Trump team to stop family-planning funding as it reviews whether it’s being used for DEI programs

[IwantToRetire]

The Trump administration is planning to freeze tens of millions of dollars in federal grants to organizations providing family planning and other reproductive health services, as it reviews whether the funds violate the president’s order to cease all government-backed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work.

A Health and Human Services spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal, which reported on the plan, that the department was reviewing grants to make sure they complied with the crackdown on DEI.

The freeze to the Title X program could impact as much as $120 million worth of grants to a network of roughly 4,000 clinics providing free and discounted pregnancy testing, contraception, sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and treatment, and evaluations and testing for infertility.

Planned Parenthood, whose affiliates could lose roughly $20 million if the paused grants are ultimately cut, reacted with alarm.

“The Trump-Vance-Musk administration wants to shut down Planned Parenthood health centers by any means necessary, and they’ll end people’s access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more to do it,” Planned Parenthood Federation of America CEO Alex McGill Johnson told the newspaper.

https://www.aol.co.uk/trump-team-stop-family-planning-211853228.html

Shall we take the example of New Zealand? Worst of the 14 OECD countries surveyed for domestic violence against women. Has self-ID.

Or Spain? That country has a law, the Organic Act 1/2004 on Comprehensive Protection Measures to Combat Gender Violence, intended specifically to prevent and combat violence against women.
In San Sebastian a police officer attacked his partner with a knife. He had registered as a woman six months before under Spain's "Trans Law". He could therefore not be charged with “gender violence” under the 2004 Act.

They're clearly not very well, I'm going to ignore them from now on.

What does any of this have to do with Planned Parenthood having their funding reviewed for sterilising children?

Women tend to do well in countries that are:

• Wealthy
• Democratic, with voting rights for women equal to that of men
• Have affordable health care
• Have legislation that to some extent protects women’s reproductive rights (such as paid maternity leave)
• Encourage women into the workforce (and are therefore dependent on their productivity)
• Are culturally favourable to the evolving rights of women and minorities

It is this set of conditions that also favours the growth of luxury beliefs, such as gender self ID. This gives the correlation that you mistakenly claim to be causal.

Thanks for putting into words what my brain was struggling to organise!

Well, apart from repeating the seemingly enduring lie that I have said there is a causal relationship, I would tend to agree with much of what you have said here.

But that still doesn't answer the question I have posed ...can you explain why, if self-ID is so harmful to women, the countries that that have implemented it are rising to and staying at the top of the equality tables rather than dropping down?

Unlike your 'I have inferred no causal effect', but you wimmin still have to explain why there is one.

Even tho you 'don't need to demonstrate any causal effect', because it's only about 'the big picture evidence' and that 'having gender self ID laws does not appear to be detrimental for women'.

Denying you're trying to find a causal effect by talking about big picture and what things appear to be, and then demanding women refute it!

What's really desperate is trying to use unrelated and misrepresented stats from another country to undermine women here.

It's so pointless. But you're like a dog with a bone over it.

Because quite apart from anything else connected to your non-argument the women here say no.

In this country the answer is no, absolutely not, forget it, no way jose. Men have to stay out of women's spaces. The end.

Using irrelevant stats from somewhere else, really isn't going to change that.

Nominal equality measured by limited criteria does not = actual equality in the real world.

Surveys which leave out VAWG, maternal health, women's health, the pay and promotion gap between the sexes, costs, responsibility and career sacrifice in terms of child and elder care and care for the disabled, mean sweet FA.

But that still doesn't answer the question I have posed ...can you explain why, if self-ID is so harmful to women, the countries that that have implemented it are rising to and staying at the top of the equality tables rather than dropping down?

Because all the other factors vastly outweigh the malign effects of genderism.

However, this does not mean that those malign effects do not impact on individuals or groups in many detrimental or harmful ways, for example:

• Young gender-confused women who are possibly autistic or suffering from MH problems, who are wrongly put on medicalised pathways to transition
• Girls in schools and other organisations, having to endure boys in spaces that should be private for them
• Women and girls in sports having to compete with (and possibly be injured by) males
• Lesbians who are coerced into having sexual relations with men who say they are women
• Women working in health care or the prison service who are obliged to treat men as women if they say they are, or forfeit their jobs
• Academics who are prevented from speaking the truth, again risking their livelihoods if they do

And so on. The societal effect may be barely discernible, but the effect on those individuals and small groups can be devastating.

Once a country introduces Self ID it becomes impossible to say anything about sex equality as there will no longer BE any measures of women’s achievement or equality.

