Thanks so much for this rundown. I don’t know how you keep up with this fast-moving train, but I am very glad you do. A question: you state at the beginning, “EOs are instructions from the president to the agencies that are part of his administration. They’re not laws. In other words, no one can be sued or prosecuted for violating an EO.” That is my understanding, too. At the same time, thinking back to recent discussions about the Supremacy Clause/preemption, it’s not clear whether or to what extent the Supremacy Clause/preemption doctrine could be applicable in the case of EOs. That is, are there any circumstances under which EOs can actually directly preempt state law? (I am not here referring to EO funding impacts of the type you describe here that are all within the federal purview of the feds directing federal agencies on dispensing federal funds.)
And you're an attorney expert in this area! Imagine how we civilians feel.
Thankful as always for the effort you put into these explainers, Glenna, and I certainly hope your concluding paragraph turns out to be prophetic.
What a strange time for those of us mortified by Trump's election in 2016. My admittedly painful re-education occurred over the last few years, as my lifelong party shifted hard left beneath me, to the detriment of all females and vulnerable, confused children. I certainly have my issues with Trump, but I celebrate his refusal to mince words about gender ideology and his quick, bold actions to combat it. I was deeply touched by photos of young female athletes gathered around him as he signed the EO keeping males out of girls' and women's sports.
Now, if only it all holds up. If the Dems don't awaken from their progressive fever dream to offer a viable unwoke moderate -- which they've shown no tendency to do thus far -- Vance may have another four years post-Trump to bury gender ideology in the United States for good.
I disagree about the hospitals that have capitulated “dooming” the PGM industry. For one thing, EOs aren’t permanent, so unless Congress codifies the EO, it will inevitably be reversed by a future administration. And secondly, the EO only affects hospitals that receive federal funding. Private hospitals can and will still offer PGM and some gender doctors are already discussing setting up more private hospitals specifically for providing PGM in the wake of the EO.
Thanks for your very helpful article. Please delve into the question of a Congressional ban on pediatric sex change. I fear that anything short of that will perpetuate PGM, especially in captured states like mine (WA). Can you spell out the limits on federal ability to legislative a ban, in the context we have here: obviously harmful "treatments" that have no credible evidentiary basis for benefits, for a condition that the TRAs insist is not a disease or health problem.
Can Congress regulate "health care"? Can it regulate non-health-care that masquerades as health-care while also insisting there's no health problem to fix? How does this overlap with and contrast with the FGM law.....can we at a minimum, use the commerce clause to stop the harm being done in states like mine to children who travel from other states? Dealing with this nightmare via Executive Branch-only actions is far too liable to fail. So let's at least discuss clear Congressional action....and do so swiftly so we can take advantage of R control of House and Senate.
A very good illustration of my mixed feelings about these EOs: I agree with what they're trying to do, but the Leroy Jenkins way this administration seems to work is causing all kinds of unnecessary problems.
Thank you for exploring these developments. It’s alarming to read sensationalist headlines that his EO’s are being defeated in court, even if it’s in the largely discredited legacy media outlets. Your synopsis reveals some bright sides to the situation.
I have been wondering, did Obama and Biden’s EOs promote trans gender treatments and programs to receive federal funding, or was it legislatively included?
Why was there no massive kerfuffle, as we are seeing in response to shutting off the trans funding tap, about the lack of quality research to justify federally funding cosmetic cross gender surgeries, or allowing them for children?
As someone who has observed the evolution of public attitudes towards transsexuals over the course of the last half-century, I believe society's acceptance was slow, culture-wide process that initially stirred little concern except in the most rabidly right wing circles.
The popular media's championing of transsexualism, in news reports, movies, novels, music, and art, set the stage for the capture of most major institutions by trans activists who, like all activists, began to make increasingly radical demands, and ignited a social contagion mostly affecting the young.
At some point we began to see predatory opportunists who saw the chance to invade women's spaces and act out sexually transgressive impulses such as voyeurism, exhibitionism, and even assault.
Contrary to what is now believed by many in both the right and the left, it was feminists who first sounded the alarm about transgenderism's threat to the safety and opportunities of women; right wing figures such as Matt Welsh and others were opportunistic late-comers to the controversy, and are the same folks that would drive women out of the public sphere and make pregnancy compulsory if they could.
