January 21, 2025 - 8:00pm
A few events in recent memory stand out as particularly jarring for a modern-day Rip van Winkle to witness on stirring from his sleep. Take Queen Elizabeth II’s pandemic-era address, promising that “we will meet again”, broadcast to an eerily depopulated Piccadilly Square. Or the teenager who set fire to a congressman’s office to protest the ban of their beloved Chinese psy-op. Donald Trump’s inauguration speech yesterday provided another such occasion, as the President announced to the world that, “as of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female.”
How on earth — Rip van Winkle might ask himself — did human beings in the 21st century become so befuddled about something so basic as sex, that the President must make such a statement as a matter of policy, inviting intense controversy?
Shortly after his inauguration, Trump rescinded one of predecessor Joe Biden’s day-one executive orders intended to “prevent and combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation”. The federal government will henceforth define sex as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female”. The term “is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity’.”
Trump has signed an executive order which recognises “that women are biologically distinct from men”. It also reinstates biological sex, as opposed to self-reported gender identity, on government-issued identification documents such as passports and visas; segregates federal prisons and immigration detention centres on the basis of sex, not gender identity; ends “taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners”, a policy featured in the Trump campaign’s most effective ad; emphasises sex-based language in federal policy and communications; and lifts the requirement to use preferred pronouns in government offices and facilities, on the basis that such requirements violate free-speech protections.
The Attorney General is expected to issue guidance to “correct the [Biden administration’s] misapplication” of the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County ruling and “assist agencies in protecting sex-based distinctions”. An incoming Trump administration official informed reporters yesterday that “no longer will the federal government be promoting gender ideology.” Instead, the administration plans on “defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truths to the federal government”.
Most major media outlets continue to frame the Trump administration’s actions as a “rollback” of “transgender protections”. According to the Washington Post, “experts including the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association hold that gender is a spectrum, not a binary structure consisting only of males and females.” Few outlets paid any attention to the implications of these changes for the rights of women and girls, or acknowledged the need for clear definitions of key terms, without which no group’s rights can be secured. If the activist — and Biden administration — line that “transwomen are women” means anything, the word “woman” doesn’t. Any government that defines conflates sex and gender identity dissolves its ability to protect female rights in settings where sex matters.
Online, misconceptions abound. The San Francisco Chronicle declared that “Trump executive order seeks to erase the existence of transgender people”, while Mother Jones proclaimed: “Trump declares war on transgender people.” The American Civil Liberties Union — which decamped from X to Bluesky after Trump’s reelection — announced that “Transgender people have always been here, and we’re not going anywhere.”
On social media and online forums, expressions of fear and anger have proliferated. Trans Redditors swapped plans on how to cope with the Trump administration, including stocking up on guns and ammunition as a reasonable reaction to federal policy changes. These discussions provide a window into how the trans community’s radicalisation excuses and legitimates violence. The fears espoused in these groups are fed by advocacy organisations and media outlets that use outsized language (“war”, “attack”, “erase”) to describe administrative policy changes that disentangle sex and gender identity, apparently preferring to frighten rather than reassure members of a community they understand to be profoundly vulnerable.
But the age of hyperbole may be coming to an end. On this issue, the Trump administration offers clarity and a return to sanity where progressives have offered only panic and obfuscation. That Trump of all people is the one to insist on clear definitions and the existence of a consensus reality wherein human beings, like all mammals, are either male or female shows just how far out of bounds progressives have travelled.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe progressives became so weird, so unmoored from reality on so many issues (from sex/gender, to net zero, to border, etc.) that they made Donald Trump normal. Trump became the grown-up in the room as they became insane, and he now is leading the revolt of the normals to restore sanity.
The only people obsessed with trans rights are conservatives and the people who profit from your gullibility. They rile you up about something which has literally zero impact on most people’s lives so that will vote for a clown like Trump and against your own obvious interests.
And you fall for it every time. Sad.
It has zero impact on peoples’ lives when girls and women get beat and injured in sports because they have to play against men? It has zero impact on girls and women when naked men show up in their locker rooms? It has zero impact when the US is a laughingstock internationally because we have men in dresses as public officials?
