ONWARD! Much work yet to be done as you state Kara! Still a HUGE step forward! THANK YOU Kara for your years of commitment to sex-based protection for women!
We put together a federal bill that is much more extensive than this EO. Major components of our bill were used but not everything we wanted. We floated our ideas to Democrats and got an immediate No Go. There was also huge resistance from feminists who wanted to essentially ban the words gender, transgender, cisgender and the like while we chose to define them in ways that disempower them legally, politically and socially. We need to undo the years of miseducation of youth. The best way to do that is flip gender ideology on it's head by reframing the discussion, including terms. We don't want a multiyear fight over this; we want to spend our time unraveling the damage. Our thinking is that issues like this keep us fighting Left to Right for decades while bigger problems are not addressed (climate, perpetual wars for profit) are successfully hidden “behind the curtain.”
So we took the bill to Republicans who promoted major parts of it. Our bill is much more comprehensive and includes features that will prevent Democrats from ever pulling a subversive trick like their sneaky redefinition of sex again. While not banning transitioning outright, it contains details that will have transitioning profiteers shaking in their boots. We also separate LGB rights from the TQ+ craziness to reinforce the protected class necessary for sexual orientation.
Now on to the harder work of convincingly Republicans to incorporate more of our ideas. Contact me via substack messages if you want to help.
Thank you for explaining that. I am from Aotearoa/NZ and we need to work out our tactics so that they are thorough and long lasting. Currently our lesbian group is taking the local Pride fair to our Human Rights Review Tribunal cos they barred us from quietly exhibiting local lesbian history cos we know that lesbians are same-sex attracted and they say that our presence makes 'trans' unsafe! (see our website LAVA.nz) It's pathetic and being ostracised from the rainbow communities is very distressing and leaves us feeling unsafe.
We don't know how we can inspire newer lesbians with our lesbian history if we are excluded from rainbow events.
Completely agree. The fact that our system of governance was able to be used to redefine girl/woman other than female sex based (same for boy/man is male) needs a law to block these backdoors, a law that cannot be changed or overridden. Obviously a major, irrational flaw in our system of governance. As for the state I am native and still reside, California, we have quite the fight ahead. But I believe we will win.
Unfortunately, any law other than the Constitution can be changed by future Congresses. The Constitution can be amended, but that is very difficult, as everyone knows. Neither one of those facts is necessarily a "major, irrational flaw in our system of governance." Also, as Kara notes, some of what was done under Biden was federal agencies misrepresenting what the law actually was with respect to gender identity, both on agency websites and in communications with individuals and organizations including state and local governments. Again, there is no way to stop that except for citizens to be vigilant and to organize to hold government officials accountable for misrepresenting what the law requires and forbids.
Not that a tremendous amount of work didn't go into this, but it's striking how easily these changes — major, dramatic changes — came and went. We're talking about what we're allowed to say, the actual meanings of words, whether or not men can freely enter spaces reserved for women and girls for reasons of safety and dignity. I know there will be litigation, but this is all so clear and so cogent that I can't imagine anyone will be able to argue it without sounding like a lunatic — for good reason. It's just kind of a shock to the system to see something laid out so cleanly after so much incoherent, obfuscating, insidious language and policy.
No doubt there will be outcry from my former (for what I assume will be awhile given the SB28 vote) party about harm, and erasure, and discrimination, and word-related violence. There will be admonitions about government waste and the cost of reprinting thousands of forms and changing digital versions to remove the crazy, but those actions will demonstrably bring back a slice of sanity, like a curtain pulled back in a dark room to admit sky and sunshine. I would love to know how the Fed employees really feel about it. No doubt at least some are seriously relieved.
good comment and I just have to explore your point about "Sounding like a lunatic" when arguing agains this EO ... do you mean "sound like a lunatic" like the way Democrats sounded last week when arguing against the bill to end males-who-feel-female decimating women and girls' sports? they called it the "predators enabling act" or akin to that ... or do you mean "like a lunatic" like the Meta employees who are now reportedly calling in sick to work because Meta ended the censorship of its social media sites and now allow those who post to freely denounce gender ideology and to identify the mental illness of individuals who "feel" an opposite sex ...therefore the "gender diverse" Meta employees are now self-identifying as "sick" and refusing to come to work.
