Even if unsuccessful, an executive order is unlikely to survive administration changes unlike congressional law or SCOTUS precedents.
Check out section 6 of the EO:
Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs shall present to the President proposed bill text to codify the definitions in this order.
What about intersex people? They are neither male or female by birth, not by choice. Is Trump saying they don't exist?
The text of the EO defines male and female in such a way that intersex people would be covered: whichever gamete your body is made to produce, as determined at conception. Intersexed people produce one or the other.
It's weird how much national discourse is focused on a mere 1.4% of the population
While I agree the women’s sports should be for biological women, it’s astounding that the US cares so much about transgender issues since it truly affects so few people.
Who the eff cares how someone identifies? I certainly don’t. The fact that Trump made this the first thing he talked about in terms of policy change in his inauguration speech is complete base-pandering and fear mongering. And you know why? Because the median IQ of this country is 100 and they cheer for this 💩 instead of actually relevant issues.
downvote me away but if you’re a true conservative and believe in “don’t tread on me”… well Trump is certainly treading on your ability to choose who you want to be.
Again, protect women’s sports or whatever, but pretty much everything else in this area is excessive overreach
What about intersex people? They are neither male or female by birth, not by choice. Is Trump saying they don't exist?
The text of the EO defines male and female in such a way that intersex people would be covered: whichever gamete your body is made to produce, as determined at conception. Intersexed people produce one or the other.
The text of the EO defines male and female in such a way that intersex people would be covered: whichever gamete your body is made to produce, as determined at conception. Intersexed people produce one or the other.
There are people, LOTS of people, who have neither ovaries or testes by birth
And I don't mean 3rd world countries, I mean born in USA
And "at conception" everyone is "identical" for six weeks at a minimum
The SAME parts can become either or none or some variation inbetween
So the "law" doesn't make sense, which is not unexpected given from where it came.
Director of Independent Women's Law Center. Was most recently Vice President for… · Experience: Independent Women's Law Center · Education: Harvard Law School · Location: Greater Cleveland · 500+ connections on LinkedIn. View...
Nikki has no issue in checking the women's division box on her entry form for the 1500/mile...I think she will be fine checking that box in other aspects as well.
We are indeed not encouraged to think through the issue. We are told to blindly believe in gender essentialism. And if we deviate from the orthodoxy by one millimeter, we are automatically labelled as enemies of women.
No, really, I think everyone really SHOULD think through the issue for themselves.
I am not saying that you are a bad person if you give it some thought and genuinely think we should all indicate our preferred pronouns in our email signature, or somewhere else for that matter. It is an opinion. Everyone gets to form an opinion, and we might come to different conclusions.
It is not that trump‘s way of thinking about gender and transitioning is the only one or the right one, but I welcomed his expressing an opinion that runs counter to (what I call) the gender shenanigans.
In truth, I disagree with people who want a far-right ideology on gender and transitioning. But I definitely disagree with people who want the extreme-left ideology on gender and transitioning.
What does this last paragraph mean? I don't mean to be critical--I'm just sincerely curious about the difference between "disagreeing" and "definitely disagreeing."
I'm interested because I feel like a lot of people (including posters on this board) might write something similar, which I take to mean: "I disagree with right-wing marginalization/demonization of trans people, but I definitely disagree with a totally fluid concept of gender and transitioning." How can these things both be true--and, if they are, somehow, what does that mean for folks' political decisions?
But really, I'd love to understand what the paragraph means to you. In short, why the emphasis adverb on the second "disagree"?
Did you know? The rate of internet searches for transgender porn in a given city/state is directly correlated with how that area votes. Specifically, the more Republican an area is, the more people search for transgender porn. (Interestingly, the same holds true for interracial cuckold porn.)
Conservative porn habits are undoubtedly a huge factor behind this strange obsession with trans issues generally. Republicans are getting off to things that make them feel extremely guilty/angry. In turn, they are taking these negative feelings out on the rest of us, especially the populations they are *ahem* fantasizing about. (This is obviously a primary motivator behind their efforts to ban pornography in general.) Protecting women's sports is an obvious trojan horse; Trump's executive orders yesterday show that they intend to go far beyond that. They do not want trans people to exist. They want trans people as many barriers as possible should they attempt to transition. They want it to be legal to discriminate against them. They want trans children to hate themselves. They want parents of trans children to live in constant fear.
Closet Cases – Republicans secretly love what they publicly hate So far in 2022, more than 300 anti-LGBT bills have been proposed across 36 states – at least one third of which are directed at trans youth. This surge, especia...
What about intersex people? They are neither male or female by birth, not by choice. Is Trump saying they don't exist?
The text of the EO defines male and female in such a way that intersex people would be covered: whichever gamete your body is made to produce, as determined at conception. Intersexed people produce one or the other.
