An executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office establishes a new federal government definition of the sexes, which may have a significant impact on transgender persons worldwide.
The decree directs the federal government to define sex as exclusively male or female, and to reflect this on official papers such as passports and federal prison assignments. In terms of government money, it’s unclear what his promise to abandon larger gender designations means in practice.
Many of the restrictions are expected to be challenged in court.
Here is a glance at the order.
Defining male and female based on cells that do not exist during conception
The order asserts that there are only two sexes: male and female. It denies the idea that people may transition from one gender to another or be classified as anything other than male or female, such as nonbinary, which refers to persons who do not identify as exclusively men or women, or intersex.
The stance mirrors what many social conservatives have advocated, but it contradicts what the American Medical Association and other mainstream medical groups have stated: considerable scientific evidence reveals that sex and gender are better understood as a continuum rather than an either-or definition.
Trump’s directive states that it is designed to safeguard women’s spaces from people who “self-identify” as women.
It distinguishes the sexes in an unusual way, based on the reproductive cells – big cells in females and small ones in men. And it implies that humans have such cells from conception.
According to biologists, this is a concern since egg cells grow many weeks later, whereas sperm cells are created at puberty rather than conception.
“At that stage, sexual differentiation had not yet begun,” said Carl Bergstrom, an evolutionary scientist at the University of Washington. “I can’t see any logically coherent way to interpret the definition in this executive order, given the addition of the phrase ‘at conception.'”
Bergstrom stated that a scientific explanation may define sex chromosomes, but the executive order appears to purposely ignore this, probably to avoid the spectrum of variants that include intersex persons, who have physical features that do not meet standard criteria for male or female categories.
What provisions of the order are in effect?
The order has been signed, but many of its provisions await additional government action.
“Nothing is in effect,” stated Heron Greenesmith, Deputy Director of Policy at the Transgender Law Center.
The executive order directs one White House staff member to prepare a bill to Congress within 30 days to codify the definitions into law.
Within 120 days, federal agencies must report to the president on their efforts to comply with the directive. Some components may necessitate going through the regulatory procedure or adopting new legislation.
On a teleconference with media this week, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, a Lambda Legal lawyer, stated that the directive does not modify current law but rather provides “a clear signal and road map of where this administration’s policies lie when it comes to transgender people.”
State regulations governing sports participation, restroom usage, gender-affirming care, and other concerns are not immediately affected.
What does this signify for federally issued documents?
The directive requires passports, visas, and Global Entry cards to match the administration’s definition of sex.
The condition Department, which oversees passports, declined to comment on the present condition of policy. The decree proposes eliminating the “X” designation that has been accessible on passports since 2021, following a lengthy court struggle conducted by an intersex activist.
A department webpage that outlined how people might alter their gender marker was taken down, and Chase Strangio, an ACLU lawyer, stated that any new application to modify the gender marker on a passport is unlikely to be accepted.
What about transgender federal prisoners?
The directive includes specifics on how it should be implemented in federal prisons, which house approximately 2,300 transgender convicts, or about 1.5% of the overall population.
It advocates for placing transgender women in men’s prisons, where there are over 1,500, as well as delaying gender-affirming medical care.
In recent years, at least two transgender convicts have had government-funded gender-affirming surgery in response to court rulings. A higher percentage have received other treatments, such as hormones.
According to Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, court rulings granting detainees access to therapy will stay in force even if government policy changes.
According to the ACLU, several defense attorneys have reported that detained transgender women are being taken into isolation or informed they would be transferred to men’s prisons.
The Bureau of Prisons did not reply to concerns regarding whether detainees will be transported.
Will this prevent Medicaid from paying for gender-affirming care?
Medicaid, a federal-state health-insurance program for low-income people, covers gender-affirming care in several states.
Former President Joe Biden’s administration implemented a regulation requiring it to do so on a national scale. But the courts put it on hold.
So yet, it’s unclear what will happen to the coverage in states that decide to offer it.
Lindsey Dawson, director of LGBTQ health policy at the health policy research nonprofit KFF, said that withdrawing the coverage where it already exists would be a lengthy process — and, like others, would almost certainly face legal challenges.