"sounding like a lunatic" really depends on what ideas animate one's ears, right? I mean, to almost half the country Trump sounds like a lunatic.
...
what I'm trying to say is that, Yes, most certainly many many people will be willing to "sound like lunatics" to oppose this EO.
We’re just human beings, after all. The most consequential “binary” we possess is our propensity for cheering on our team while excoriating the other side.
Which is why objectivity and knowledge seeking are so valuable and necessary. I disagree with Shakespeare about killing all the lawyers.
I mean that in order to argue against the order, you'd have to have coherent and compelling definitions of what a "gender identity" is, what "nonbinary" means, why internal sense of self that contradicts reality should be prioritized or in any way legislated around. And yes, sound like a lunatic the way the Dem Reps did at the HR28 hearing. I'm not talking about the everyday-type mass-delusion that's caused so much harm, I'm speaking purely on the legislative/legal aspect. The general populace, including those Meta employees, is free to believe whatever they want, regardless of how patently bonkers I might think it is, but our lawmakers and leaders and those who have to argue before the courts are subject to a higher/different standard. The AGs or the ACLU attorneys may feel perfectly comfortable sounding like lunatics, but whether their arguments have any effect on the EO is another story.
I recently discovered that a new friend in Massachusetts is Chase Strangio's aunt.
Strangio does, in deed, feel perfectly comfortable sounding like a lunatic in public, because she doesn't recognize her MAGA-like antics as loony, and she has her family (and, she magically believes, all leftists) convinced that she is the epitome of honor. Her family admires her tremendously and think she's some kind of historical figure because she got to argue in front of the Supreme Court. They preen themselves on it.
For all of them, the hunger to have a famous family member is stronger than either justice or reality.
You'll see the same thing from Eli in the Piers Morgan interview in which "Brianna" Wu goes ballistic on him, demanding, "WHY are you giving children un-prescribed drugs? That's a crime! You make the rest of us look deranged! WHY Are you doing it?" Eli simply smiles nervously and doesn't answer. He doesn't think he has to answer. He thinks he's some kind of historical figure leading this brave new world.
For him, the hunger to be famous is stronger than either justice or reality.
To be crude, if Chase Strangio actually had a penis, she would often be getting a hard-on for the praise she receives for being stunning and brave. Also crude, she may be a female, but she still is a prick.
Thank you Kara for this. Much gratitude for you always. As for the EO, I would love to know who wrote it! It has some excellent content. As for Trump: a complicated & unpredictable human with commendable & terrible aspects & impulses. He definitely got this one right.
I am glad that women are being defended from gender ideology, but sad that it took Trump and all the terrible things he'll do to bring it about. I'm also concerned that at least one of the items in Sec.7 that will be undone in full was mainly to protect women and gays. Why couldn't the gender identity part be nullified but women and gays still be protected?
Any bills that are designed to protect rights of LGB people should be specifically worded to protect only those individuals. "LGBT+" language is being used by trans activists and their allies as a cloak for "gender identity" protection. Most Americans are in favor of gay rights, and trans activists like to pretend that they want the same rights that LGB people fought for. This is an intentional deception that undermines gay rights as well as those of women in general.
Yep. The Denton's Report was very clear on how to pass unpopular transgenderist laws by tying them to popular same-sex laws, while keeping the transgenderist part out of the news.
LGB refers to people's sexual orientation. Bills that seek to protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation can simply refer to sexual orientation. No need to mention T or Q or the rest of the ridiculous "alphabet". In fact, going forward "transgender" should not be mentioned in any official document because to do so confers a legitimacy to "transgender" that it should not be accorded. As needed, reference to "gender identity" might be needed to make it clear what "gender identity" cannot be used to undercut sex-based rights, such as by state and local governments that receive federal funding for certain programs. That is hopefully what will come as part of implementation of this Executive Order. Just as with Title IX's original effect benefitting girls and women, entities what receive federal funding will face loss of that federal funding if they permit things like males to participate in female sports, or males in women's prisons, or other current practices that have allowed "gender identity" to negate women's sex-based rights.
