I think it’s also worth focusing on the not-so-subtle reinforcement of fetal “personhood” contained in the repeated phrase “a person belonging, at conception.” I can’t remember who first alerted me to that, but now I can’t unsee it.
You lost me. You say the EO claims everyone is born a female. However, the EO does not state that everyone at conception is female, because it also states they can be male. So where are you finding this statement in the EO that all life is female at conception?
Where intersex and transexual people are concerned, current federal protections may not as you say offer sufficient protections or freedoms. Despite what Trump seems to be doing with EOs, these issues will not be settled in the Executive branch through Proclamations but in the courts and legislature(s). So I suspect we'll see a lot of lawsuits and legislation come up and with questions about rights and privileges being litigated and legislated I doubt this EO will ever be enforced in its current confusing state. The Executive branch does not have the same constitutional power to define sex as it does to define immigration policy.
In the screenshot of the EO where male and female definitions were laid out, the verbiage says “a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that”…
But in a following paragraph about our biology, it’s clear that those differences don’t show up AT CONCEPTION. All embryos begin the same way.
I don’t think Melissa ever said that the EO claims everyone is born a female but rather that their definitions result in identifying everyone as female, if we’re going with the AT CONCEPTION definition they provided.
This EO says that the federal government will assign sex AT CONCEPTION. At CONCEPTION, all zygotes are female. Not until the 6th-8th week do gender-specific traits emerge. Prior to this, all zygotes are technically female. At 6-8 weeks, the Y chromosome emerges and begins to produce male characteristics. In the absence of that happening, it remains female.
This is their weird (and scientifically false) way of attempting to define personhood at CONCEPTION, which of course feeds into their plans to control women and our reproductive rights (or lack thereof).
Thanks for your additional clarification. The link was especially helpful. I wasn't making the connection between "at conception" and the fact that no sex is present at conception.
I can't entirely see how this EO signals a possible limit to abortions given Trump's past comments on allowing abortions up to a certain number of weeks. But I can certainly understand your concern given the people and groups supporting him.
Looking forward to the rest of your EO analysis, much to learn!
Trump cannot be trusted to abide by his past comments. The guy lies constantly. Also, he is funded by anti abortion groups who have been working tirelessly to get fetal personhood statutes passed across the country. This EO is normalizing such language by using the “at conception” definition. I highly recommend checking out Jessica Valenti’s incredible work at her newsletter, Abortion Every Day. She breaks it all down in painstaking detail.
For all of recorded history, across every language, ethnic group, race, culture, people have always thought it was useful to consider that there are two biological sexes. Title 7 and 9 ensured that biologically less physically strong sex, female, would have projection under the law.
I believe I restacked this, but thank you for diving in so deeply t o this. WOW, unbelievable!
I think it’s also worth focusing on the not-so-subtle reinforcement of fetal “personhood” contained in the repeated phrase “a person belonging, at conception.” I can’t remember who first alerted me to that, but now I can’t unsee it.
Definitely subscribe to get Part II, coming out today. Focusing more on that!
Thank you for examining this so critically, and cross-checking it against project 2025’s position.
You lost me. You say the EO claims everyone is born a female. However, the EO does not state that everyone at conception is female, because it also states they can be male. So where are you finding this statement in the EO that all life is female at conception?
Where intersex and transexual people are concerned, current federal protections may not as you say offer sufficient protections or freedoms. Despite what Trump seems to be doing with EOs, these issues will not be settled in the Executive branch through Proclamations but in the courts and legislature(s). So I suspect we'll see a lot of lawsuits and legislation come up and with questions about rights and privileges being litigated and legislated I doubt this EO will ever be enforced in its current confusing state. The Executive branch does not have the same constitutional power to define sex as it does to define immigration policy.
In the screenshot of the EO where male and female definitions were laid out, the verbiage says “a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that”…
But in a following paragraph about our biology, it’s clear that those differences don’t show up AT CONCEPTION. All embryos begin the same way.
I don’t think Melissa ever said that the EO claims everyone is born a female but rather that their definitions result in identifying everyone as female, if we’re going with the AT CONCEPTION definition they provided.
She said "According to this Executive Order, all humans are female."
It doesn't say that at all.
It quite literally does, and I am far from the only one who has observed this error. It's been widely reported. [Just one, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/25/trump-executive-order-sex ]
This EO says that the federal government will assign sex AT CONCEPTION. At CONCEPTION, all zygotes are female. Not until the 6th-8th week do gender-specific traits emerge. Prior to this, all zygotes are technically female. At 6-8 weeks, the Y chromosome emerges and begins to produce male characteristics. In the absence of that happening, it remains female.
This is their weird (and scientifically false) way of attempting to define personhood at CONCEPTION, which of course feeds into their plans to control women and our reproductive rights (or lack thereof).
Thanks for your additional clarification. The link was especially helpful. I wasn't making the connection between "at conception" and the fact that no sex is present at conception.
I can't entirely see how this EO signals a possible limit to abortions given Trump's past comments on allowing abortions up to a certain number of weeks. But I can certainly understand your concern given the people and groups supporting him.
Looking forward to the rest of your EO analysis, much to learn!
Trump cannot be trusted to abide by his past comments. The guy lies constantly. Also, he is funded by anti abortion groups who have been working tirelessly to get fetal personhood statutes passed across the country. This EO is normalizing such language by using the “at conception” definition. I highly recommend checking out Jessica Valenti’s incredible work at her newsletter, Abortion Every Day. She breaks it all down in painstaking detail.
Ding ding! Yes, the ultimate goal is to force women to be brood mares for the state. This has always been the intention.
For all of recorded history, across every language, ethnic group, race, culture, people have always thought it was useful to consider that there are two biological sexes. Title 7 and 9 ensured that biologically less physically strong sex, female, would have projection under the law.