Trump's Aggressively Broad Executive Order on Transgender People
Like many of his other "Day 1" decrees, the order seems more concerned with scoring points in the culture war than advancing sensible policy.

In the hours after taking office for the second time, President Donald Trump signed numerous executive orders in quick succession. Among the diktats, he ordered the end of birthright citizenship as guaranteed in the Constitution and the expansion of the death penalty.
Another addressed transgender people and how the government should treat them. Like many of Trump's other "Day 1" orders, it gets some fundamental points wrong and seems more concerned with scoring points in the culture war than advancing sensible policy.
In an effort to "defend women's rights" against "efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex," the order—titled "Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government"—seeks with the force of federal law to establish men and women as distinct and immutable categories.
"It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female," which "are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality," the order states. It defines "sex" as "an individual's immutable biological classification as either male or female" and notes that the term is "not a synonym for and does not include the concept of 'gender identity,'" which the order says "does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex."
Perhaps ironically, supporters of transgender equality might agree with parts of this characterization. "Sex is a label—male or female—that you're assigned by a doctor at birth based on the genitals you're born with and the chromosomes you have. It goes on your birth certificate," according to Planned Parenthood. Gender identity, on the other hand, "is how you feel inside and how you express your gender through clothing, behavior, and personal appearance. It's a feeling that begins very early in life."
The executive order defines "female" as "a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell" and "male" as the opposite—"a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell." In other words, anyone with an XX chromosome is a female, and anyone with an XY chromosome is male, with no exceptions. The order tautologically defines "sex" in terms of "male" and "female," which are then defined in terms of "sex."
But by ruling so starkly, the order completely writes intersex people out of existence.
"People who are intersex have genitals, chromosomes or reproductive organs that don't fit into a male/female sex binary," according to the Cleveland Clinic. "Some people who are intersex consider their gender to be intersex. Others identify as female, male, nonbinary or a different gender." In this case, a person's professed gender may change from the one assigned at birth because they literally have biological markers of both. The clinic further notes that one in 100 Americans is estimated to be intersex.
The executive order criticizes "gender ideology," which it says "replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity" and "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." But intersex people literally are born in the wrong sexed body, at least as defined by the executive order, which says everyone is either all male or all female.
The order also scraps previous State Department changes that allowed transgender and nonbinary travelers to more easily change the gender on their passports. "Monday's executive order is not retroactive and does not invalidate old passports," the White House told NOTUS' Oriana González this week. "However, if government-issued documents need to be renewed, they must reflect the person's sex assigned at birth."
But perhaps most consequentially, Trump's order demands that prisons house transgender inmates in facilities corresponding to their biological sex.
"The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that males are not detained in women's prisons or housed in women's detention centers," the order states. This appears to be based on the misconception that predatory men are routinely dressing as women to gain access to intimate women's spaces, like restrooms, lockers rooms, and prisons.
Nearly a decade ago, North Carolina passed House Bill 2, which required everyone to use the public restrooms corresponding to their biological sex. The measure came after the Charlotte City Council passed an ordinance allowing transgender people to use the gendered bathroom of their choice; then-Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, warned the ordinance could "create major public safety issues by putting citizens in possible danger from deviant actions by individuals taking improper advantage of a bad policy."
"From a scientific and evidence-based perspective, there is no current evidence that granting transgender individuals access to gender-corresponding restrooms results in an increase in sexual offenses," according to a 2018 study in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
It's also rather uncommon for transgender women, who were born biologically male, to be housed in women's prisons. "Out of 4,890 transgender state prisoners tracked in 45 states and Washington, D.C.," NBC News in 2020 was able to confirm "only 15 cases in which a prisoner was housed" according to their preferred gender.
And trans inmates are more often targets for abuse than abusers themselves. "An estimated 35% of transgender inmates held in prisons and 34% held in local jails reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months," according to a 2015 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
In 2018, the American Medical Association (AMA) "urge[d] that housing policies be changed to allow transgender prisoners to be placed in correctional facilities that are reflective of their affirmed gender status," citing studies showing that transgender inmates are more than three times more likely to suffer physical violence and sexual abuse.
Much of Trump's executive order reflects the social conservatism of the voters that propelled him to office for a second time. But the scope, scale, and implications of the order should give libertarians pause, even those who may agree with Trump ideologically.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is sensible...
Opposing this signals tribal allegiance to irrational ideological garbage. If you didn't push back against Biden unilaterally changing these definitions in contradiction to reality then you have nothing to stand on when Trump swings it back.
Are we supposed to pretend Lancaster is unaware of what cultural Marxism is?
It's only a culture war when people start pushing back against cultural Marxism. Reason will not support those who stand against it.
One would think Trump would have better things to do with his time.
What's your excuse?
It didn't seem to take up a lot of his time.
And he managed to do a whole raft of other things as well.
Almost as if he can walk up Airforce One's stairs AND chew gum at the same time!
Like many of his other "Day 1" decrees, the order seems more concerned with scoring points in the culture war than advancing sensible policy.
*leans over desk, props face on both hands*
Oohh, do go on and tell us about "sensible" policy when it comes to 'trans'!
Year: Number of Genders
1960: 2
1965: 2
1970: 2
1975: 2
1980: 2
1985: 2
1990: 2
1995: 2
2000: 2
2005: 2
2010: 2
2015: 32
2020: >100
2025: 2
Facts and treating people as individuals are just so mean.
Treating people as individuals would seem to include not casually ignoring people who are genuinely intersex, people with Klinefelter's syndrome, people with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, etc.
They’re not ignored, you pedantic retard, they get medical attention due to their conditions. However, they only make up less than 0.02% of the population.
The percentage doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not the individuals concerned are fairly treated. There are genuine cases and they deserve the same consideration as anyone else.
Which having said, I agree voluntary transgenderism is a symptom of mental illness and anyone whose biological sex is evident should be only classified by that sex. Surgically altered people ought to be able to be reclassified, and where there is any doubt, take them anonymously to the local Starbucks (or whatever) and if the server calls it sir, he's male, and if madam, she's female.
You cannot change genetic identity. There is no getting around that.
"Treating people as individuals would seem to include not casually ignoring people who are genuinely intersex, people with Klinefelter's syndrome, people with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, etc."
Change all of society for a astonishingly tiny number of people.
Good plan.
I've not seen a bunch of Klinefelter's sufferers demand people honor their pronouns. Have you?
This is why you are a conservative and not a libertarian.