"All Americans legally female" can and should be interpreted to mean that no male can claim to be a female in order to be treated as a female for purposes of laws. Yes, it is awkward, but viewed in the context of the entire Executive Order, its intended meaning should be obvious. Think of the men who have been saying "I'm female now! The State changed the sex on my birth certificate or driver's license" as if that actually meant anything about a person's actual physical sex.
"...at least one of the items in Sec.7" What exactly are you referring to in Section 7? There may be things in the list that do provide protection to women and gays, but at the cost of imposing gender identity into those provisions. The same people who worked behind the scenes for months to get Trump to issue this Executive Order are likely to lobby federal agency heads to propose replacements that maintain protection for women and homosexuals.
Anything giving protections to LGBTQ+ should be changed to giving protection to LGB. Although "trans" kids should still be kept SAFE, though not encouraged in their confusion.
“U.S. Department of Education Toolkit: Creating Inclusive and Nondiscriminatory School Environments for LGBTQI+ Students”
“U.S. Department of Education Supporting LGBTQI+ Youth and Families in School”
I’m especially interested in 7.a - (i) is a plan but (ii) (agency documents change) a giant reverberation into scientific branches of government, like the NIH, then (iii) agency contractors - military but also research grantees.
NIH has a substantial portfolio of research ongoing which I find dubious, down into things like the effects of cross-sex hormones and blockers to children.
These all propagate into large biological research institutions (contractors)
Once government funding priorities change institutionally removing cis/trans guidlines and grading for proposals, I suspect there will be a huge sonic boom as research conflating men and women as women halts, a cessation of use of “cis” in research papers, and a halt to promulgation of trans as a variable in all research.
all that "research" the muddies sex distinctions is a double disservice to females because the male sex has long served as the basis for research and the female sex has therefore been misunderstood and unrecognized in medicine. ... that ignorance of the female of our species was just beginning to be corrected when gender ideology came along to erase the female sex again.
That is exactly correct! Having lived through the battle to recognize women as such in language usage, as opposed to assuming that "he" and "mankind" includes us too, it is tiresome to be back there again.
Medical and biological science will take a long time to figure out that women are not men. It’s embedded in textbooks which change very slowly, in teachers (male and female) who learned science 50 years ago.
John Money’s mutilation of David Reimer in the name of “gender identity” is still in textbooks to this day after being revealed 25 years ago, no disclaimer of his sadistic experiments, an example of the slow motion.
The original claim for excluding women from much biology and medical research was the belief that the hormonal changes during a woman’s menstrual cycle would confound measurements. The reality is that sex hormones in men gyrate throughout the day, and seasonally, similarly confounding measurements of course. I think since 2000’s there has been a shift in understanding human sexual biology, but it will take time to flow into education.
Trans inclusion simply made the research ridiculous.
Also men: Our sexual gratiication is what is most important because we have such strong libidos. We cannot be responsible for what we do if women wear certain clothes or are out late at night. Etc.
"The executive order restoring women's rights was written by May Mailman, former Director of Independent Women's Law Center, now Deputy Assistant to the President."
I agree, also ! Sweet, sweet words when Trump stated during his inaugural address that “there will only be two genders: male and female” recognized in federal policy. Hip, hip hooray!
Kara, thank you, as always, for your clear and concise explanation of these matters, and for your optimism, too! We do still have a lot of work to do but this EO is a real, well-timed shot in the arm for me.
Thanks so much, Kara! I’m a resident of New York State. Could you point me in the right direction to groups who are working to negate radical gender ideology at the state level?
I believe I read much of Kara's language in the lines of that order. They were listening. Nice work! With all the issues that could use some attention and improvement, hopefully this EO will free up some of your time to work on the myriad problems we face.
In a perfect world, the Trump administration would take the same or similar actions against "queer," but it's doubtful that will happen.
First, to what extent has the federal government recognized, accommodated and promoted queer identities and queer ideology per se?
Secondly, would an EO along the lines of the one dealing with gender identity be effective in materially curbing the harm that queer ideology and identity do to individuals and to society? In some ways, committed queers are even
Also, are any of the culture reformers in the Trump administration even aware of "queer" as a distinct ideology and identity, and do they understand the roles that queer theory and the queer scene in spreading and reinforcing gender identity? It is safe to say that while not all queers are trans, every trans person is queer in their own eyes and/or from the point of view of trans activists.
