Sarah McBride laughs off Trump’s anti-trans executive order: ‘He just declared everyone a woman’
Sarah McBride laughs off Trump’s anti-trans executive order: ‘He just declared everyone a woman’
The first openly transgender member of Congress mocked Trump’s executive order
Summary
Representative Sarah McBride, the first out trans congresswoman, criticized Donald Trump’s executive order defining gender as strictly male or female.
McBride points out that biologically all embryos develop as female until the SRY gene activates weeks after conception.
The order, which ties gender to reproductive cells at conception, unintentionally categorizes all humans as female from conception based on biological facts.
McBride’s remarks highlight scientific flaws in the policy.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
- The order speaks about sex, and defines gender identity as pointless fantasy. So abolishing gender identity was the intended purpose.
- It defines every human as belonging to neither of the 2 sexes. There is pretty much no other way to read it.
- It does not define anyone as female. These people just apparently either can't read or just refuse to. Idk which one is more sad.
It defines every human as belonging to neither of the 2 sexes. There is pretty much no other way to read it.
Read it carefully, and then read it like a Republican.
“Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
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:
“Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”
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.
belonging to the sex that produces...
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...