We’re not obsessed about “trans rights” because trans doesn’t exist. Gender doesn’t exist among humans, only in grammar. Sex is sex, and its immutable. It permeates down to the cellular level. A woman can’t become a man, nor a man a woman. We have mentally ill people imposing their insanity on the rest of us, and we’re sick of it. Putting on a dress, or mutilating yourself doesn’t change your sex.
Like I said, completely obsessed.
If you want to know why the USA is an international laughing stock then I’d direct you to the clown who has just moved back into the White House…
Trans swung the election in lower-middle-class America and gave the Republicans possibly their largest ever majority across the US system.
Not sure why so many downvotes. I’m sure we disagree on many things, but this comment is close to the mark.
It may be true that trans people are a tiny minority of people, but I think this issue winds people up like nothing else (pronouns ffs).
Plus if I was a parent of a 5 year old who declared that he/she wanted to transition I think it would have a pretty big impact on my life. So it’s not a total sideshow issue.
Even by the low bar set by CS, his defense of the woke obsession with gnder is childishly inept.
This is what I don’t understand about people campaigning for transgender rights, or minority rights, or woman’s rights for that matter.
No one has explained to me what rights are supposedly enjoyed by white straight males as a matter of law, that are not also enjoyed by a black transgendered disabled lesbian.
Everyone is protected from being fired for being a man or a woman, they are protected from being denied housing, there isn’t anywhere in the civilized world I am aware of that you can commit a crime against a transgender person and it isn’t still a crime.
So what is being denied here and what is being erased, if you’re entire identity is externally and is predicated upon other people acknowledging and accepting that identity then you don’t have an identity. Who we are remains who we are even if we were all alone in a cave.
We are all human beings, we all have basic human dignity, and we should treat other people with respect, we shouldn’t go out of our way to mock or insult people because they choose to decide they’d like to be a man or woman, but by the same token that means that neither can they demand I accept the way they choose to interpret the world. So how does it “erase” transpeople, or “genocide” them simply by me or others choosing not to agree with them?
In the state of Victoria in Australia transpeople can have a public event for “trans only”. However lesbians cannot have an event for lesbians (i.e. female lesbians) only. They must allow men (most with penises) who claim to be women to attend. Some of the online threats made by the latter against lesbians who decline to have penetrative sex with them are scary to say the least. The Lesbian Action Group has just lost a court case over this issue. So, in Australia gender identity trumps sex every time.
Trans women are a small minority. A smaller minority identify as lesbians, and presumably an even smaller minority want to attend a particular lesbian event.
Lesbians themselves are a minority, and those who worry about trans women attending an event are, presumably, an even smaller minority.
On both sides of this debate there are just too many people addicted to getting angry. And there are lots bigger issues to worry about.
Trans women (granting the existence of such a category at all) are a small minority, admittedly. But autogynephiles, and good old-fashioned d***heads who enjoy hassling women while looking wonderfully progressive, are not.
And your point is?
Well, nothing is a simple as you seem to think. When self-i.d. becomes the law, then any low-life man can put on a bad wig and go hang out inside the nearest woman’s toilet to harass the women there, or worse. The danger to women and girls is much greater than that posed by “real” trans people, whatever that even means. A violent rapist beats and rapes a woman, and when she has to face him in court, he puts on bad wig, claims womanhood, and his victim has to refer to him as “she,” and when he is convicted, he demands to serve his time in a woman’s prison. These things really happen.
A typical male response.
If you have an idea to share, don’t be shy about it. If not, spare us the ad hominem.
And your point is?
(Maybe it’s “nothing to see here, please move along…” Which is an opinion but hardly an argument.)
You hit the nail right on the head. Steve-O the American comic was going to do a segment on transgenderism but he ran into a trans cashier at a restaurant who told him that there were plans to round transes up and put them in concentration camps.
Of course, this is ridiculous and no one is advocating that. But it’s a strategy to deflect from the very real privileges males in dresses exercise over women and children. Trans types should be subject to the negative freedoms everyone else,enjoys such as job and housing rights and nothing more.
I don’t think it’s surprising that men who are sufficiently deluded to think they’re woman are going to be equally delusional about a good many other topics
Amen.
Well said!
Pronouns use are a bit like Defund the Police – soooo 2021. Not quite as destructive but just as self indulgent stupidity.
