I wonder about the language in this paragraph though (and yes, I realize it may not come from you, but from the Republican/Trump platform):
“Defining Gender by Biological Reality: An EO may establish a federal definition of gender based on biological sex at birth, officially recognizing only two genders.”
This continues to conflate “sex” (a well defined, biological phenomenon) and “gender” (an ill-defined term at best). I feel like we would all be better served by just saying “sex” when that’s what we mean (identification of someone as male or female). Leave “gender” to the linguists and (maybe) the sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers.
And while the phrase “biological sex at birth” is better than “sex [or gender] assigned at birth,” it still (incorrectly) implies that (a) there is some meaningful definition of “sex” that is NOT biological, and (b) sex can change after birth. In humans (and all other mammals), sex cannot and does not change over an individual’s lifetime. Also, sex can, on rare occasions, be misidentified at birth. So, for example, just because boxer Imane Khelif was identified as a girl when born, apparently because of a developmental disorder leading to underdeveloped genitalia, this doesn’t mean that he actually is female.
I am at odds with two of my doctors' health care organizations over errors in my medical records. The errors are rooted in the capture of the American medical establishment by gender identity ideology.
First, the records say my sex was "assigned at birth." Not true. For one, since I was born in the mid-1950s, the term "sex assigned at birth" is an anachronism. The belief system of which the term is an outgrowth did not yet exist. By that I am referring to the idea that since both sex and gender (in the queer theory sense of the term) are fluid over a person's lifetime, the attending physician's opinion as to a newborn's sex is provisional and subject to change if and when the individual decides later in life to identify as a different sex or no sex at all.
Also, I was not one of the 0.018 percent of neonates born with DSDs that require the attending physician to assign a sex, that is, to make a medically informed guess as to the infant's sex.
By placing me in the category of people whose sex was assigned at birth (which is an accommodation to trans and queer ideology and not to those with DSDs), my medical records incorrectly imply 1) that my sex is an impermanent attribute (it is not); and 2) that I believe that sex is fluid (I do not).
The organizations need to give patients another option. Rather than giving every patient's sex under the heading "sex assigned at birth," the heading should simply be "Sex." Patients should then be permitted to select either "Sex observed at birth: male" (or female) or "Sex assigned at birth: female" (or male, as the case may be.)
Next, the health care organizations' patient information systems make every patient have a gender identity whether they believe in gender identity or not. Now, when it comes to the patient's religion, the system allows the patient to choose "none." That is what will appear below the heading "Religion" on the patient's personal information page. That option is not available to patients when it comes to gender identity. Instead, the choices are what one would expect, plus "choose not to disclose."
I maintain that "choose not to disclose" is inadequate and incorrect in the case of sex realists who do not believe in gender identity in the queer theory sense. What it says is that the patient does have a gender identity but does not wish to reveal it. Since gender identity is part and parcel of gender identity ideology and since gender ideology has much more in common with religion than it does science, patients should be given the same option for gender identity as they are in the case of religion: "none."
Moreover, the administrators of the system must give an explanation in plain language of the salient differences within the two categories so that patients will understand that which one is a political accommodation to a scientifically baseless philosophy embraced by trans activists and which has its roots firmly in medical science.
The chances of my being able to change this on my own are nil. My deus ex machina is the Trump administration. What I've identified is just one of many ways trans activists and their zealous cishet allies have distorted the field of medicine to fit their spurious ideology. Not only is it coercive, it requires nonbelievers to express their assent to things that are not true.
Does choosing “none” in the gender category make you “agender” (one of the alphabet soup options in the expanded LGBTQIA2S++ lexicon)?
I kid, but only partially. I’ve been tempted to go with that when asked my “gender” and when I don’t have the option of saying “no gender, but my SEX is female.”
Unfortunately I’ve had a similar issue with religion in 🇨🇦 health care databases: I’m listed as “Did not disclose” when I did, in fact, disclose that I’m a (proud and happy) atheist.
Executive Orders may help limit some hospitals and schools from harming children, and may prevent some men from being put in women's prisons or sports, and that's great. However, you are right that this is both incomplete and temporary.
The only way to make real change is to change hearts and minds. The public has to be educated on where things have gone wrong, and realize that children, teens and vulnerable adults have suffered gaslighting and physical harm, and women's rights have been violated. They have to realize that "gender ideology" is a social and medical scandal.
Executive Orders may change some behaviors, but will do nothing to change opinions.
Exactly. And this particular executive order is fueling gender activist outrage. Trump's order is not going to help change minds, because it further politicizes the issue.
Great primer.
I wonder about the language in this paragraph though (and yes, I realize it may not come from you, but from the Republican/Trump platform):
“Defining Gender by Biological Reality: An EO may establish a federal definition of gender based on biological sex at birth, officially recognizing only two genders.”