A libertarian will bend over backwards to try to respect the rights of all people, even those who are in small minorities or in disfavored groups.
A conservative like yourself will see the majority as setting the normative social standard for everyone, and demand that everyone adhere to that normative standard so that the majority isn't inconvenienced.
Felons tend to lose some rights. So if you fancy being a 'gendered' woman but your sex is 'male' then you lose the right to live in your fantasy. For the minute case of an intersex felon...let them pick where they go if they haven't already defined their preferred gender...which would be doubtful.
They still have a right to live their fantasy. They don’t have a right to make everyone else.
So you believe it ought to be a felony to be openly transgender?
More strawmen, Jeffy?
All he does is lie.
“A libertarian will bend over backwards to try to respect the rights of all people”
What rights are being violated?
Fuck off you Marxist cunt. My right to call you what I fucking wish will not be infringed by your mental illness and narcissism.
I've not seen a bunch of Klinefelter's sufferers demand people honor their pronouns.
Interestingly, many young men with Klinefelter's who are diagnosed early and could be treated with hormones decline treatment, being happy with their bodies the way they are. And they consider themselves men.
“intersex”
New term sent out at the fifty cent factory. Never seen Lying Jeffy use this word before yesterday.
He has never used any of that language before. The stupid fucker thinks it isn't glaringly obvious that he picks up talking points and has zero knowledge of the underlying issues.
0.02%. True intersex people are so rare that most will never know one. And people that actually are most often don't advertise it. Sane people don't want to be seen as freaks.
and yet, so many of the people (a majority, by far) that are signing up for cross sex hormones, sterilization, and lopping off body parts have none of the conditions you named.
Care to refine your argument?
People with Kleinfelter’s or CAIS are “genuinely intersex” in that real doctors do indeed call such folk “intersex.” But they are not literally inter-sex. They have testes, making them unambiguously male.
They certainly have a DSD, which interferes with their reproductive function, but they nevertheless fit neatly and precisely within one of the two sexes (male) specified by the Executive Order, which happily also turn out to be the only two sexes known to science.
Approximately none of the trans activists are legitimately intersex.
This is a red herring argument.
If the concerns had ever been about the rare people who were biologically intersex, this would fall under something like ADA and no one would oppose the 4 people who were reassigned to a different sex later in life.
No one is 'intersex'.
People can have genetic defects that cause ambiguous genitalia. They can have extra chromosomes that interfere with proper sexual expression.
But they're not 'intersex'.
They're genetically damaged men and women.
Because there is no 'inter' to be sexed in. There is no third chromosome.
You can line up a million Xs and Ys and claim that's your sex chromosome count --but there are still only X and Y.
Two, which is always and permanently binary.
There are only two genders because there's nothing for a third gender to form around.
I'll trust trannies the day they stop brainwashing 2 year olds into thinking they want gender mutilation surgery.
Here's my standard rant on LGBTQWERTY lies:
It used to be dogma that LGBTQWERTY was genetic, making discrimination and conversion therapy immoral. It also used to be dogma that female genital mutilation was the worst crime possible, except chemical castration even for pedos and rapists who volunteered for it. And it used to be dogma that women needed their own sports teams and leagues, and an entire industry was built around Title IX to enforce the separate and unequal leagues.
Now it's dogma that you can flip among the 57 gender fluidenties on a whim, teacher conversion propaganda is mandatory, as is the appropriate genital mutilation surgery and chemical castration. It's also dogma that third-rate male atheletes can identify as women and compete in their sports, winning medals for literally beating them up.
Yeah. Someone at work was bitching about this. My response was "I guess someone should have spoken up when dudes bigger than me (6'2", 240#) started winning medals in female sporting competitions. Perhaps the backlash wouldn't have been nearly as harsh."
The executive order defines "female" as "a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell" and "male" as the opposite—"a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell." In other words, anyone with an XX chromosome is a female, and anyone with an XY chromosome is male, with no exceptions.
Nope. The relevance of conception – the start point of the new human organism – is that that is when the new organism’s genotype - ie genetic make up - is settled. As far as sex determination is concerned, the XY and XX karyotypes are very reliable indicators of that part of the genotype which is relevant to sex determination.
This is because the SRY gene, which is the primary genetic determinant of the male development pathway in mammals, is typically housed on the Y chromosome. Which is why male humans typically have a Y chromosome.
But there are very rare cases where the SRY gene actually turns up on the X chromosome instead of the Y. These are the exceptions to the XY and XX “rule” – ie how you can have XX males. XX males have their SRY gene on one of their X chromosomes. (They also tend to have a lot of problems too, but we need not get into that.) But their SRY gene is still there in their genotype at conception. It’s just not on the Y chromosome.
So Joe Lancaster’s sniffy attempt to say “O dear Lord, these bumpkins don’t understand that there are exceptions to the XX XY thing for sex determination” falls flat on its face. Cos XX and XY do not determine sex. The SRY gene does. He’s the guy introducing XX and XY. The EO just refers to conception – ie the fixing of the genotype.
So sniffy Joe owns the rubes by …… not understanding that there’s a difference between genotype and karotype ! Delicious.
Here it is for biological simpletons like Joe. Chromosomes – the Xs and Ys – are like boats. Genes are like sailors. Sailors go in boats, genes go on chromosomes.
Because Mother Nature runs a very conservative Navy, each sailor has a designated slot in a designated boat. But despite that, sometimes sailors switch boats, so they’re sitting in a different boat from their usual one. But it’s still the same sailor.
Genotype is your collection of genes, ie sailors
Karotype is your collection of chromosomes, ie boats, on which the sailors sit.
Sailors — seamen — semen — I knew this was coming!
I seem to recall something from 7th grade sex ed about a little sailor sitting in the end of a boat...
What was it the Colonel said? Oh, yeah . . . .
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
"From a scientific and evidence-based perspective, there is no current evidence that granting transgender individuals access to gender-corresponding restrooms results in an increase in sexual offenses,"
This is nonsense. For example, in Northern Virginia a male high school student, who identified as "gender fluid" and was allowed to use the girls' restroom, was found guilty by a juvenile judge of anally raping a female student in the girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School while wearing a skirt. If the kid hadn't been allowed to use the girls' bathroom, this sexual assault would never have occurred.
Also, biological males have repeatedly sexually assaulted females at the Washing Corrections Center for Women to which they had been transferred after they claimed their "gender" was female.