Once you detach gender from biological sex by claiming that it is a social construct, the above is hard to avoid. Are we saying that male and female personality is a binary (with no overlap, no shades in between)? Are we saying that about behaviour? Interests? Tastes?
Male and female are biologically realities – the bodies in which we live with all the physical, cultural, and political challenges and benefits they confer.
Gender is clothes and stereotyped behaviors that change over time and across cultures. In 17th Century France, courtly men wore tights, high heels, make-up and wigs. They were still men – that’s just how masculinity was interpreted at that time.
There is no wrong way to be a man or woman. It is just what is.
So are you saying that gender is a binary, or are you saying that it is not?
And are you saying that observed differences in personality between men and women are biological (sex) or gender like clothes etc?
You are trying to capitalise on the muddiness of the words sex and gender. Both are over determined and the cause of so much misunderstanding. What is being discussed here is biological sex and gender self ID. We’re not talking about the confusion caused by the word gender being used as a euphemism of biological sex. (As Trump did, mainly because sex is so overdetermined in meaning.) Biological sex is non negotiable, unlike gender self ID .. obviously. It’s a language problem and as such will persist. You know that.
Not really. I’d just like a clear answer on the question of whether gender (as opposed to sex) is binary or not. I suspect Trump uses them interchangeably because he makes no real distinction.
Sex is binary. Gender is not. I hope that’s clear?
Thanks for that, so:
as those opposing Trump have said.
Sex is binary; gender is a social construct. It’s really quite simple.
Thanks for that, so:
as those opposing Trump have said.
Again, you conflate the terms. SEX is a binary. Gender (in my understanding of how most people use the word) is a spectrum that mixes common concepts of “typical masculinity” with common concepts of “typical femininity ” in differing proportions to arrive at a description of an individual’s behaviour and self-image.
If gender is not in some sense determined by sex then it becomes, in a sense, free floating in relation to it. The only reason a specific gender is associated with a specific sex is through convention or stereotyping. So in the words of de Beauvoir a woman is made not born.
In the jargon, gender is contingently, not necessarily attached to sex.
So far, so conventionally feminist. But this leaves the door open for men (s) to be women (g) and vv. Nothing stops them but convention.
I should perhaps add that this is not a view I agree with. I believe that what we call gender is to a significant degree innate. Men are men and women are women, but individuals vary to some extent around a norm. In other words I do not think that the sex/binary distinction reflects reality. It is an ideological fiction.
Obviously both sex and gender are binary. Masculine or feminine. Man or woman. Eggs or sperm. Mom or Dad. Testosterone or estrogen. XY or XX.
Personality traits, appearances, size, strength, or other traits will cluster towards either ONE end OR the other. Neuroticism is far more common in females. Psychopathy is far more more common in males. Most people who are over six feet tall are male. All people who give birth are female.
There are therefore only two ends of “the spectrum.”
Those two ends are clearly binary, not multidimensional. There are only two categories: Male or female, masculine or feminine, XX or XY, mom or dad, boy or girl.
That’s a binary distinction, as in true or false, yes or no, zero or one. It clearly isn’t multivariate, continuous, or three dimensional.
I think we can all agree that a question like “Does this person have XX chromosomes?” has a binary, yes/no answer.
“[T]he bodies in which we live with all the physical, cultural, and political challenges and benefits they confer”, however, are varied and subject to change.
So when we categorise people by chromosomes*, the least we can do is acknowledge when we are sacrificing nuance for simplicity. Simplicity is valuable, of course, but there is a risk that people choose simplicity for their own convenience without considering the cost to others.
* In theory. In practice we almost always use other sex markers that do not perfectly correlate.
Meh. The progressive radicals are pulling out their hair. 80% of the population doesn’t care.
There might be much celebration over this by some feminists, at least for a while. But I suspect that what Trump is saying is not only pre trans, but in many ways pre feminist. He’s saying men are men and women are women in the sense that that was understood pre second wave feminism.
We don’t know he’s saying that at all, and it’s wrong to put words into his mouth.
In the context of an inaugural speech he’s obviously limited to soundbites.
Perhaps, but then we do have this from the Vice President:
Vance: “I am 100 percent pro-life, and believe that abortion has turned our society into a place where we see children as an inconvenience to be thrown away rather than a blessing to be nurtured. Eliminating abortion is first and foremost about protecting the unborn, but it’s also about making our society more pro-child and pro-family. The historic Dobbs decision puts this new era of society into motion, one that prioritizes family and the sanctity of all life.”
