What to call this thread?

Trump signs executive order recognizing only 2 sexes​

by Brooke Migdon

President Trump signed a sweeping executive order Monday during his first hours in office recognizing only two sexes, male and female, and directing federal agencies to cease promotion of the concept of gender transition.

The order, which Trump signed from the Oval Office, is part of a broader campaign promise to rid the nation of what he has called “transgender insanity” and reverse diversity and inclusion initiatives instituted by the Biden administration.

“As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female,” Trump said Monday in his inaugural address.

The executive order, which pledges to defend women from “gender ideology” and restore “biological truth to the federal government,” defines male and female not by physical or chromosomal differences but by reproductive function, which an administration official said was done intentionally.

“Chromosomes are characteristic of your sex, but the binary nature of sex, the reason you and I are all here, is deeper than that. It is the large reproductive cell, the small reproductive cell, working together in a binary function in order to perpetuate the species,” the official said.

Federal agencies should use the term “sex” instead of “gender” and remove ....


473722092_998610018967525_7256851827114961367_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Shiftless2 said:

Trump signs executive order recognizing only 2 sexes​

President Trump signed a sweeping executive order Monday during his first hours in office recognizing only two sexes, male and female, and directing federal agencies to cease promotion of the concept of gender transition." #501
Click to expand...
The president of the United States of America is a bigot. A xenophobic, gender-phobic bigot.

He's also a lame duck. BUT !!

Though the Constitution's 22nd Amendment prevents Trump serving a 3rd presidential term,
if Art.2 Sect.1 - 7 or Art.2 Sect.3 * don't prohibit Trump from serving a second term, the 14th Amendment does.

ARTICLE #14: Ratified July 9, 1868
SECTION 3. No person shall be a ... President ... who, having previously taken an oath, ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Click to expand...

None the less - FACT:
Sidestepping the de facto vs de jure distinction, President Trump is above the law, contrary to the familiar aphorism that no one is.
Just a rhetorical flourish?
President Trump #45 was party to insurrection, is ineligible to serve a 2nd term, and was re-inaugurated yesterday to the second term he's Constitutionally proscribed from serving. How is that not above the law?
The Special Counsel Jack Smith / classified documents case also abandoned, again sparing Trump consequence for what U.S. national security experts deem a serious breach of U.S. national security. Trump is above the law.

Notable but inconsequential? You think so?
Without any additional executive order, or congressional assistance from Speaker Johnson or Majority Leader Thune, President Trump could literally order one among his minions to commit murder,
and then issue a full presidential pardon to the murderer.

Our republic and every U.S. citizen within it are literally in mortal danger. U.S. president Trump is above the law.

* ARTICLE 2. SECTION 3.
He shall ... take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.

de facto (L; di FAK-toh): in fact; in effect, though not officially or by right
de jure (L; dee JOOR-ee, day YOOR-ay): in accordance with right or law; officially
 
Shiftless2 said:
View attachment 924 #504
Click to expand...
Movie "critics" may burnish their own reputation (& $salary) by publishing concise analytical insights that assail a movie. BUT !
A movie critic need not attack a movie to review it, and may in fact admire or praise it.

If I may straddle that critic's fence here, I don't mean to seem to either endorse, or condemn "trans-".
But it has not escaped my notice that this #504 meme's approach to this issue bears the odor of Kool-aid.

CERTAINLY humans are entitled to human dignity. BUT !!
There is at least the suggestion here of self-conflict, that a person may wish to "trans",
meaning, to acquiesce to the cultural dominance of binary gender.

I can't imagine, and won't attempt here, to guess at what I might do if these preconditions applied to me.
Life is difficult enough as conspicuously binary male.

But reminiscent of MLK's I Have A Dream speech, I lament our "modern" [contemporary] world
providing incentive for non-binaries to conform, to "trans-".

I've got no magic bullet, just a fundamental belief that if our society genuinely fully functioned within
the rational limits of The Golden Rule, this might be less an issue,
or perhaps no issue at all.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

inspired by:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." KJV Matthew 7:12
 
Shiftless2 said:
"... what I think about." Homer #507
Click to expand...

What is the bigot's thought process?
... our nation would be a better nation if we discriminate against the ____________ [f.i.t.b.]
... because we have the ability to discriminate, we have the opportunity to discriminate.

a) There's likely to be a variety of reasons.
b) It seems bigots have a fundamental absence of the understanding of e pluribus unum, united we stand, ...

note: I'm not enough of a fan to know the other character's name.
 