Finally, that 1% intersex number is wrong. Conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female, occur in 0.018% of the population. The claim that 1% of the population is intersex includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, and is often wrongly used to back up the ideological assertion that "sex is a spectrum," or that biological sex is not dimorphic. By way of illustration, a woman who has lost an an ovary in early adulthood would count as “intersex” under Fausto-Sterling’s preposterously over-demanding conditions on sex category membership.
And girls -- real ones -- don't like being told they have to shower and change with males in their locker rooms. I'll put all those girls' rights to privacy over a tranny's voyeurism fetish any day.
For example, in Northern Virginia a male high school student, who identified as "gender fluid" and was allowed to use the girls' restroom, was found guilty by a juvenile judge of anally raping a female student in the girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School while wearing a skirt. If the kid hadn't been allowed to use the girls' bathroom, this sexual assault would never have occurred.
Do we really know that the sexual assault would never have occurred? Because if this high school is like most places, there isn't a bathroom police doing a genital check before anyone can enter. In the absence of any policy legally permitting him to enter the girl's bathroom, what is to stop him from just sneaking in and sexually assaulting girls anyway?
This is starting to sound like gun grabbers wanting to pass laws banning guns in order to cut down on certain crimes. So a criminal who isn't deterred by laws against murder, is somehow going to be deterred by a law banning a gun? How does that work?
This person sexually assaulted a girl in the bathroom not because he's trans, but because he's a criminal.
He’s also trans, Jeffy, with the sexual fetishes that come with it, you pedantic bastard.
I have no idea what this guy's sexual fetishes are. And news flash: pretty much every adult has sexual fetishes of one sort or another. Are you turned on by the hot nurse in a skimpy outfit? Maybe it's the dominatrix with the leather whip? But most of us are able to control our urges and fetishes and not commit crimes in the course of fulfilling those urges. Same deal for trans people.
Guess what, dingbat, most normal people (maybe not you, but you’re anything but normal) keep these under wraps and don’t act out on them by sexually assaulting women in the women’s washroom.
We agree!
Fuck off, Jeffy.
wow holy projection batman
Defending and hand waving away rape is a new low, even for you.
I'm not defending nor hand-waving away rape. This is not only uncharitable but extremely unfair. In fact, I am assigning the blame for a rape properly where it belongs: at the feet of the rapist, REGARDLESS if that rapist is trans or not.
On the other hand, it is the crowd who thinks that mere signs at bathrooms that say "Women Only" will somehow magically deter the male rapist from sneaking in and raping women in the bathroom, trans or not. They are the ones who have very confused thinking about the crimes of rape and sexual assault.
No it isn't...see recent illegal immigrant rapists and being excused for feeling bad about it afterwards.
Oh fuck you. I never excused any rape based on "feeling bad" about it.
You do all the time pedo
It’s not new though. He recently hand waived rape away to defend Muslim immigrants raping a young girl by defending one because he only ejaculated on her instead of in her, another one because he felt bad afterwards, and all of them because the girl was drunk (I believe she was 12?).
Furthermore, the question isn't "are there transgender people who are also criminals who will take advantage of bathroom rules to commit sexual assault?" The answer is of course yes, because criminals come in all shapes and forms. Some transgender people are criminals, just like some people of any category are criminals. The question is, is there a necessary connection between bathroom rules for transgender people, and an incidence of sexual assault in bathrooms? The answer here appears to be no, since, as noted above, since there isn't a bathroom police doing genital checks, those criminals intent on committing sexual assault in bathrooms would just sneak in to the bathroom and commit the assault anyway, regardless of rules about transgender people using whatever bathroom.
Transgender is also used as a cover by these criminals to get access to places where women are vulnerable.
My point here, is that these criminals ALREADY have de facto access to these places, because there isn't a dedicated bathroom police doing genital checks.
Do you really think a sign saying "Women Only" is going to stop the criminal intent on raping women in the bathroom, regardless if that criminal is trans or not?
Your point is idiotic. When said facility is restricted to women only, then if the scumbag goes in there, you can arrest him for it. When you allow these scumbags into those facilities and allow them to call themselves “women” when they plainly aren’t, it makes it harder to arrest them for these crimes.
When said facility is restricted to women only, then if the scumbag goes in there, you can arrest him for it.
Who's going to do the arresting? The non-existent bathroom police? There's only going to be any sort of arrest if the criminal entering the women's bathroom commits some type of crime like a sexual assault. And in that case, you won't be arresting him merely for being in the wrong bathroom.
If you indoctrinate the real females that if they complain then they are bigots or make them believe they are 'safe' with the mentally ill...well were does the blame lie?
Do you really think a sign saying "Women Only" is going to stop the criminal intent on raping women in the bathroom, regardless if that criminal is trans or not?
No. What used to stop it would be a woman running out screaming that there was a man in the ladies' bathroom. Then either the owner of the place would go in and drag the fellow out, or maybe an off-duty cop would, or just a pissed off boyfriend/husband/brother/friend/etc. would run in and drag the guy out for a generous serving of knuckle sandwich.
Now if a woman screams about a man being in the bathroom she's called a heartless bigot and told to mind her own business. This makes the ladies room a safer space for predators than it once was.
Your depiction of gender roles is cartoonish. Oh look, women are helpless damsels in distress, and men are the muscular brutish saviors of female virtue!
But I do think you are revealing one key element of this discussion: part of the major purpose for things like this executive order is about de-normalizing transgenderism in public life.
this executive order is about de-normalizing transgenderism in public life.
They are not normal.
Make Asylums Great Again.
Oh there are a lot of things that are "not normal", but in terms of public life, many of these "not normal" things are treated as acceptable or at least tolerable. For example shopping at Walmart while wearing pajamas, or carrying around tiny dogs in a handbag. That sort of thing. That is what I meant.
It was starting to be the case that a trans person could be openly trans in public and it would not raise too many eyebrows, and people would be courteous at least outwardly about it. But I think with things like with this EO, you all would like that to change.
If a (non-passable) trans person is in public doing ordinary things like shopping, do you think that this is... okay?
Oh there are a lot of things that are "not normal", but in terms of public life, many of these "not normal" things are treated as acceptable or at least tolerable. For example shopping at Walmart while wearing pajamas, or carrying around tiny dogs in a handbag. That sort of thing. That is what I meant.
Degeneracy wins at the same time that "tolerance" wins, yes.
Okay? I am not interested in creating a Walmart fashion police or a tiny dog welfare squad. Why is conformity so important to you?
I have standards, and I detest lowering them. Slouching toward Gomorrah and all that. Culture is downstream from values, so when you tolerate those lessened standards, you get degeneracy.