Newsweek: “J.D. Vance Backs ‘National Standard’ for Abortions”
So perhaps feminists should not be cheering too loudly.
Yeah, thanks, Chicken Little.
“Oh, no, if feminists won’t let men pretend they are women, then, well, they’ll just find themselves having to make the same arguments they’ve been making since the year dot about sexism. Whatever shall they do!!?! They’ll be sorry, you’ll see, they’ll regret they ever objected to blokes in frocks being able to access their spaces!”
Uh-huh. Jog on.
The sex war is very old goes back to our earliest literature it is ever changing and can never be taken for granted. Look what’s happening in Afghanistan. Therefore women will always be on guard don’t worry.
The democrats lost the election, Trump didn’t win. But will the democrats learn from this?
Didn’t he? Ok, it wasn’t like the second coming of the Messiah, but as far as second comings are concerned, it was convincing enough.
A little off topic, but the following is from the statement of the recent Women’s March in Bristol:
“We are marching because discrimination and violence against trans women and girls have increased around the world. Anti-trans rhetoric prevents women from addressing genuine issues they encounter by reinforcing the gender stereotypes that have oppressed women for centuries.”
Not sure how we square this with those feminists who welcome Trumps statement.
The trans movement strongly reinforces gender stereotypes. A child with a p***s who likes dolls is declared to be really a girl, etc. etc. No room for a range of behaviours and preferences.
But these feminists are saying exactly the opposite.
Anyone can claim to be a feminist. Seems you accept them all at face value.
I would like to know instead what theu have been smoking. It must have been industrial grade stuff.
It is, it’s called feminism 🙂
You do know that gender critical feminists – Julie Bindel, Kathleen Stock, Martina Navratilova, JK Rowling – are the REAL feminists fighting for women. The trans-handmaidens are just men’s rights activists.
So are the women marching in Bristol, and around the world, not real feminists? All the other statements they made were obviously feminist. So if they are not real feminists, what are they? They most certainly are not men’s rights activists.
You’ll find the U.K. Women’s March statement here:
https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/hundreds-march-for-womens-rights/#:~:text=The%2520organising%2520group%2520behind%2520the,to%2520make%2520our%2520voices%2520heard%E2%80%9D.
Some video and pics too. Definitely feminists.
“We are marching because discrimination and violence against trans women and girls have increased around the world. Anti-trans rhetoric prevents women from addressing genuine issues they encounter by reinforcing the gender stereotypes that have oppressed women for centuries.”
This passage makes no sense whatsoever. The rest of the “declaration” seems more normal (one can agree or disagree with it, but at least it makes some sense), so I don’t understand who they came up with that quote. They must have in their midst some trans activist that snuck it in when nobody was looking.
I think it’s a bit odd, but then I didn’t write it, the feminists organising the women’s March did.
I think the meaning is clear enough though: they see anti trans rhetoric as saying stay in your own lane, stick to the gender norms society has ascribed to people of your sex. If you’re a man behave like a man. If you are a woman behave like a woman. That is: conform to the stereotype for your sex.
The writers see this thinking as having oppressed women for centuries. Generally most feminists agree with them.
But that is trans theory in a nutshell. This is why that passage in that context makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. If you’ve only been reading feminists on Unherd then it will strike you as odd. This is a pretty mainstream feminist position. Women (and in most versions men) have been locked inside artificial stereotypes of what it is to be a woman (or man). A key aim of feminism is to liberate women (and men) from them.
Here it is from an actual feminist:
Which feminist?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/14/juliebindel
All transactivists have is GENDER? What are you talking about?
Someone seeking “an end to gender” is mentally unwell.
And it goes back a long way:
According to Shulamith Firestone in The Dialectic of Sex (1970): “[T]he end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally.”[
(Yes, I know. Sounds like trans ideology in a nutshell. But it’s radical feminism circa 1970. This is why people point out that the one has its origins in the other.)
Firestone, if I recall, ended her days in a mental ward. Andrea Dworkin had well known psychiatric issues, as did Valerie Solanas, and many other rad fems (and other far left radicals from that late 1960s to early 1980s era). The mainstreaming of widespread contraceptive use in their era, the halcyon days of the late 20th Century, spawned the sexual revolution, and therefore the several flavors of “feminism,” all of which take as a given that men oppress women in nearly the same way that Marx’s bourgoise oppress a suffering proletariat.
