Karnal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 12:09pm:



Sooo..... "WHAAAAAA....." is correct. 


Anyway, the Trump order has nuffin' to do wiv 'harming' anyone. It is about protecting women's rights and everyone's freedom of conscience from a corrosive, stupid ideology::



Section 1.  Purpose.  Across the country, 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.

Accordingly, my Administration 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.


Read the rest (which Bishop Binte forgot to discuss)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gen...


Some truth bombs:

(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.



(e)  Agencies shall remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages.  Agency forms that require an individual’s sex shall list male or female, and shall not request gender identity.  Agencies shall take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.

(g)ot promote gender ideology.




Which bit denies dignity, mercy? Which bit is 'divisive'? (Isn't diversity our strength anyway??) Which bit is harmful?

This whaaaa fest is even better than the last

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS6pRhm4C/

mothra wrote on Jan 24^th, 2025 at 4:40am:



Yes, the people of America rose up and threw out the Biden/Harris conspirators. You haven't heard?

Another bloodless, velvet revolution.

Bjudiful.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 24^th, 2025 at 10:30am:





Oh, did he?? Really?
And how did he do that? Please explain.

Frank wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 9:35pm:


The baseless assumption that women are at risk from men pretending to be women is entirely divorced from reality. This narrative, lacking any empirical foundation, serves only as a convenient pretext to oppose LGBTQ+ rights under the guise of concern for women's safety. It is a hollow argument, perpetuated more by fearmongering than by any tangible evidence.

Consider this: Donald Trump, both in his personal conduct and through his policies while in office, has demonstrably inflicted greater harm on women than any fictional threat concocted to justify discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. His long history of misogyny, from derogatory comments to credible accusations of misconduct, stands in stark contrast to the fabricated dangers peddled by those seeking to restrict transgender rights.

If this is the argument on which one chooses to hang their hat, it’s not just a weak foundation—it’s an embarrassingly transparent attempt to mask prejudice with a veneer of moral concern. The focus should be on addressing real threats to women’s well-being, not inventing them for political expedience.

Quote:


You’ll likely ignore this as you always do, but let’s give it a go.

It’s well-documented that transgender individuals, particularly transgender women, endure disproportionately high rates of violence, discrimination, and harassment. Studies consistently demonstrate that transgender people are at far greater risk in public spaces due to entrenched societal prejudice. Framing them as potential threats is not only misplaced but grotesquely disingenuous.

Moreover, there is no credible evidence to support the notion that men are pretending to be women as a means to attack women. This is a fabricated concern, untethered from reality, designed to justify exclusionary policies rather than address genuine safety issues.

The executive orders issued by Trump, which directly undermine the rights and protections of transgender people, have only exacerbated the dangers they face. These actions have done nothing to improve the safety of women. If anything, the statistical argument for "safer women" could only be bolstered by the fact that fewer have had access to Trump since he's returned to the White House.

But let’s be honest: you don’t care about the risks transgender people face. In fact, the prospect of them being in greater danger likely sits comfortably with you, given your misguided belief that these policies somehow shield women. The fantasy you cling to, that such measures protect women, is nothing more than a convenient excuse to perpetuate harm against an already marginalised group.

And yet you expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim to care about protecting women? You’re not defending women, you’re exploiting them, like you do other victims, to serve your ideological agenda.

Unless, of course, you’ve suddenly become pro-choice?