So what is your recipe for 'increasing standards' when it comes to people shopping at Walmart in their pajamas?
Have the store policy set to exclude them.
This is a value problem, and since the top brass at the corporate level doesn't give a fuck who their clientele are, one really good way to make them aware is to have them work with the proles.
Well I am sure Walmart management is well aware of the dress habits of their clientele, and they could have created a dress code for their stores but they chose not to. So now what?
They will continue to lose respect, which in turn will result in more theft, more vandalism and more degeneracy.
And no, nobody at the corporate level actually interacts at the retail level. They believe that is beneath them.
"Your depiction of gender roles is cartoonish. Oh look, women are helpless damsels in distress, and men are the muscular brutish saviors of female virtue!"
You are aware that if men decided to subjugate women, there is LITERALLY nothing they could hope to do to make it not happen, right?
Physically, women are not even close to being competitive with men in any manner you can fathom. Nor will they ever be,
Caitlin Clark would not make it on an NBA G League roster
Okay, so let's talk about the butch lesbian with guns for biceps and who could kick your ass in any street fight. Is this an example of a "damsel in distress"?
And how about, say, this guy:
https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExcDlzZHp6cnBxZXd1ZWl6YWdsajZ4ODJhNXhhbGkyY2l1Z3gxbHdoNiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/sSZNrNRfzCuyGHW9Hk/giphy.gif
Do you think he is a muscular brutish savior of female virtue?
Let’s discuss these butch lesbians. Unless they happen to be elite MMA athletes, they’d be handled easily. By me. In a few seconds.
Maybe you would have difficulty, but an average make would wipe the floor with a woman if a fight actually occurred.
I’m taller, stronger, have better endurance, and have longer reach. Not sure why you believe it would even be even remotely close.
Harley could, easily, beat the high holy living shit out of 99% of all women. Sorry if you bought into laughable propaganda.
Unless they happen to be elite MMA athletes
Oh, so even you, the male chauvinist pig, admits that there are at least some women out there who could kick your ass and don't fit the cartoonish stereotype of 'damsel in distress'.
And the overall point here, is that part of the purpose of this EO is to restore these types of cartoonish chauvinistic gender stereotypes as normative in public society. That if one has a penis, one is expected to conform to the social majority's standard of men are supposed to behave, and similarly for those who have vaginas. It really shouldn't be optional for men to not 'act like men', right?
This is a curious choice you present: Accept cartoonish gender stereotypes, or allow women to get raped in bathrooms.
I find it alarming (but not surprising) that you and I are defending different options.
No, that is obviously a false choice.
Let me see if I can clarify the conversation. What I think you are saying, is that the only way to keep women safe in women's only spaces like bathrooms is for those spaces to be strictly biologically male-free zones, even if they are trans-women. Is that correct?
What I think you are saying, is that the only way to keep women safe in women's only spaces like bathrooms is for those spaces to be strictly biologically male-free zones, even if they are trans-women. Is that correct?
That is not correct. What I am saying is that predatory men now have an excuse for being in a womens' bathroom that leftists not only want to be socially acceptable, but casts any woman who objects as a hateful bigot. Because of that, predatory men are more likely to demand access to womens' only spaces, thereby making those spaces less safe.
One method of making those places safer for women is to remove the excuse predatory men can use. It may or may not be the only way to make those places safer.
“Okay, so let's talk about the butch lesbian with guns for biceps and who could kick your ass in any street fight. Is this an example of a "damsel in distress"?”
Not sure what this has to do with the topic. And actually, unless this lesbian has some martial arts training I’m still kicking her ass.
“Your depiction of gender roles is cartoonish”
Didn’t respond to anything that was said.
The point you elected to ignore is that when women would sound the alarm about a man being in the ladies' room, it would be treated as inappropriate, and so men didn't feel empowered to go into ladies' rooms.
Now when it happens, the woman is the subject of verbal abuse by shitheads like you. And so predators are empowered to go where once they could not.
So I think you actually have a bit of a point here. If the gender roles are very well defined and clearly delineated, violating one of them is considered a major faux pas. I basically agree with that.
However, there are downsides as well to having rigid gender roles. When this happens, there will always be one gender that is regarded as superior to another gender, and in Western societies, that is the male gender. So you have real gender inequality that occurs when you have such rigid gender roles.
It also means that those who genuinely do not feel comfortable with the gender role that society has assigned to them will have a very difficult time, perhaps even suffering from mental illness, perhaps even committing suicide. That is a real problem that should not be ignored.
Love it when you admit the truth that you are a skeevy little misogynist. Men are different than women, not better. Only assholes and incels think they are.
Someone the other day asked why we argue with Lying Jeffy. This is why.
“Your depiction of gender roles is cartoonish”
Goes on to make cartoonish comparisons from the other direction.
Never change Jeff.
Well if no one is doing genital checks why are you bothered by the ability of the police to kick you out of the ladies room? As you said they aren't even checking so there is no issue. Your problem seems to be if a woman COMPLAINS that a 6'6" bearded man walked into the shower behind her 14 year old daughter that the police can remove him.
Your comment about rape in Washington prisons is correct. I never hear about it happening in any other state. I can't believe it doesn't happen elsewhere. Journalism...
In New Jersey 2 inmates in women's prisons were impregnated by a transgender prisoner.
On Rikers Island (New York) a transgender inmate in the women's section raped a female prisoner.
In Illinois a female prisoner in a womans facility was raped by a transgender inmate.
In England a study by the Ministry of Justice found that transgender inmates make up about one per cent of the 3,600 female jail population but are responsible for 5.6 per cent of sexual assaults in women’s prisons.
Where is this “1 in 100 are intersex” bullshit coming from? What a load of unscientific propaganda.
Are we counting undescended testicles in kindergarten age boys and prominent brows on unattractive women as intersex now?
GFYs
Hey! Hey! Hey! Some actresses ... Oh, I thought you said eyebrows. Sorry, carry on.
These figures come from classifying people with :
Late Onset Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (LOCAH)
as "intersex" - as originally proposed in the 1990s by the activist Anne Fausto-Sterling. LOCAH is simply a range of conditions that can cause a woman to have elevated testosterone levels, in serious cases resulting in some hair loss, acne, menstrual irregularity etc. And it is 'late onset" - ie it happens after all the sexual organs have developed normally. Symptoms are usually so mild that it is not even diagnosed.
It is not "intersex" on any non-activist defintion.