All thinking people endorse a baseline of equal rights. Most people do not, or at least should not, grant minorities – some of them unusual to the point of aberrance – special, extra rights that other groups don’t have.
Women, however, are granted extra levels of protection from violence, poverty, or discrimination, at least on an informal if not always strictly legal basis.
This reflects their smaller physical size and lesser physical strength, in combination with their biological importance – only women may give birth. Humanity would die out completely within about a century, if they did not.
These are very elemental, fundamental distinctions between the sexes, reflected in clearly obvious social norms. Playing language games, using phrases as if they’re magical spells, or performing epistemological gymnastics will not and cannot change the basic fabric of biological realities.
Surgical techniques, advanced pharmaceuticals, and cosmetic embellishments can often create an ersatz man from a natal female, or a convincingly feminine person from someone born male. Body parts can be rearranged or altered to fit someone to the opposite end of their original gender binary.
But none of those things can change chromosomes, nor preserve fertility, nor result in childbirth, which are the natural outcomes of reproduction.
We are not even a century into the sexual revolution, and the idea of sex solely for the sake of pleasure, rather than to produce children, is a fairly new one.
That’s why we are now dealing with all sorts of unusual and often synthetic “identities.” Removing sex from reproduction has unmoored many of us, and redefined relationships between men and women. For some, this has even led us to attempt to redefine what men or women truly are.
Biological realities, however, remain, no matter how many language games or intellectual acrobatics we perform. The social norms and sanctions necessarily constructed around them remain, as well.
You are so confused. Gender is the regressive box pushed by the transactivists. Transactivists are the ones saying if you like pink, you must be girl, and if you like blue, you must be a boy. All “transwomen” have are clothes and lipstick because they are not women at all.
Feminism is based on the idea that there is NO wrong way to be a woman or a man. It’s just the body you are born with.
Trans reduces women to a set of cultural stereotypes that diminish and demean. Women, real women, are the toughest people on the planet.
You know what isn’t dainty and pink? Childbirth. It’s bloody and sweaty and agonizing and smelly, and it’s the most womanly thing a woman can do.
“Transactivists are the ones saying if you like pink, you must be girl […]”
That’s either a misunderstanding or a minority position among trans people. They are generally pro self-identification, not declaring the gender of others.
“Feminism is based on the idea that there is NO wrong way to be a woman or a man. It’s just the body you are born with.”
I believe most trans people agree with the former, and disagree with the latter.
I think they grudgingly accept the latter. They do not claim to be biologically the sex they present as (cis in their terms), they just want society to classify them as such.
I don’t think you really understand the history of the concept.
More to the point, trans is just the minority at the very far end of the spectrum. A far larger number of young people claim to be non binary in one way or another.
If you set out to deconstruct the gender binary – the idea that men and women are fundamentally men and women – and replace it with the idea that they just happen to have a male or female body – then I’m not quite sure what you think the result will be. At the very least they will become confused!
And remember, liberation is defined by the liberated, not the liberators. You can’t open the cage and complain people didn’t go where you thought they would.
No he doesn’t know that, he is confused or rather so angry about women he will hurl anything at them. They’re damned if they do they’re damned if they don’t. And what’s more he is always right and they are stupid.
I’m going to take a guess (and hear me out here): I suspect the feminists who support Trump’s statement don’t agree with the Women’s march statement you’ve quoted. Crazy, I know.
Exactly, but they are still self described feminists. See Samantha’s comment to which I’m replying. She seems to think that they are not REAL feminists.
“We are marching because discrimination and violence against trans women and girls have increased around the world.” That was just one of a list of reasons for the march. You are giving the false impression that it was the main reason. The organizers are obliged to include this in the list since otherwise they would be denounced as hateful terfs by the trans lobby.
Actually I wanted to avoid precisely that, but felt it would be over the top to quote the entire statement. That’s why I linked to it. My point is perhaps the opposite of what you think: that the majority of feminists are pro trans, and that those who are anti trans are a small minority within the feminist movement.
As such, they find themselves in a rather odd alliance with social conservatives, actual Conservatives and Donald Trump of all people.