Lastly, queer might be more difficult and less necessary to contain than trans because the Venn diagram overlap between queer and trans is by no means total. Some same-sex attracted people identify as queer, as do some cishets. While there is an urgent need to halt the hegemonic expansion of queer's meaning before gay men and lesbians disappear behind that label, that problem may not be one the federal government can do much about.
ONWARD! Much work yet to be done as you state Kara! Still a HUGE step forward! THANK YOU Kara for your years of commitment to sex-based protection for women!
Yes, excellent overview. Kudos to Kara.
We put together a federal bill that is much more extensive than this EO. Major components of our bill were used but not everything we wanted. We floated our ideas to Democrats and got an immediate No Go. There was also huge resistance from feminists who wanted to essentially ban the words gender, transgender, cisgender and the like while we chose to define them in ways that disempower them legally, politically and socially. We need to undo the years of miseducation of youth. The best way to do that is flip gender ideology on it's head by reframing the discussion, including terms. We don't want a multiyear fight over this; we want to spend our time unraveling the damage. Our thinking is that issues like this keep us fighting Left to Right for decades while bigger problems are not addressed (climate, perpetual wars for profit) are successfully hidden “behind the curtain.”
So we took the bill to Republicans who promoted major parts of it. Our bill is much more comprehensive and includes features that will prevent Democrats from ever pulling a subversive trick like their sneaky redefinition of sex again. While not banning transitioning outright, it contains details that will have transitioning profiteers shaking in their boots. We also separate LGB rights from the TQ+ craziness to reinforce the protected class necessary for sexual orientation.
Now on to the harder work of convincingly Republicans to incorporate more of our ideas. Contact me via substack messages if you want to help.
Thank you for explaining that. I am from Aotearoa/NZ and we need to work out our tactics so that they are thorough and long lasting. Currently our lesbian group is taking the local Pride fair to our Human Rights Review Tribunal cos they barred us from quietly exhibiting local lesbian history cos we know that lesbians are same-sex attracted and they say that our presence makes 'trans' unsafe! (see our website LAVA.nz) It's pathetic and being ostracised from the rainbow communities is very distressing and leaves us feeling unsafe.
We don't know how we can inspire newer lesbians with our lesbian history if we are excluded from rainbow events.
But the presence of straight men perving on lesbians doesn't make lesbians unsafe.
Someone make it make sense.
The rights of half humanity is not a small issue.
Completely agree. The fact that our system of governance was able to be used to redefine girl/woman other than female sex based (same for boy/man is male) needs a law to block these backdoors, a law that cannot be changed or overridden. Obviously a major, irrational flaw in our system of governance. As for the state I am native and still reside, California, we have quite the fight ahead. But I believe we will win.
Unfortunately, any law other than the Constitution can be changed by future Congresses. The Constitution can be amended, but that is very difficult, as everyone knows. Neither one of those facts is necessarily a "major, irrational flaw in our system of governance." Also, as Kara notes, some of what was done under Biden was federal agencies misrepresenting what the law actually was with respect to gender identity, both on agency websites and in communications with individuals and organizations including state and local governments. Again, there is no way to stop that except for citizens to be vigilant and to organize to hold government officials accountable for misrepresenting what the law requires and forbids.
Sally J:
Who is "we"?
"We put together a federal bill that is much more extensive than this EO."
Can you provide a link to the Federal bill that you proposed so that we can better understand what you have written here?
Thank you so much for this clear analysis of the EO. Extremely helpful.
Not that a tremendous amount of work didn't go into this, but it's striking how easily these changes — major, dramatic changes — came and went. We're talking about what we're allowed to say, the actual meanings of words, whether or not men can freely enter spaces reserved for women and girls for reasons of safety and dignity. I know there will be litigation, but this is all so clear and so cogent that I can't imagine anyone will be able to argue it without sounding like a lunatic — for good reason. It's just kind of a shock to the system to see something laid out so cleanly after so much incoherent, obfuscating, insidious language and policy.