You can tell immediately whether someone talking about intersex is bs-ing, simply from whether they quote intersex frequency as :
1-2% (activist)
0.01-0.02% (non activist medic)
Sadly the Cleveland Clinic is more activist than medic these days. At least when it comes to sex.
And, even then, the medical definition of 'intersex' is euphemistically or contextually derived from the more rigorous biological one.
Intersex organisms can both fertilize and be fertilized, even to the point of themselves. However, lots and lots and lots of organisms have overlapping chromosomes and morphology (ants, bees, etc.) but still have distinct male (doesn't produce eggs but can fertilize them, for life) and female (can produce eggs but cannot fertilize them, for life).
Yes, “intersex” as used by the medical profession does not correspond to the natural meaning of inter-sex.
“Intersex” people are not hovering mysteriously between the sexes, they’re males with development problems in their secondary sexual characteristics, or females with such problems.
Yes there are intersex people but whoever gave that quote (attributed to someone unnamed at the Cleveland Clinic) is overstating the case by several orders of magnitude. In a country the size of the US, the number of true intersex people (those with a genetic abnormality of their sex chromosomes) is measured in the hundreds, maybe low thousands.
I know 2. Siblings. Neither were able to bear children. Both present as butch female.
Now, it's fair to say I have nothing to confirm it. However they're both from a small island where everybody knows each other's business
The "sensible" policy? How about ignoring all the gender drama queens? Get the government out of the feelings business.
And I, too, call bullshit on the 1% "intersex" claim.
There is no reason for government policy, law or regulation to even mention gender or sex in the first place. It adds nothing to employment or criminal justice activities in any way. Whenever the issue is raised officially it causes confusion instead of clarity and discord instead of harmony. To be fair, the main impetus historically was the denial of rights to some by others; and the correction of that silliness by restoring equal protection under the law; and, finally, the over-correction of previous silliness with new silliness in the form of special rights and privileges for protected "classes."
Next Joe brings up "intersex" folk :
"But by ruling so starkly, the order completely writes intersex people out of existence."
Wrong again Joe !
"Intersex" is one of those words, like "gender" with a meaning that fluctuates according to who is using it. But let's go with Joe's preferred meaning :
"People who are intersex have genitals, chromosomes or reproductive organs that don't fit into a male/female sex binary," according to the Cleveland Clinic
But the people who the Cleveland Clinic thinks are "intersex" DO fit into the male / female defintion in the Executive Order. Because although they may have some unusual chromosomes, or some abnormalities of sexual development - eg internal testes rather than external - they're still unambiguously male or female according to the EO's defintion.
The reality is that "intersex is used by the medical profession to describe a range of conditions of abnormal development of sexual organs, virtually all of which concern people who have unambiguous primary sexual organs - gonads (ie testes or ovaries.)
Activists insist that sex is a "spectrum" ie the composite job lot of sexual characteristics that men typically have or women typically have, and that therefore a hairy woman with a deep voice is intermediate between man and woman. Which is nonsense. A hairy woman wth a deep voice is ..... a woman. Exactly and digitally a woman in the same way as a not at all hairy woman with a squeaky voice.
There is no sex spectrum. There's only male or female and that's a matter of your gonads. And your gonad type is determined by the genes you received .... at conception.
The EO is correct on this point.
What seems to be commonly ignored by those arguing for “trans” rights is the vast number of sociopathic males who will seize any opening to take what they want. When there is no definition of male and female, and when you allow any male to self-ID as a female, you are opening up a tremendous can of worms that can only set back the progress made in the name of safety for women.
Yes, it gives males the right to impose themselves in female spaces (not merely bathrooms) as long as they are willing to say they believe they identify as a woman in the moment.
How could that possibly go wrong?
It is not ignored but celebrated as an unadulterated good.
"...the order completely writes intersex people out of existence."
Ummm... no. Intersex people are either males with a genetic birth defect or females with a genetic birth defect.
"...there is no current evidence that granting transgender individuals access to gender-corresponding restrooms results in an increase in sexual offenses."
Ummm... a nekked dude hanging out in the girls' shower is, by definition, a sexual offense.
There's no such thing as "trans people" and we all know it. I refuse to adopt another person's mental illness as my own, and I absolutely will not participate in another person's sexual fetish.
Hyperbole much? The majority of intersex people produce either eggs (the large reproductive cell) or sperm (the small reproductive cell), not both. Only true hermaphrodites may produce both, and those only occur in about 1 in 20,000 births.
In other words, as of the 2020 census, fewer that 17,000 Americans (0.005% of the population) are true hermaphrodites. Cry me a fucking river that 0.005% of the population can, rightly and correctly, answer "Y" on every form asking for sex (physical characteristics, not the act you perverts).
Otherwise, the definitions of "female" and "male" are clear and concise. And the distinction between sex (male and female) and gender (masculine, feminine, and neuter) is absolutely correct. But it won't stop the GenderNazis from losing their everloving shit.
* 2020 Census recorded the population at 331,449,281.
Again, even at that, no human has been able to definitively answer as "Y" on any form asking for sex. We had definitions for sex and identified sexual dimorphism long, long, loooong before we had microscopes to identify sperm and ova.
There have been people with ovaries who produce sperm and people with testes who produce eggs but there is no documented case of a person producing eggs *and* sperm. Even in the animal kingdom, among species that aren't overtly hermaphroditic, the exceptions can be counted by hand. And, central to the thema, they could not reproduce themselves (create more hermaphrodites).
I've complained for many decades that many government IDs and forms use Gender when the word should be Sex. I actually think that came from republicans who were looking for a "nicer" word than sex to put on government documents.
That is an absurdly disingenuous misrepresentation. Nothing about producing "the large reproductive cell" or "produces the large small cell" translates to either XX or YY AND nothing else.
... erp. "large small" should have just been "small". I don't know. Maybe it was swol that day.
""Like many of his other "Day 1" decrees, the order seems more concerned with scoring points in the culture war than advancing sensible policy.""
Rev hit hardest.
He’d be hard hit if he wasn’t banned already.
So you say illogically that both can't be true, yet you must be saying that
BECAUSE
Most people (except of course you )do not have common sense
The popularity of what he does is proof it's wrong.
And so obvious you can't see it:The highest priority right now, after Biden pardoned a man who killed two cops, is that the cultrure war not carry on and on and on. This started with Hillary and has been going on too long.Destroy the enemy of quit the war altogether.
Again you argue from experts and expertise and somehow you have that and your reading audience does not.
https://ruthinstitute.org/resource-centers/father-sullins-research/transgender/
There are 2 genders adn that's it. Not going to argue with you.