You clearly haven’t done the most minimal research on this topic. Look up the following exceptions to your claim either because they have neither or have both:
Even if unsuccessful, an executive order is unlikely to survive administration changes unlike congressional law or SCOTUS precedents.
Check out section 6 of the EO:
Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs shall present to the President proposed bill text to codify the definitions in this order.
When is the prices of groceries going to drop? Most Americans don't give a sh1t about culture war issues, they care about their own standard of living.
While I agree the women’s sports should be for biological women, it’s astounding that the US cares so much about transgender issues since it truly affects so few people.
Who the eff cares how someone identifies? I certainly don’t. The fact that Trump made this the first thing he talked about in terms of policy change in his inauguration speech is complete base-pandering and fear mongering. And you know why? Because the median IQ of this country is 100 and they cheer for this 💩 instead of actually relevant issues.
downvote me away but if you’re a true conservative and believe in “don’t tread on me”… well Trump is certainly treading on your ability to choose who you want to be.
Again, protect women’s sports or whatever, but pretty much everything else in this area is excessive overreach
I absolutely respect your opinion. At the same time, I am tired of hearing the line that it is such a small part of the population, so we should just let others do the thinking for us, and let others do the deciding for us.
I care about how we treat homeless people. I care about how we treat people with extreme obesity. I care about how we treat ppl with schizophrenia. And yes, I care about ppl who have a d!ck, but are on estrogen, and need a place to p!ss in an airport.
I just find that most people who tell me I should not concern myself with little pockets of society, are trying to shut me up.
It's weird how much national discourse is focused on a mere 1.4% of the population
While I agree the women’s sports should be for biological women, it’s astounding that the US cares so much about transgender issues since it truly affects so few people.
Who the eff cares how someone identifies? I certainly don’t. The fact that Trump made this the first thing he talked about in terms of policy change in his inauguration speech is complete base-pandering and fear mongering. And you know why? Because the median IQ of this country is 100 and they cheer for this 💩 instead of actually relevant issues.
downvote me away but if you’re a true conservative and believe in “don’t tread on me”… well Trump is certainly treading on your ability to choose who you want to be.
Again, protect women’s sports or whatever, but pretty much everything else in this area is excessive overreach
Yeah, there are MUCH bigger problems in the world that need addressing. People in 3rd world countries (and also the USA) still don't have basic health care, for example. Seems a bit more important.
What does this last paragraph mean? I don't mean to be critical--I'm just sincerely curious about the difference between "disagreeing" and "definitely disagreeing."
I'm interested because I feel like a lot of people (including posters on this board) might write something similar, which I take to mean: "I disagree with right-wing marginalization/demonization of trans people, but I definitely disagree with a totally fluid concept of gender and transitioning." How can these things both be true--and, if they are, somehow, what does that mean for folks' political decisions?
But really, I'd love to understand what the paragraph means to you. In short, why the emphasis adverb on the second "disagree"?
That is a somewhat hard question to answer, because essentially i want people to have a place to p!ss, regardless of how well they pass, regarless of how perfectly they fit into a gender category.
But I am extra grouchy when the left is trying to tell me I‘m a jerk for not agreeing to all their demands. I mean, I am SURE that I wish to think for myself. I believe the far left has no business telling me what and how I must think about gender and transitioning in order to qualify as a good person.
I think it‘s complicated. So far, I am not sure non-binary is necessary gender category. I get „MTF“ and I get „FTM“ and I even get „in transition“ as a way to describe someone‘s gender. — Also, I am not really on board with people who want others to refer to them as a „they“ rather than he or she. Happy to oblige when someone wishes to change from the „he“ pronoun to the „she“ pronoun, but I think „they“ is awkward and is a no-go.
If it were the 80s, when it was DEFINITELY not safe for a man to wear fake nails and lip gloss, I might feel differently about the far left being „fall into line or we will call you a bigot“. As it is, I am not in harmony with the militant left. That was where my language was coming from.
isn‘t it fascinating though, that if you drag a population through a decade or so of gender nonsense, and then show them a possible return to a two-gender framework of humanity, we (some of us) are grateful and relieved.
It reminds me of people escaping from concentration camps, digging up a turnip and thinking it‘s the best food they‘ve ever tasted.
Doesn‘t it just show that we are now willing to put up with almost anything, so long as they will just stop shoving this panoply of genders thing down our throats?
yes something that almost never happens is analogous to the systematic murder of 6 million people. Take Elon's anatomy out of your rear.
Did you know? The rate of internet searches for transgender porn in a given city/state is directly correlated with how that area votes. Specifically, the more Republican an area is, the more people search for transgender porn. (Interestingly, the same holds true for interracial cuckold porn.)