No doubt there will be outcry from my former (for what I assume will be awhile given the SB28 vote) party about harm, and erasure, and discrimination, and word-related violence. There will be admonitions about government waste and the cost of reprinting thousands of forms and changing digital versions to remove the crazy, but those actions will demonstrably bring back a slice of sanity, like a curtain pulled back in a dark room to admit sky and sunshine. I would love to know how the Fed employees really feel about it. No doubt at least some are seriously relieved.
good comment and I just have to explore your point about "Sounding like a lunatic" when arguing agains this EO ... do you mean "sound like a lunatic" like the way Democrats sounded last week when arguing against the bill to end males-who-feel-female decimating women and girls' sports? they called it the "predators enabling act" or akin to that ... or do you mean "like a lunatic" like the Meta employees who are now reportedly calling in sick to work because Meta ended the censorship of its social media sites and now allow those who post to freely denounce gender ideology and to identify the mental illness of individuals who "feel" an opposite sex ...therefore the "gender diverse" Meta employees are now self-identifying as "sick" and refusing to come to work.
"sounding like a lunatic" really depends on what ideas animate one's ears, right? I mean, to almost half the country Trump sounds like a lunatic.
...
what I'm trying to say is that, Yes, most certainly many many people will be willing to "sound like lunatics" to oppose this EO.
We’re just human beings, after all. The most consequential “binary” we possess is our propensity for cheering on our team while excoriating the other side.
Which is why objectivity and knowledge seeking are so valuable and necessary. I disagree with Shakespeare about killing all the lawyers.
Thank you, Kara Dansky.
I mean that in order to argue against the order, you'd have to have coherent and compelling definitions of what a "gender identity" is, what "nonbinary" means, why internal sense of self that contradicts reality should be prioritized or in any way legislated around. And yes, sound like a lunatic the way the Dem Reps did at the HR28 hearing. I'm not talking about the everyday-type mass-delusion that's caused so much harm, I'm speaking purely on the legislative/legal aspect. The general populace, including those Meta employees, is free to believe whatever they want, regardless of how patently bonkers I might think it is, but our lawmakers and leaders and those who have to argue before the courts are subject to a higher/different standard. The AGs or the ACLU attorneys may feel perfectly comfortable sounding like lunatics, but whether their arguments have any effect on the EO is another story.
I recently discovered that a new friend in Massachusetts is Chase Strangio's aunt.
Strangio does, in deed, feel perfectly comfortable sounding like a lunatic in public, because she doesn't recognize her MAGA-like antics as loony, and she has her family (and, she magically believes, all leftists) convinced that she is the epitome of honor. Her family admires her tremendously and think she's some kind of historical figure because she got to argue in front of the Supreme Court. They preen themselves on it.
For all of them, the hunger to have a famous family member is stronger than either justice or reality.
You'll see the same thing from Eli in the Piers Morgan interview in which "Brianna" Wu goes ballistic on him, demanding, "WHY are you giving children un-prescribed drugs? That's a crime! You make the rest of us look deranged! WHY Are you doing it?" Eli simply smiles nervously and doesn't answer. He doesn't think he has to answer. He thinks he's some kind of historical figure leading this brave new world.
For him, the hunger to be famous is stronger than either justice or reality.
Transgenderism is narcissism.
transgenderism is narcissism ...
Perhaps I should say more accurately:
Not all narcissism is transgenderism.
But all transgenderism is narcissism.
To be crude, if Chase Strangio actually had a penis, she would often be getting a hard-on for the praise she receives for being stunning and brave. Also crude, she may be a female, but she still is a prick.
Yes. Look up internalized misogyny in the dictionary, and there's a picture of Chase.
She wants to be one of the men who are dangerous to women SO BADLY.
Can you link us to that dictionary definition, please? Was it actually in a dictionary or instead in something else like a gender critical essay?
Thank you Kara for this. Much gratitude for you always. As for the EO, I would love to know who wrote it! It has some excellent content. As for Trump: a complicated & unpredictable human with commendable & terrible aspects & impulses. He definitely got this one right.
Yes! It’s so much better than I expected/feared. Well done to whatever staffers were behind this.
I believe Independent Women’s Forum had something to do with the language?
I am glad that women are being defended from gender ideology, but sad that it took Trump and all the terrible things he'll do to bring it about. I'm also concerned that at least one of the items in Sec.7 that will be undone in full was mainly to protect women and gays. Why couldn't the gender identity part be nullified but women and gays still be protected?