An excellent synopsis. It is frustrating that radical feminists were so sidelined by the left, a movement that would have nary as much power without them, isn’t it?
Law making by Presidential edict is a really bad idea, and one that is going to backfire on the right if that is what it depends on to further its agenda. In our democracy, legislation is the responsibility of the elected Representatives and Senate, not the President.
There is a far better way to slow down this runaway "affirming care" train, and that is by civil action. The states should be crafting and passing bills that mandate true informed consent for pharmacological or surgical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria -- including the most current findings on efficacy and deleterious side-effects -- and extend the statute of limitations for malpractice suits to 20 years past the age of majority. Practitioners should also be required to conduct psychological assessments that thoroughly explore and evaluate the psychological well-being of the patient. A 20 year minimum period of follow-up should also be mandated by the legislation.
This model of legislation would ensure that the prospective patient was psychologically fit to make this decision and fully understood the possible outcomes of the treatment.
Also gender doctors are not choosing to abandon their patients. For the hospitals that have capitulated, the decision to stop offering PGM wasn’t made by the gender doctors themselves as many of them have been expressing their disagreement with the decision on social media and to their patients.
Laws mandating true informed consent, adequate psychological evaluation, and long-term follow-up would be much less likely to be found unconstitutional and would definitely find support on both sides of the aisle. Such legislation would result in enhanced grounds for civil suits and push many insurers to limit coverage of "affirming care." Tight regulation, not prohibition, is what would work best in this situation.
Hi! I couldn't find a way to leave a message except on individual posts. I have a suggestion for your trans history digs: the development of trans research through Holly, now Aaron, Devor's research papers. I think most are available through her website: https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/ahdevor/publications/
She used to spill a lot of interesting truths about "gender dysphoria", enough that Sheila Jeffreys keep citing her. Then she transitioned and got a lifetime chair in "transgender studies" sponsored by the usual transhumanist tech bros and now she co-authors child transition apologies with butchers like Johanna Olsen.
Thanks so much for this rundown. I don’t know how you keep up with this fast-moving train, but I am very glad you do. A question: you state at the beginning, “EOs are instructions from the president to the agencies that are part of his administration. They’re not laws. In other words, no one can be sued or prosecuted for violating an EO.” That is my understanding, too. At the same time, thinking back to recent discussions about the Supremacy Clause/preemption, it’s not clear whether or to what extent the Supremacy Clause/preemption doctrine could be applicable in the case of EOs. That is, are there any circumstances under which EOs can actually directly preempt state law? (I am not here referring to EO funding impacts of the type you describe here that are all within the federal purview of the feds directing federal agencies on dispensing federal funds.)
My head is spinning.
And you're an attorney expert in this area! Imagine how we civilians feel.
Thankful as always for the effort you put into these explainers, Glenna, and I certainly hope your concluding paragraph turns out to be prophetic.
What a strange time for those of us mortified by Trump's election in 2016. My admittedly painful re-education occurred over the last few years, as my lifelong party shifted hard left beneath me, to the detriment of all females and vulnerable, confused children. I certainly have my issues with Trump, but I celebrate his refusal to mince words about gender ideology and his quick, bold actions to combat it. I was deeply touched by photos of young female athletes gathered around him as he signed the EO keeping males out of girls' and women's sports.
Now, if only it all holds up. If the Dems don't awaken from their progressive fever dream to offer a viable unwoke moderate -- which they've shown no tendency to do thus far -- Vance may have another four years post-Trump to bury gender ideology in the United States for good.
If they don't wake up, Vance is going to have another *eight* years
Indeed he could.
I disagree about the hospitals that have capitulated “dooming” the PGM industry. For one thing, EOs aren’t permanent, so unless Congress codifies the EO, it will inevitably be reversed by a future administration. And secondly, the EO only affects hospitals that receive federal funding. Private hospitals can and will still offer PGM and some gender doctors are already discussing setting up more private hospitals specifically for providing PGM in the wake of the EO.