The women’s March was explicitly anti Trump, and finds itself in no such bizarre alliances.
I have news that is going to blow your mind: not everybody who calls themselves a feminist thinks the same things as every other person who calls themselves a feminist. Some feminists even have furious arguments about what feminism is and engage in protracted feuds with other feminists over it.
I know it, it is a shocker. I realize you’d never heard that feminists were prone to such behavior. I mean, sugar and spice and all things nice, right?
If you look back you’ll find that my response is to Samantha who claimed that some feminists (the ones she agrees with) are REAL feminists. The others apparently are not. In fact in this case she claims they are men’s rights activists.
You might address your comment to her.
You’re actually agreeing with me.
A word to the wise, always have a look back at the thread for context so that you don’t say something arrogant and silly.
Brilliant comment. Thank you JM!
Shame he replied to the wrong person though.
Well, Biden did declare some Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter Sunday last year. He didnt do anyone any favors with that.
I agree. As a lifelong Democrat, I am simply astounded I have to thank Donald Trump for the protection of women and girls. That something so stupefyingly obvious – a woman is an adult human female deserving privacy, safety, and dignity – was dismissed by Democrats in favor of MEN in dresses shows how truly mad the world is.
You think the safety of women and girls is protected by a sex criminal like Donald Trump? Someone who boasted of entering the changing rooms at the stupid pageants he held so that he could ogle the undressed girls? This is your hero? A convicted rapist? And don’t even get me started on DUI hire Hegseth.
Aye, the world is mad alright – just not in the way you think, Karen.
Except he’s never been convicted of rape. Perhaps get you facts straight instead of writing complete and utter garbage.
He was found liable for raping E Jean Carroll by a jury of his peers. He may have escaped criminal conviction but we all know that he’s a sex criminal.
You seem very agitated about this – do you have some personal reason for defending sexual aggressors like Trump and Hegseth?
The jury declared him innocent of rape.
Actually we all know the “rape” trial was a kangaroo court.
No witnesses… Carroll couldn’t even remember which year the alleged act took place… the judge telling the jury that an unwanted kiss could be considered sexual assault (which is the charge he was found guilty of, not rape).
Try reading more widely.
CS deliberately fibs and sticks to his fibbing.
Whatever you think of Trump, this is the strangest of all strange alliances.
‘Karen’, you say, a classic dismissal of middle-aged women that lumps them all together as complaining busybodies. How very revealing.
What’s your next move: ‘Calm down, dear,’ perhaps?
Karen? Who still uses that misogynistic slur aimed at silencing older women anymore?
I used to laugh at the other side GOP – Televangelists, Tea Party, Colonel Empire Wars, Science ambivalence.
Now we have DNC prioritsing men beating up women in sports, pronoun facism, biology deniers and open borders. Not to mention an alphabet soup full of meaningless acronyms to describe minority groupings. When did this plot get lost do easily.
Focus on jobs, housing and border security – at least Trump pretends too.
Calling a 19 year old man a “teenager” is misleading if technically factual. We’re talking about a legal here people.
e.
Quite so.
I’d say, yes. Musk and Vance have emphasised that wide acceptance of autogynephile fetish has caused women to lose their rights and children to be mutilated by cynical surgeons and ideological therapists.
“Online, misconceptions abound. The San Francisco Chronicle declared that ‘Trump executive order seeks to erase the existence of transgender people’, while Mother Jones proclaimed: ‘Trump declares war on transgender people.’ The American Civil Liberties Union — which decamped from X to Bluesky after Trump’s reelection — announced that ‘Transgender people have always been here, and we’re not going anywhere.’”
These aren’t “misconceptions.” They are flat-out agitprop lies.
Funny how it’s always blokes trying to get into ladies showers. Never ladies trying to get into men’s shower.
Funnily enough we had a woman waltzing in and out of the changing rooms at my local gym two days ago. Absolutely no concern for the men’s privacy whatever. To be fair it’s a rare occurrence.
Gender is something German nouns have. Not people.
“Is Trump really ‘declaring war’ on trans people?”
Let’s hope so! They been waging war against the rest of us and damaging our identity for far too long!
USA ! USA ! USA !
Recognizing that tran extremists have been using a mental health issue as a weapon is not declaring war on the mentally ill.