This continues to conflate “sex” (a well defined, biological phenomenon) and “gender” (an ill-defined term at best). I feel like we would all be better served by just saying “sex” when that’s what we mean (identification of someone as male or female). Leave “gender” to the linguists and (maybe) the sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers.
And while the phrase “biological sex at birth” is better than “sex [or gender] assigned at birth,” it still (incorrectly) implies that (a) there is some meaningful definition of “sex” that is NOT biological, and (b) sex can change after birth. In humans (and all other mammals), sex cannot and does not change over an individual’s lifetime. Also, sex can, on rare occasions, be misidentified at birth. So, for example, just because boxer Imane Khelif was identified as a girl when born, apparently because of a developmental disorder leading to underdeveloped genitalia, this doesn’t mean that he actually is female.
I am at odds with two of my doctors' health care organizations over errors in my medical records. The errors are rooted in the capture of the American medical establishment by gender identity ideology.
First, the records say my sex was "assigned at birth." Not true. For one, since I was born in the mid-1950s, the term "sex assigned at birth" is an anachronism. The belief system of which the term is an outgrowth did not yet exist. By that I am referring to the idea that since both sex and gender (in the queer theory sense of the term) are fluid over a person's lifetime, the attending physician's opinion as to a newborn's sex is provisional and subject to change if and when the individual decides later in life to identify as a different sex or no sex at all.
Also, I was not one of the 0.018 percent of neonates born with DSDs that require the attending physician to assign a sex, that is, to make a medically informed guess as to the infant's sex.
By placing me in the category of people whose sex was assigned at birth (which is an accommodation to trans and queer ideology and not to those with DSDs), my medical records incorrectly imply 1) that my sex is an impermanent attribute (it is not); and 2) that I believe that sex is fluid (I do not).
The organizations need to give patients another option. Rather than giving every patient's sex under the heading "sex assigned at birth," the heading should simply be "Sex." Patients should then be permitted to select either "Sex observed at birth: male" (or female) or "Sex assigned at birth: female" (or male, as the case may be.)
Next, the health care organizations' patient information systems make every patient have a gender identity whether they believe in gender identity or not. Now, when it comes to the patient's religion, the system allows the patient to choose "none." That is what will appear below the heading "Religion" on the patient's personal information page. That option is not available to patients when it comes to gender identity. Instead, the choices are what one would expect, plus "choose not to disclose."
I maintain that "choose not to disclose" is inadequate and incorrect in the case of sex realists who do not believe in gender identity in the queer theory sense. What it says is that the patient does have a gender identity but does not wish to reveal it. Since gender identity is part and parcel of gender identity ideology and since gender ideology has much more in common with religion than it does science, patients should be given the same option for gender identity as they are in the case of religion: "none."
Moreover, the administrators of the system must give an explanation in plain language of the salient differences within the two categories so that patients will understand that which one is a political accommodation to a scientifically baseless philosophy embraced by trans activists and which has its roots firmly in medical science.
The chances of my being able to change this on my own are nil. My deus ex machina is the Trump administration. What I've identified is just one of many ways trans activists and their zealous cishet allies have distorted the field of medicine to fit their spurious ideology. Not only is it coercive, it requires nonbelievers to express their assent to things that are not true.
Does choosing “none” in the gender category make you “agender” (one of the alphabet soup options in the expanded LGBTQIA2S++ lexicon)?
I kid, but only partially. I’ve been tempted to go with that when asked my “gender” and when I don’t have the option of saying “no gender, but my SEX is female.”
Egads - agender - I hadn't thought of that : )
But no, because you can be sure that "agender" is one of the choices. It's a hellish labyrinth.
Unfortunately I’ve had a similar issue with religion in 🇨🇦 health care databases: I’m listed as “Did not disclose” when I did, in fact, disclose that I’m a (proud and happy) atheist.
You really lay it out so very well!
Well said! Sadly, we have been saddled now with this “gender”- riddled language which will continue to haunt us -
Meanwhile, Dems (who I largely agree with in terms of stated principles) are patting themselves on the back for this:
https://bsky.app/profile/joycewhitevance.bsky.social/post/3lfx55vtm4c2z
Executive Orders may help limit some hospitals and schools from harming children, and may prevent some men from being put in women's prisons or sports, and that's great. However, you are right that this is both incomplete and temporary.
The only way to make real change is to change hearts and minds. The public has to be educated on where things have gone wrong, and realize that children, teens and vulnerable adults have suffered gaslighting and physical harm, and women's rights have been violated. They have to realize that "gender ideology" is a social and medical scandal.
Executive Orders may change some behaviors, but will do nothing to change opinions.
Exactly. And this particular executive order is fueling gender activist outrage. Trump's order is not going to help change minds, because it further politicizes the issue.
Excellent piece - we all need to understand the nature of the executive order. Thanks for putting this out there!
Just a few moments ago - have you seen the NYTimes piece about Biden’s statement on the ERO and women’s equality?