I cannot resist the urge; must... be... pedantic.
There are two sexes. There are two to three (four if you include "common" -- referring to members of a species without specifying gender like "parent" or "friend") grammatical genders (feminine, masculine, and neuter) depending on the language.
Modern English doesn't have grammatical gender for all nouns. Spanish has two (masculine and feminine). German and Slovene, for instance, have all three. Russian has three in singular, but only one in plural.
Holy F Reason. UR literally becoming 100% a leftard-rag.
Sorry there isn't 1 in 100 hermaphrodite humans.
In fact I'm not sure there is even 1 period.
Anyone know of a person who knocked themselves up all by themselves?
mental illness is all you're preaching.
If you want to get rid of government identifying a difference get the government out of the 'reproductive' definition all together (marriage/offspring) and good luck with that as I don't think anyone wants to file their 1-month old as an 'adult' citizen.
"the order seems more concerned with scoring points in the culture war than advancing sensible policy."
No, duh! The culture war put Trump into the White House ... twice! Scoring points in the culture war is all that's left now after decades of the escalating culture war. Surely the writer is not just now coming to this realization? Name just one "sensible policy" put forward by any administration in the last thirty years and I might reconsider. It seems to me that pretty much all of the actions taken by government officials have been power plays for political gain. Prove me wrong ...
seeks with the force of federal law to establish men and women as distinct and immutable categories.
You lost because you played retarded and continue to play retarded. You're talking about enshrining a category error into law as sensible.
Like if Biden signed an EO saying "Americans need to keep their free speech rights in their wallets with their driver's license so they have them with them at all times." and Trump signed an EO undoing Biden's saying "Free speech rights are a concept abided and enforced by law, not an object to be carried around in your wallet."
The existence of purple, let alone 'grape' doesn't make red and blue non-distinct and mutable. Even if an individual exists between men and women, the categories are still distinct and only mutable in the minds of squishy-headed retards who deserve to have their heads caved in by people better than them. You're literally taking the side that's torturing people with "4 lights... 5 lights... what are numbers and who is to say you're right, really?" Average people have seen through your dishonesty you liberty-hating fascist, fuck off.
This policy will create many problems when passable transgendered people go to the rest room. I know some who you would never guess were trans.
"Passable" transgender people.
What about the other 99.9% of trannies?
I've never seen one who is ACTUALLY passable, but there always might be one.
I know a guy who is has the appearance of a man,body shape, facial hair, deep voice, and even I sometimes forget he used to be a scrawny teenage girl.
There are far more of them than you think and you would never know. And that is their goal, to be their identified gender and be treated normally.
You can humor them if you want.
They are not passable. Feel free to name one who could pass as a female. And do not even get into women trying to transition into men only to look like freaks of nature as a best case scenario.
I have met transgendered women who look no different than any other woman.
Of course you have. You seem a wee bit gullible.
What is a woman?
Look at the biologist over here.
I'll bet you wouldn't have sex with them.
You know a woman who you believe passes as masculine enough to be perceived as a man.
Try using the correct language.
What folks refer to each other is to be negotiated btwn individuals on an individual basis in relationships; not mandated by government with compelled speech.
I may call my refer to my tranny friends as they prefer, but I’ll be damned if anyone tries to FORCE ME TO SAY THE SACRED WORDSS (much less salute their stupid play flag).
Staw man argument. You are not forced to say anything, or salute anything. Your employer might have rules of conduct, but that is on them.
If they're so passable that they have the genitalia matching their identity then use whichever bathroom conforms to that. I'm fine with allowing people to use the bathroom according to their genitalia, but I suspect most people wouldn't want a crotch inspector at every public bathroom door.
I think people who have no penises, take estrogen, and look like women should use the women’s bathrooms and stay in women’s prisons. They wouldn’t be safe in men’s bathrooms or men’s prisons and it is extremely unlikely they would be a danger to women (no more than an unusually large or strong woman, like a woman weightlifter or shot putter if they happen to be large or strong).
I think the genitalia rule for bathrooms and prisons makes much more sense than the chromosome rule.
How would you know what anatomy they have? Pull down the pants of every person suspected of being trans before they can use the restroom? Or how about ID checks? Maybe you would support making trans people put a patch on their jacket so they can be identified?
Pretty sure, if someone is truly indistinguishable from from their projected/apparent sex, nobody is checking their gammetes to identify their biological sex and bitch about them using the "wrong" shitter.
As always, you leftist focus on the one area that normal people might be willing to concede (if someone is passable, they probably aren’t going to be stopped from using whatever shitter they want), while ignoring all of the other ways this issue is a real problem.
Well if anyone know anything about an aggressive broad . . .
And if anyone opposing them knew intersexuals...
"It defines "sex" as "an individual's immutable biological classification as either male or female" and notes that the term is "not a synonym for and does not include the concept of 'gender identity,'" which the order says "does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex."
"Perhaps ironically, supporters of transgender equality might agree with parts of this characterization."
Which would be all well and good if you could name one circumstance in which those supporters would consider sex differences a more important distinction than gender identity.
Lancaster then proves this in his example of the Charlotte NC bathroom use law by characterizing bathrooms as being "gendered" stealing an intellectual base by implying bathrooms are and should be segregated by gender and not by sex.
"The measure came after the Charlotte City Council passed an ordinance allowing transgender people to use the gendered bathroom of their choice;..."
The Charlotte ordinance "allowed" transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice in the same way governments give workers a raise by increasing the minimum wage. They imposed that policy on private businesses by force of law.
""Sex is a label—male or female—that you're assigned by a doctor at birth based on the genitals you're born with and the chromosomes you have. It goes on your birth certificate," according to Planned Parenthood."
Sex is an objective, observable category, as are the genetic/chromosomal abnormalities that cause intersex conditions. They are not "assigned", as that implies a level of choice on the part of the observer that does not truly exist.
These arguments Lancaster puts forth are post modernist sophistry which call for rare exceptions to eat a rule. It is dishonest nonsense.
Well, but there ARE a small, tiny number of people suffering abnormalities for whom assigning sex really is a type of judgment call. Sure it is less than 0.01% but they really do exist. So for these individuals, they should be lied to and told that their sex that was assigned is an objective immutable fact, in order to maintain the ideological purity of the idea that there are two and only two sexes which can be unambiguously determined at birth. Is that correct?
