996
Sarah McBride laughs off Trump’s anti-trans executive order: ‘He just declared everyone a woman’
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
996 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19490 readers
3519 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Theres two possible interpretations due to the at conception bit I think. Either he made everyone a woman, or he abolished gender all together. Either way this EO make Trump the single largest gender changer in history as he just changed the gender of either ~150 million or ~300 million people.
It's fun to think about the hypotheticals, but the reality here is that it does not matter the exact words in the EO. We know what they mean, and they won't let some silly technicality stop them.
"At conception" leaves no room for interpretation - he abolished gender altogether.
I really would like to see some people ask for a divorce off the fact that they were married under false pretenses. They believed they were marrying a man.
Remember that sex =//= gender.
From what I read of the executive order, it seemed like he specifically got rid of gender and only recognizes sex since that isn’t an identity thing.
Oh, true, the article right there says “As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female,” he declared.
Well, that's just dumb.
It reads to me more or less like "It's the official policy of the United States that mass and weight are the same thing."
Like I can understand the confusion that some people would have over such similar concepts, but to claim they're the same is just ridiculous and very easily disproven.
It’s definitely 80 year old senile old man logic.
He didn't actually write any of these orders. I am not sure he would even be capable.
The question becomes who did write this order.
It's terrifying that whoever wrote this order obviously lacks basic education.
It sounds like an 80 year old dudes opinions either way.
I totally get what you are saying. I think it would be cool to know who actually drafted all these up. It is clear Trump did not. Understanding who is writing these and who is actually calling the shots in the Trump apparatus is paramount to unraveling the truth about what is going on.
I think it is past time to keep pretending the President is the one who makes decisions. It is clear there are a lot of people that the American public does not even know that are the real policy makers.
Demented Fartypants McGee over there as commander-in-queef to the most powerful military in the world. No biggie.
E pluribus unum, baby.
Read it carefully, and then read it like a Republican.
This does NOT mean "a female is a person who can produce the large reproductive cell."
The BELONG is the key word here. They'll argue that anyone with XX chromosomes belongs to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell. An embryo may not produce large or small reproductive cells, but they still belong to the sex that produces the large or small reproductive cell. Even if an adult is infertile, they still belong to the sex that produces the large or small reproductive cell. It's not like per-pubescent children or post-menopausal women don't have a sex marker on their passports.
That is how this is meant to be read, and that is how it will be interpreted by conservative courts.
In truth the definition is a bit circular, as it defines "sex" as:
And then in turn it defines male and female in terms of "belonging to the sex that produces..."
But I don't think the courts will really quibble with that. It's clear what the intent of the order is. And that is how it will be interpreted.
You do not have to actually be capable of producing the large reproductive cell to be a member of the sex that produces the large reproductive cell. Is this definition all-encompassing and without issues? No. But legal definitions rarely are perfect, and courts have to find ways to still apply laws that reflect the intent of their drafters. And while the wording of the order is clumsy, the intent is quite clear.
The simple existence of XY females (Swyer syndrome, 1 in 100,000 females) and XX males (de la Chapelle syndrome, 1 in 20,000 males) makes this binary declaration imperfect.
The law isn't code.
Yeah, courts often interpret poorly written stuff based on the intention gleamed from it.
I just found it funny how poorly written it was.
I read it as it defines "belonging to the male sex" as being able to produce small reproductive cells at conception, because the alternative is just cyclical nonsense. You are male if you belong to the male sex at conception. How do you know if you belong to that sex at conception? Who knows. You would have to have an outside definition to interpret it, in which case why bother writing that...