We have no idea how women are doing in New Zealand of Finland as there is now no record of this.

How do you know what women’s equality with men is in countries that have implemented Self-ID laws?

Well that is a big concession for this board..."the societal effect may be barely discernable", thank you for this acknowledgement.

This is an important point in the world we live in today, when for eg. we have many posters here declaring proudly that they are single issue voters, and they "will vote for whichever party knows what a woman is".

Invariably these parties who "know what a woman is" and their politicians, rank very poorly on all those areas you have correctly identified as being central to women's wellbeing; they tend to score poorly on commitment to women's reproductive rights, women in the workforce, women's maternity rights and childcare support, support for the evolving rights of women and minorities.

So I am glad you agree that voting in such a way is detrimental for women, as these are the areas that significantly impact on women's equality and wellbeing, and the issue of self-ID is negligible in comparison.

I disagree on some of your individual points and also note that you do not acknowledge the harms that occur through anti-trans policies.

So for eg. "Lesbians who are coerced into having sexual relations with men who say they are women" I mean you appear to be talking about sexual assault and rape there? I think you will find that the vast majority of trans people, like the vast majority of non trans folk, have no interest in sexual assault or rape. No need to repeat transphobic tropes.

And of course you will be aware that trans people are at vastly greater risk of being assaulted themselves, with some US studies indicating they are 4 times more likely to be assaulted than non trans people and UK studies indicating they are twice as likely. Countries that create a supportive culture for trans people reduce these harms to them. And they do this simultaneously to rising to the top of and staying at the the top of the international tables for women's equality with men.

The countries that are doing well for transpeople are the countries that are doing well for women. The countries that are doing well for women are the countries that are doing well for transpeople.

The countries that are doing well for transpeople are the countries that are doing well for women. The countries that are doing well for women are the countries that are doing well for transpeople.

New Zealand. Spain. Malta. Examples of countries with self-ID which are very problematic for women.

Well that is a big concession for this board..."the societal effect may be barely discernible", thank you for this acknowledgement.

It’s not an acknowledgement that no harm is caused, just that it’s not noticed, because people are not paying attention. And it’s not a justification for saying that it doesn’t matter.

The countries that are doing well for transpeople are the countries that are doing well for women. The countries that are doing well for women are the countries that are doing well for transpeople.

Apart, of course, for those women who are hurt or disadvantaged by the trans phenomenon, those who you clearly think don’t matter.

Transactivists never acknowledge anything that challenges their simplistic belief that men can magically become women. That's why they spend so much time on here lecturing and patronising women with irrelevant "studies" and data.

Gaslighting, coercive control and magical thinking all employed in an attempt to drown out the challenging issues that women have to confront about our own safety and the safety of children.

And of course you will be aware that trans people are at vastly greater risk of being assaulted themselves, with some US studies indicating they are 4 times more likely to be assaulted than non trans people and UK studies indicating they are twice as likely.

Please link the studies you are referring to as none of the studies TRAs have shown so far show that to be true. And we know trans people are an order of magnitude less likely to be murdered than the rest of the population, even in areas with high murder rates like South America.

@PippistrelleBat overuse of some figures in the past doesn't mean that trans people aren't at high risk of violence and harassment - CPS figures here I believe most though not all violence against trans people originates in homophobia. It does nothing for being GC or for womens rights in my view to pretend that people presenting as gender nonconforming don't get beaten up and threatened in the UK.

And, of course, just because a man claims to be a woman (or whatever else rather than the reality of his sex) doesn’t mean he is less likely to commit male pattern violence than men who don’t claim to be anything other than their real sex.

Indeed, I read somewhere that men who claim to be women have a higher percentage of their convictions for sex crimes than other men. I don’t know if the numbers are statistically meaningful. Irrespective, how abhorrent to then lock up women (against their will) with those male sex offenders. All a male sex offender has to say is ‘I’m a woman’ and he gets loose on the very victims he has been convicted of assaulting. Some punishment, it’s more of a reward giving him potential new victims who are trapped and cannot get away. It’s a special cruelty towards women, in my view.

You can add Ireland to that. I think when the gender recognition act was passed in Ireland that there was something like 15% of female representation in the Irish parliament. It was a bit more than Iran, though. So, Ireland is better for women than Iran I’d say. It’s moved a little, but doesn’t really get over 25%.