Any bills that are designed to protect rights of LGB people should be specifically worded to protect only those individuals. "LGBT+" language is being used by trans activists and their allies as a cloak for "gender identity" protection. Most Americans are in favor of gay rights, and trans activists like to pretend that they want the same rights that LGB people fought for. This is an intentional deception that undermines gay rights as well as those of women in general.
Yep. The Denton's Report was very clear on how to pass unpopular transgenderist laws by tying them to popular same-sex laws, while keeping the transgenderist part out of the news.
LGB refers to people's sexual orientation. Bills that seek to protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation can simply refer to sexual orientation. No need to mention T or Q or the rest of the ridiculous "alphabet". In fact, going forward "transgender" should not be mentioned in any official document because to do so confers a legitimacy to "transgender" that it should not be accorded. As needed, reference to "gender identity" might be needed to make it clear what "gender identity" cannot be used to undercut sex-based rights, such as by state and local governments that receive federal funding for certain programs. That is hopefully what will come as part of implementation of this Executive Order. Just as with Title IX's original effect benefitting girls and women, entities what receive federal funding will face loss of that federal funding if they permit things like males to participate in female sports, or males in women's prisons, or other current practices that have allowed "gender identity" to negate women's sex-based rights.
Thank you, Holly, for taking the time to write the detailed and very helpful response.
Yes, it would have been nice to see language that disentangled the LGB from the TQ.
YES.
I agree that LGBT+ protections are designed to let T+ ride on the coattails of LGB, but the LGB protections should remain.
Apparently, this Executive Order was sloppily worded.
'All Americans legally female': Trump invites mockery with sloppy executive order
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-transgender-2670902521/?u=d5cd9d75039eba22f84d7d784ada43e23d588de8760994bd9757bf85d8c07191&utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jan.21.2025_5.20pm
'All Americans legally female' is nonsense. Sadly there are now woke biologists who go around telling lies about biology.
U Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne has written a very good primer for non-experts:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/biology-is-not-bigotry
"All Americans legally female" can and should be interpreted to mean that no male can claim to be a female in order to be treated as a female for purposes of laws. Yes, it is awkward, but viewed in the context of the entire Executive Order, its intended meaning should be obvious. Think of the men who have been saying "I'm female now! The State changed the sex on my birth certificate or driver's license" as if that actually meant anything about a person's actual physical sex.
Jerry Coyne's essay is excellent!
"...at least one of the items in Sec.7" What exactly are you referring to in Section 7? There may be things in the list that do provide protection to women and gays, but at the cost of imposing gender identity into those provisions. The same people who worked behind the scenes for months to get Trump to issue this Executive Order are likely to lobby federal agency heads to propose replacements that maintain protection for women and homosexuals.
Anything giving protections to LGBTQ+ should be changed to giving protection to LGB. Although "trans" kids should still be kept SAFE, though not encouraged in their confusion.
“U.S. Department of Education Toolkit: Creating Inclusive and Nondiscriminatory School Environments for LGBTQI+ Students”
“U.S. Department of Education Supporting LGBTQI+ Youth and Families in School”
Nice summary.
I’m especially interested in 7.a - (i) is a plan but (ii) (agency documents change) a giant reverberation into scientific branches of government, like the NIH, then (iii) agency contractors - military but also research grantees.
NIH has a substantial portfolio of research ongoing which I find dubious, down into things like the effects of cross-sex hormones and blockers to children.
https://dpcpsi.nih.gov/sites/default/files/SGMRO-Snapshot-Transgender_2019-508.pdf
I also find the perfunctory “cis-“ and “trans-“ language in research itself creates spurious results.
There should be a watch on their language guidance to see how long it lasts:
https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide/sex-gender-sexuality
https://www.edi.nih.gov/our-communities/sexual-and-gender-minority/resources/lgbtiq-terminology
The placement of men into women’s health research
https://www.edi.nih.gov/our-communities/sexual-and-gender-minority/resources/lgbtiq-terminology
And the propagation of gender into fundamental biological science
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-OD-22-028.html
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26424/measuring-sex-gender-identity-and-sexual-orientation
These all propagate into large biological research institutions (contractors)
Once government funding priorities change institutionally removing cis/trans guidlines and grading for proposals, I suspect there will be a huge sonic boom as research conflating men and women as women halts, a cessation of use of “cis” in research papers, and a halt to promulgation of trans as a variable in all research.
all that "research" the muddies sex distinctions is a double disservice to females because the male sex has long served as the basis for research and the female sex has therefore been misunderstood and unrecognized in medicine. ... that ignorance of the female of our species was just beginning to be corrected when gender ideology came along to erase the female sex again.