As pointed out by several posters above, intersex conditions are not that indeterminate as to what the sex of the person is. Whatever difficulties intersex conditions have for implementing the rule, it does not suggest that a person who is clearly biologically male has a right to play on a women's sports team and demand that they room with a female teammate on road trips, like that person on the San Jose State Women's Volleyball team did this past season.
Right, it is as I said. For that tiny proportion of people for whom assigning sex really does require a type of judgment call, they should be tossed under the bus, because otherwise it will open the door for impure thoughts about sex and gender. The ideology of the idea behind sex and gender is more important than the lives of the intersex.
Well, that completely ignores anything I wrote above.
You are very proud of catching that red herring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbzUaieZoQ
No, I am being sincere. You wrote
intersex conditions are not that indeterminate as to what the sex of the person is
You are right, but it still requires a type of judgment call. It is not as black/white as male/female as in the overwhelming majority of cases.
And then you wrote
it does not suggest that a person who is clearly biologically male has a right to play on a women's sports team
But why would a biological male even think about playing on a women's sports team? Only if there was some widespread idea that sex or gender was not strictly binary. That there was some ambiguity in the matter that would permit the crafty biological male to slither his way onto the women's sports team for whatever nefarious purpose.
If the idea that sex and gender are purely binary, without any ambiguity, is strictly maintained, then the crafty biological male would not have these impure thoughts of trying to manipulate the system in this way to gain an advantage. The sanctity of the idea is necessary in order to prevent this catastrophic outcome, despite whatever may happen to the intersex. That is how I interpret what you are saying.
That is because you argue in bad faith. You are putting forth a black and white solution which does not care for the rights and feelings of the majority without much thought about what harms come of your position.
"A California Sailing Coach Tried to Protect Women from Male Competition. He Paid the Price"
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/a-california-sailing-coach-tried-to-protect-women-from-male-competition-he-paid-the-price/
"The association “has over 50 years of tradition since the group of women initially started it,” Allison told National Review. “All of a sudden there were several women who objected to the restroom issue and there was a whole list of women . . . who objected to him sailing in women-only events. It was starting to really affect the fleet.”
DesCombe insisted on participating in the women’s category and using the women’s facilities for his comfort. Under California law, transgender-identifying individuals are allowed to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.
“It was all about his feelings,” Susan Jennings, who was serving as fleet captain of the senior team when DesCombe arrived, told National Review. “That was a problem for me, and I think a number of other people that our feelings were never considered. ‘I’m more comfortable with the women.’ It wasn’t about whether we were uncomfortable with him and his intrusion.”"
"Over several emails, Alison politely attempted to encourage DesCombe to be conscientious of the concerns of the female sailors. Months later, Alison was brought into a meeting with the BYC commodores, who reprimanded him and told him his emails were not in keeping with the policies of BYC regarding gender identity and were putting the yacht club at risk of a lawsuit. They then issued Alison a letter demanding he stop all correspondence with DesCombe or be potentially expelled from the yacht club.
While he wishes he was treated more civilly by BYC, with due process rather than presumption of guilt, he knows it’s California’s progressive laws that have put transgender-identifying men “in the driver’s seat to do whatever they want.”"
Gonna sound callous, but... basically. Using your less than 0.01% number, 99.99+% of the population should not be forced to change anything to accommodate such a small minority of people.
Hell, I'll go even further, private businesses and properties should not be required to be handicap accessible. Contrary to popular belief and public accommodations laws, "open to the public" does not mean "publicly owned or controlled".
The correct response to using the force of law to impose controls on others is, emphatically, "fuck off slaver!"
Hear hear!
Hey Lancaster, when is Trump going to nationalize tiktok again?
Men beating up women is now an olympic sport. This is where following idiots like Lancaster gets you.
But by ruling so starkly, the order completely writes intersex people out of existence.
Statistical anomalies should be ignored in the making of rules.
But everyone is a "statistical anomaly" in one way or another. Maybe not with biological sex, but with some quirk, oddity, trait, unique property, or some other characteristic that makes one appear to be "weird" or outside the norm to a large number of people, perhaps even the overwhelming majority.
You know, perhaps, like being a libertarian in modern-day America.
So when people say "throw those 1% weirdos under the bus", they are really talking about themselves in their own way. It is sad really.
But everyone is a "statistical anomaly" in one way or another.
This is insanely retarded, but par for the course for you to say.
People are much closer to their stereotypes than not.
Everyone is "weird" in some way, shape or form. Otherwise we'd all be basically the same, but we are not. If we weren't all "weird" in some way there would be far less conflict in the world because we would be so much more homogeneous.
Defining rules by assuming that every case is unique is a recipe for failure.
People are pretty damn predicable when it comes to large scale patterns, like sex here.
The anomalies can and should be discarded.
That is you. You are an anomaly. So am I, so is everyone. That is my point. Your prescription is a recipe for disaster. You want to throw away the anomalies that you don't like, but there will come a time when everyone else wants to throw away an anomaly that THEY don't like which includes you. Then what will you do?
My life will go on, because my skin is thicker than paper.
Incidentally, I've already been discriminated against by being nothing other than white and male. So if they don't kill me, I won't give a fuck.
Have you seen some of the comments around here about transgender people? There are more than a few people who think that transgender people are inherently mentally ill, inherently pedophiles, and want to use coercive government force against them, either throw them in prison for 'being a pedophile' or throw them in a mental institution against their will. This is more than just people saying mean things. This is real coercion. Do you really want that type of coercion applied to you when it comes to the thing that makes you an 'anomaly'?
My life will go on, because my skin is thicker than paper.
I'm sorry that you can't read.
With the now ratified ERA, expect this to be declared unconstitutional right away. I have the right to use any public restroom I feel like using, right?
And compete in any athletic event regardless of the sex of the other competitors
Anything else would be restricting my rights.
Like many of his other "Day 1" decrees, the order seems more concerned with scoring points in the culture war than advancing sensible policy.
The author of that sentence IS, not merely seems, more concerned with scoring points in the culture war than recognizing sense in any form.
Yes, sure, in 2018, if you picked your standards of evidence carefully enough, you could keep the number of cases of men using transgender claims as an excuse to commit crimes low enough to be "statistically insignificant", and then get your study published in an obscure journal refereed by people ideologically predisposed to support the transgender cause.
That proves, oh yeah. absolutely nothing.
Dumbass..
But by ruling so starkly, the order completely writes intersex people out of existence.
They were never IN existence in the first place. You've got some weird genetic defect, we'll find a way to make it work. For everyone else using that as their excuse to play make-believe, the game is over.
the order seems more concerned with scoring points in the culture war than advancing sensible policy.