Shiftless2 said:
Finally "they" admit it .... #509
Click to expand...
- yes -
B U T !

Not every combat strategy is intended to be determinative, independent of other actions of the enterprise.
Obvious example, the diversion.

In these cases, they got nuttin'. BUT !
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something. -- Plato
Click to expand...
If these bigots didn't spew this sort of nonsense, they'd have nothing to say at all. The examples are too numerous to count.
"...changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure." U.S. President Bush (younger)
Click to expand...
No by george, it didn't. I suspect you knew that. BUT !

When they rally around a disgraceful, indefensible cause, they often try to ennoble their tawdry, untenable position, for example in ostensible heroic defense of family.
In this case we can see there's no connection.

Shiftless2 said:
Finally "they" admit it .... #509
Click to expand...
Fine.
We've slain their straw man. But it doesn't even slow them down. They flit effortlessly to the next,
and we start over building a refutation of their next ridiculous assertion.
And while that clash continues, their issue becomes ever more permanently insinuated into the culture, the status quo.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"Give trans kids a chance to be kids without having to fight for the right to exist." #511
Click to expand...
Sad that this is even an issue.

The issue we should not overlook is where there's question about whether unfair advantage is involved with individual trans-athletes.
Some say no.
Others have doubt.

The centuries long tradition in the U.S. is "Liberty".
Those that wish to flail their own fist have a right to do so. BUT !
Your right to flail your fist ends short of where my nose begins.

Sometimes even children have to make choices.
If a child wishes to transition, fine.
If the child wishes to participate in competitive sport, fine. BUT !
When such school-related sports leagues are segregated by sex,
there's reason for concern when transition is involved.

Sometimes in life we must make choices.
And consistent with our centuries long traditions,
the preference of one exceptional individual should not automatically prevail
even when counter to the acceptance of the conforming overwhelming majority.

There are other options.
If high school athletic competition is the top priority they can delay transition until after graduation.
If transition is the top priority, they can compete otherwise, in the chess club, the debate club, etc.

Wanting it all, even against the acceptance of the vast majority of the directly affected minors, and or their adult guardians isn't realistic.
It's a bad idea.
And it's the wrong message for these young citizens to learn as we prepare them for adulthood.
 
Shiftless2 said:
#514
Click to expand...
Emaciated, but well hatted.

We reap what we sow L's & G's.
If you don't wish to be abused with intolerance, betrayal, and conspiratorial obstructionism,
if tolerance is your quest, make tolerance your creed.
 
sear said:
The issue we should not overlook is where there's question about whether unfair advantage is involved with individual trans-athletes.
Click to expand...
If that was a valid concern the podium would be completely dominated by trans athletes. After all the IOC has allowed them to compete since 2003 and the NCAA since 2010 - why haven't all the medals been won by trans athletes.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"If that was a valid concern the podium would be completely dominated by trans athletes." S2 #516
Click to expand...
"Unfair advantage" is not a synonym for guaranteed victory.

Shiftless2 said:
"After all the IOC has allowed them to compete since 2003 and the NCAA since 2010" S2 #516
Click to expand...
"A precedent embalms a principle." Benjamin Disraeli 1804 - 1881

Shiftless2 said:
" - why haven't all the medals been won by trans athletes." S2 #516
Click to expand...
Multiple reasons, including transition is not instantaneous.
For an obvious additional reason, such performance, such athletic capabilities can be quantified as overlapping bell curves. For most obvious example, the most powerful woman is stronger than the weakest man. It's the central tendency, the variations well within one sigma that more accurately represent the group.

"I think you can have it all. You can't have it all at once." Oprah Winfrey
 
Shiftless2 said:
"They have to be on hormones for a period of time measured in years." S2 #518
Click to expand...
And thus the transition is gradual.
And thus treating it as a binary, as from 100% male to 100% female instantaneously is silly.

Why does that matter?
To grossly over-simplify for illustrative purpose:
in an exceedingly close competition a competitor that's 20% transitioned may win, whereas later, when 80% transitioned may lose.

Even if we don't accord the cisgendered athletes decisive authority on this issue, is there a risk to inviting their views on it?

Shiftless2 said:
"First they came for ....." #519
Click to expand...
Thank you Martin.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top