That is exactly correct! Having lived through the battle to recognize women as such in language usage, as opposed to assuming that "he" and "mankind" includes us too, it is tiresome to be back there again.
Coincidence?
I think not.
Misogynist patriarchy will continue to squirm and squeal against feminist accomplishments. No totalitarian power goes down without a fight.
Medical and biological science will take a long time to figure out that women are not men. It’s embedded in textbooks which change very slowly, in teachers (male and female) who learned science 50 years ago.
John Money’s mutilation of David Reimer in the name of “gender identity” is still in textbooks to this day after being revealed 25 years ago, no disclaimer of his sadistic experiments, an example of the slow motion.
The original claim for excluding women from much biology and medical research was the belief that the hormonal changes during a woman’s menstrual cycle would confound measurements. The reality is that sex hormones in men gyrate throughout the day, and seasonally, similarly confounding measurements of course. I think since 2000’s there has been a shift in understanding human sexual biology, but it will take time to flow into education.
Trans inclusion simply made the research ridiculous.
men: Women can't be put in charge because of their hormones!
also men: We just naturally need wars because of our hormones!
Also men: Our sexual gratiication is what is most important because we have such strong libidos. We cannot be responsible for what we do if women wear certain clothes or are out late at night. Etc.
Yep.
men: Women can't be put in charge because of their hormones!
also men: Women can't be seen in public because of OUR hormones!
People: nobody can be put in charge because they are alive and have blood and guts
Wow, they sure fired that shot fast. Exciting.
Thanks for the update and the breakdown. Fingers crossed that we are turning the page for a new chapter. It’s overdue.
who wrote that executive order? it seems to a regular reader (no law experience) to be unusually well written.
"The executive order restoring women's rights was written by May Mailman, former Director of Independent Women's Law Center, now Deputy Assistant to the President."
https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1881715930629370209
Re-tweeted by Kara so I assume it's true.
thank you
Not Trump. lol
Thanks, Kara! This is the understanding that I had of the EO and I’m always so happy to read your straightforward clarifications!! Onward we march!
lol can’t bring yourself to mention Trump! Biden destroyed women’s rights and Trump restored those rights. Go Trump!
Paid-only post upcoming (where I do mention him).
Agree!
I agree, also ! Sweet, sweet words when Trump stated during his inaugural address that “there will only be two genders: male and female” recognized in federal policy. Hip, hip hooray!
Kara, thank you, as always, for your clear and concise explanation of these matters, and for your optimism, too! We do still have a lot of work to do but this EO is a real, well-timed shot in the arm for me.
Thanks so much, Kara! I’m a resident of New York State. Could you point me in the right direction to groups who are working to negate radical gender ideology at the state level?
I believe I read much of Kara's language in the lines of that order. They were listening. Nice work! With all the issues that could use some attention and improvement, hopefully this EO will free up some of your time to work on the myriad problems we face.
Very clear thank you Kara!
Wonderful news! Such a relief that we have leadership that is focused on this issue!
In a perfect world, the Trump administration would take the same or similar actions against "queer," but it's doubtful that will happen.
First, to what extent has the federal government recognized, accommodated and promoted queer identities and queer ideology per se?
Secondly, would an EO along the lines of the one dealing with gender identity be effective in materially curbing the harm that queer ideology and identity do to individuals and to society? In some ways, committed queers are even
Also, are any of the culture reformers in the Trump administration even aware of "queer" as a distinct ideology and identity, and do they understand the roles that queer theory and the queer scene in spreading and reinforcing gender identity? It is safe to say that while not all queers are trans, every trans person is queer in their own eyes and/or from the point of view of trans activists.
Lastly, queer might be more difficult and less necessary to contain than trans because the Venn diagram overlap between queer and trans is by no means total. Some same-sex attracted people identify as queer, as do some cishets. While there is an urgent need to halt the hegemonic expansion of queer's meaning before gay men and lesbians disappear behind that label, that problem may not be one the federal government can do much about.