Conservative porn habits are undoubtedly a huge factor behind this strange obsession with trans issues generally. Republicans are getting off to things that make them feel extremely guilty/angry. In turn, they are taking these negative feelings out on the rest of us, especially the populations they are *ahem* fantasizing about. (This is obviously a primary motivator behind their efforts to ban pornography in general.) Protecting women's sports is an obvious trojan horse; Trump's executive orders yesterday show that they intend to go far beyond that. They do not want trans people to exist. They want trans people as many barriers as possible should they attempt to transition. They want it to be legal to discriminate against them. They want trans children to hate themselves. They want parents of trans children to live in constant fear.
The text of the EO defines male and female in such a way that intersex people would be covered: whichever gamete your body is made to produce, as determined at conception. Intersexed people produce one or the other.
There are people, LOTS of people, who have neither ovaries or testes by birth
And I don't mean 3rd world countries, I mean born in USA
And "at conception" everyone is "identical" for six weeks at a minimum
The SAME parts can become either or none or some variation inbetween
So the "law" doesn't make sense, which is not unexpected given from where it came.
And "at conception" everyone is "identical" for six weeks at a minimum
This isn't true. You're operating on an outdated premise that's been proven wrong over the past several decades by extensive research in cell biology and embryology - and of course by all the IVF and research related to IVF that's been done since so-called "test tube babies" first became a thing in the late 1970s.
From the get-go, male human blastocysts created in the lab via IVF use up the nutrients/culture media they grown in faster than female human blastocysts do.
Sex differences have been found in the very first placental cells that human embryos grow when they initially implant in the uterine wall and the placenta starts developing - which happens 5-6 days after fertilization.
There are people, LOTS of people, who have neither ovaries or testes by birth
This isn't true, either. Complete gonadal agenesis aka complete or pure gonadal dysgenesis is an extremely rare condition. Even amongst the group of extremely rare conditions known as DSDs, complete gonadal agenesis is rare.
Moreover, during prenatal development, people with complete gonadal agenesis/dygenesis usually started out growing gonads and many had some degree of gonadal function for a time. But at some point prior to birth, their gonads regressed, failed, atrophied, shriveled up and largely disappeared.
DSD conditions featuring gondal dysgenesis, in which the normal development and/or function of the gonads is interrupted and goes awry at one stage or another - such as Turner syndrome and Swyer syndrome - are more common.
But everyone with Turner syndrome - who typically have an 45,X karyotype - is clearly female, and they all start out developing ovaries. Many girls with Swyer grow ovaries that are fully-developed and fully functioning. Turner syndrome has such a diverse presentatin that there's no one age/stage when the ovaries automatically all stall or fail.
Swyer syndrome - which affects an estimated 1 out 80,000 46,XY persons - is typically said to be the one DSD condition characterized by complete lack of gonads. But in fact, persons with Swyer syndrome have nonfunctional "streak gonads," which are commonly removed surgically. The streak gonads of persons with Swyer apparently do sometimes contain some gonadal tissue - though the exact nature that gonadal tissue is not clear from the limited information that's been published reporting results of histologic exams conducted after the streak gonads are removed.
Whilst they are genetically male, in most countries and cultures persons with Swyer syndrome are classified as female for practical purposes like ID documents; social identity; sports; sex-segregated spaces such as loos, locker rooms, fitting rooms, shelters, rape crisis centers, hospital wards, prisons, sororities, nunneries, barracks, hostels; dorm placement and roommate assignments in college and boarding school; marriage certificates, marriage rights (and rites); religious purposes; adoption and custody; pension age, etc.
Since persons with Swyer retain their Mullerian structures, some can become pregnant through use of drugs to develop their rudimentary uterus followed by IVF, albeit using someone else's egg. However, because they are not actually female, persons with Swyer need special medical care that takes into account the specifics of their highly unusual health condition and sex status.
XY persons with CAIS like Alicia Weigel - and all the the other lovely-looking people with CAIS that JAHJ keeps posting photos and footage of - are usually classified as females for practical purposes too, although there is some debate about whether persons with CAIS have an unfair advantage over females in sports. But they too need specialized medical care that takes into account the specifics of their rare condition and sex status.
At any rate, I disagree with those on this thread and elsewhere who are decrying this EO of Trump's because they contend that there's no possible way for American society and the US legal system to recognize the realities of sex in our species and provide sex-based rights, provisions and protections for those of us who are female without automatically subjecting persons with rare DSDs like Alicia Weigel to harm, cruelty, injustice, exclusion, marginalization, stigmatization, unfair discrimination and other forms of mistreatment.
In fact, I think most of the people who are making these claims - and railing that any acknowledgement of biolgical reality is bigotry, especially when it's done to benefit female people - are full of it.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