Oh, and men got to change their birth certs to say they were women even before women could get an abortion when their very life was in danger. It took Savita dying to make it an issue, and a constitutional referendum for that. No big public input for the lads to have access to spaces where women and possibly children were. Representation on the ‘citizens assembly’ seems to be a little skewed and even the meagre safeguarding measures that they recommended were not put in to the legislation. I mean it is not as if there were recent experiences of men being drawn to easy access to women and children in Ireland in the past or anything. No Magdalene laundries abuses or child sex abuse scandals and inquiries which recommended safeguarding measures which are being thrown aside.

The Symphysiotomy scandals in early to mid C20th where Irish women had their pelvic joints sawn by male obstetricians rather than do a Caesarian which every developed country was doing at the time. Procedures which left women in pain and incontinent. Scandals of obstetricians carrying out hysterectomies needlessly and without prior consent taking away women’s fertility.

And I wouldn’t buy the marketing of the progressive bros. They wouldn’t see women as being as fully human as men with corresponding civil rights. I remember Leo Varadkar gave an interview where he said he was against abortion in cases of rape and incest. He said it would lead to abortion on demand. Sure I suppose you couldn’t be up to what those sly women would claim, eh? These guys volte face is a case of thinking it looked good and ‘progressive’. It made them look good on the world stage. Of course under Varadkars leadership, women in Limerick prison were locked up with the man ‘Barbie Kardashian. This Alessandro Gentile (aka Barbie Kardashian) dude threatened and assaulted women before other women then were locked up with him. In court recently for threatening to rape one of the women in prison with an object. No consequences for him, I seem to remember. How progressive, and plus ca change!

There was a trade in the babies of women who gave birth out of wedlock (this could be abuse - rape or incest even). These babies had their Birth Certificates falsified and packed off to be adopted in the US in exchange for money. Now the laws over surrogacy is being altered. I think this was to advantage men in same sex relationships. So women and babies in another country will be exploited, traded as goods and their human rights abused this time.

The political system is just staid. Lots of parish pump and vested interests, and milking the system. Nobody ever seems to be held to account. Elections don’t seem to matter anymore. You don’t even get Tweedledum OR Tweedledee any more. It seems to be both of the main parties together in a coalition and they switch around the leader of the government half way through the term.

That all sounds cynical. It is a lovely country and ordinary people are fine. The tax subsidised proliferation of NGO lobby groups are expansive and they seem to have an influence over and above what they should have. I won’t go on.

A lot of those statistics refer to homophobia. Something we know if rife amongst those who promote gender ideology.

But of the other figures, compare them to sexual harassment and sexual assault of women and girls. Girls in school do not even bother to report it as it is so normalised. And of course ‘hate crime’ or ‘hate incidents’ do not exist for crimes and incidents motivated based on sex - mostly because they are too commonplace that police forces would be rapidly overwhelmed.

The claim was trans identified people are at a vastly greater risk of being assaulted - this is not true.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime/context-and-characteristics-hostility-towards-sexual-orientation-and-transgender-identity

Just on the 'transwomen are 4 times more at risk of sexual assault than ACTUAL women' it's a long-debunked lie with no valid studies and the williams 'institute' themselves admitted the stats weren't reliable. To say a big strapping built like a brick shithouse male is more at risk than actual women and girls, because he is wearing a dress, is batshit fucking ridiculous.

In deed and in fact, transwomen commit sexual offences 5 times greater than other males, and are more likely to murder than be murdered.

Actual facts and statistics show transwomen are far more dangerous than other males who identify as men.

From the Williams Institute link:
"One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten cisgender women."
I'd say we need an awful lot more consciousness raising for the liberation of the female state!!

Yep. Males think women saying NO to them is 'hate'. Many of these transwomen think calling them a male is 'hate' and saying no to them being in our spaces is 'hate', on one survey transwomen listed looking at them strangely is 'hate'.

So we can see that males are much more likely to feel entitled and cry 'hate' than females are. It doesn't mean they are more likely than females to be attacked or abused, it just means these males are more forthright and entitled and feel if they don't get what they want it's 'hate' when it isn't. There has never been one single report of a transwoman being attacked in a male toilet, and if there was, they would rub our faces in it and never let us forget it. Ever. Yet there are literally hundreds of reports of transwomen attacking females in toilets and female facilities.

Entitled males whingeing that a female called him a man = 'hate' = 'hate crime' and therefore we get links that say males receive more hate than females. Only an idiot can't see through it.

If you want to get the measure of a man
(however he identifies) just try saying "no" to him. It is very revealing.