Points need to be scored in the culture war. The culture war is just as important as policy. If we embrace a culture of delusional pedophiles and pretend that's normal; if we pretend that discrimination is OK so long as it's "anti-racist"; if we throw out all common sense and affordable technology in hopes of appeasing an angry sun god we're afraid of - the policy that derives from THAT will be even worse.
As we've seen.
It's time to put the criminals back in the jails, the illegals back in their COAs, and the lunatics back in the asylum. This is, far and above, the #1 thing that America has lined up behind Trump for.
And this is the collectivism inherent in social conservatism. The collective will of the 'normal people' to have their standards regarded as normative should be enforced on those that 'deviate from the norm', if not by direct government coercion, then by social pressure.
Nonsense. If 99 people want to eat some kind of food for dinner, and 1 person, wearing a rainbow flag and dressed in the wrong clothes and shrieking that the global is warming while blaming it on his racial privilege, wants to eat rocks - it's not "collectivism" to regard those 99 people as normal and correctly identify that there is something very wrong with that 1.
You only call that "deviating from the norm" because you don't want to accept that there ARE norms in the first place. Eating food is the norm. Eating rocks is NOT normal. Rocks break teeth, injure internal organs, and have no nutritional value. Saying that is not collectivist (let alone socially conservative). That is just acknowledging reality.
Reality you want to deny. And you'll come up with any reason - however absurd - to try and do it. You might even do it right this minute.
I'm genuinely curious as to whether you'll try to make a counterargument to the rock-eating thing. There IS one to be made, based in the natural world, and I'm on the edge of my seat wondering if you'll try to assert it. Please do.
Transgenderism is a mental disorder, definitionally.
Thinking you are the opposite sex despite chromosomal, biological, and physical reality, is the definition of a delusion.
The problem with transgenderism, as is the problem with much of the left, is we have allowed people with severe mental illness to dictate, to us, what reality is.
This shit has to stop. The They/them add worked for a great reason. Its because we are all, as a whole, collectively tired of pretending these mentally ill children having tantrums are an authority on objective truth.
I’m not even going to ask where you got your education but you should get your money back while you can. Blame it on a Mexican cartel! Consider it as a little prepping before the carpet bombings!
Reality is this.
Male or female has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a cock, tits, or pussy!
To dispute this is like disputing Fermat's Lost Theorem!
" has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a cock, tits, or pussy!"
Well...
It mostly does though. Having cock and no pussy is 99.99% correlated with man, and having pussy/nocock is 99.99% correlated with woman, so...
can we please stop trying to make societal norms based on extremely rare exceptions to the rule? There is a reason the kind of shit Trump is saying and doing polls like 80% popularity, and its because most normies still have eyes and brains
"...among the diktats, he ordered the end of birthright citizenship as guaranteed in the Constitution and the expansion of the death penalty.
Another addressed transgender people and how the government should treat them..."
Lancaster, you are a steaming pile of TDS addled shit who should fuck off and die after getting ass-reamed with a barb-wire-wrapped broomstick.
And I'm more than willing to tell you what I REALLY think, asshole.
You never did double up your dose like I told you to do, did you?
Fuck off Shrike.
A huge study paid for by your money found the Trans operations were destructive to its victims. They paid tons of money, they lost for life their bodily integrity and it does not work
The scandal : The study was not made public because the lead researcher wants to do these operatoins.
THe hateful stupid Bishop is pure Hillary, everything isa matter of the 'perfect soltuion" MANY MANY KIDS ARE WRETCHEDLY HURT BY THE TRANS OPERATION AND IT ACCOMPLISHES : NOTHING in most cases
Woke doc refused to publish $10 million trans kids study that showed puberty blockers didn’t help mental health
https://nypost.com/2024/10/23/us-news/doctor-refused-to-publish-trans-kids-study-that-showed-puberty-blockers-didnt-help-mental-health/
We know now that male and female has nothing to do with the presence of absence of a cock, tits, or pussy. It's just a state of mind!
How can sex segregated ANYTHING be rational?
and why was humanity deluded to thinking that male or female has anything to do with cock, tits, or pussy?
Sarcasm?
It’s so hard to tell these days.
I feel like the transgender activists overreached (especially with the language police stuff), and now the backlash is going to be more severe than it needed to be.
I feel like the transgender activists overreached (especially with the language police stuff), and now the backlash is going to be more severe than it needed to be.
Yes. That is no defence for those engineering the backlash,. though.
>Like many of his other "Day 1" decrees, the order seems more concerned with scoring points in the culture war than advancing sensible policy.
The topless dude with fake tits on the White House lawn was what?
I will not have these held up to my kids as normal. They are sick as sht. IT's exceessive to you because you want to and are able to mke sure they never get near your kids (if you have any)Many of us are not as privilged as you and can't play the faux saint sage like you do
THIS IS SICKNESS and DEPRAVITY
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/55e08bc8e4b0c71256a51904/233de704-738a-4839-a2cf-c3eac7d4573c/2022-07-15+15.12.00.jpg?format=2500w
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fdylan-mulvaney-says-been-hiding-because-transphobes-bud-light-tiktok-1804681&psig=AOvVaw1krC0vcG_gzNMNfDOaqgdo&ust=1737738199656000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBQQjRxqFwoTCOCHibepjIsDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE
"Trump's Aggressively Broad Executive Order on Transgender People
Like many of his other "Day 1" decrees, the order seems more concerned with scoring points in the culture war than advancing sensible policy."
Wrong, Lancaster.
Biological males should compete against biological males, not females in sports.
This is what is known as "common sense," an attribute the proggies do not have as history has shown time and again.
Regarding intersex people: Familiarize yourself with the actual meaning of the phrase "the exception that proves the rule".
Intesex is a real thing, and people with those conditions deserve to be treated with respect as much as anyone. But they will always be an extremely rare exception to the general rule of there being two sexes. And as I understand most such people generally identify as the sex that they most closely outwardly resemble. Life is always going to be more difficult for people with rare disorders. It's good to help them, but it doesn't mean we need to reorganize human culture.
If you have a Y you are a guy.
Not difficult at all. Are there people with both sets of organs? Yes. Are there people with deformed or undeveloped sex organs, yes. Are there people with mixed up chromosomes yes.
For the very few of these that there are, we can address their needs. Most with these conditions have other more severe conditions that impact their physical health.
This is about addressing the fetishists that want to impose their misogyny on the rest of us.