 14:15

It can't be anti trans if there is no such things as trans

Right.
So logically there is no such thing as being “anti trans” right?
There’s no such thing as transphobia.

This is exactly the logic which dictates the endless games on these threads:

  • we are not transphobic / anti trans - there’s no such thing!
  • point out the transphobia on mumsnet - you can’t because nothing js transphobia!
  • define being trans! You can’t, because being trans doesn’t exist!

Let’s write it into law that trans people don’t exist! That can’t be anti trans because there is no such thing as trans!

See how that works?

So let's turn this on it's head, if you want to give a group of males who are trans to be awarded women's rights in law how are you going to define that group so that every male is not included?

In other words what's your definition of trans for the purpose of protecting this particular group?

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.