Thanks for your very helpful article. Please delve into the question of a Congressional ban on pediatric sex change. I fear that anything short of that will perpetuate PGM, especially in captured states like mine (WA). Can you spell out the limits on federal ability to legislative a ban, in the context we have here: obviously harmful "treatments" that have no credible evidentiary basis for benefits, for a condition that the TRAs insist is not a disease or health problem.
Can Congress regulate "health care"? Can it regulate non-health-care that masquerades as health-care while also insisting there's no health problem to fix? How does this overlap with and contrast with the FGM law.....can we at a minimum, use the commerce clause to stop the harm being done in states like mine to children who travel from other states? Dealing with this nightmare via Executive Branch-only actions is far too liable to fail. So let's at least discuss clear Congressional action....and do so swiftly so we can take advantage of R control of House and Senate.
A very good illustration of my mixed feelings about these EOs: I agree with what they're trying to do, but the Leroy Jenkins way this administration seems to work is causing all kinds of unnecessary problems.
Also, for those who haven't seen it yet, Glenna just had a great interview with Stephanie Winn come out that covers this and much more. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/you-must-be-some-kind-of-therapist/id1612777134?i=1000690783265
Thank you for exploring these developments. It’s alarming to read sensationalist headlines that his EO’s are being defeated in court, even if it’s in the largely discredited legacy media outlets. Your synopsis reveals some bright sides to the situation.
I have been wondering, did Obama and Biden’s EOs promote trans gender treatments and programs to receive federal funding, or was it legislatively included?
Why was there no massive kerfuffle, as we are seeing in response to shutting off the trans funding tap, about the lack of quality research to justify federally funding cosmetic cross gender surgeries, or allowing them for children?
As someone who has observed the evolution of public attitudes towards transsexuals over the course of the last half-century, I believe society's acceptance was slow, culture-wide process that initially stirred little concern except in the most rabidly right wing circles.
The popular media's championing of transsexualism, in news reports, movies, novels, music, and art, set the stage for the capture of most major institutions by trans activists who, like all activists, began to make increasingly radical demands, and ignited a social contagion mostly affecting the young.
At some point we began to see predatory opportunists who saw the chance to invade women's spaces and act out sexually transgressive impulses such as voyeurism, exhibitionism, and even assault.
Contrary to what is now believed by many in both the right and the left, it was feminists who first sounded the alarm about transgenderism's threat to the safety and opportunities of women; right wing figures such as Matt Welsh and others were opportunistic late-comers to the controversy, and are the same folks that would drive women out of the public sphere and make pregnancy compulsory if they could.
An excellent synopsis. It is frustrating that radical feminists were so sidelined by the left, a movement that would have nary as much power without them, isn’t it?
Thank you! I appreciate the education that both you and Kara Dansky provide to those of us who are in this battle!
Law making by Presidential edict is a really bad idea, and one that is going to backfire on the right if that is what it depends on to further its agenda. In our democracy, legislation is the responsibility of the elected Representatives and Senate, not the President.
There is a far better way to slow down this runaway "affirming care" train, and that is by civil action. The states should be crafting and passing bills that mandate true informed consent for pharmacological or surgical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria -- including the most current findings on efficacy and deleterious side-effects -- and extend the statute of limitations for malpractice suits to 20 years past the age of majority. Practitioners should also be required to conduct psychological assessments that thoroughly explore and evaluate the psychological well-being of the patient. A 20 year minimum period of follow-up should also be mandated by the legislation.
This model of legislation would ensure that the prospective patient was psychologically fit to make this decision and fully understood the possible outcomes of the treatment.
I believe you'll find this very interesting.
Also gender doctors are not choosing to abandon their patients. For the hospitals that have capitulated, the decision to stop offering PGM wasn’t made by the gender doctors themselves as many of them have been expressing their disagreement with the decision on social media and to their patients.
If the EO gets blocked court, all the hospitals that stopped offering PGM will just go back to offering it.
Laws mandating true informed consent, adequate psychological evaluation, and long-term follow-up would be much less likely to be found unconstitutional and would definitely find support on both sides of the aisle. Such legislation would result in enhanced grounds for civil suits and push many insurers to limit coverage of "affirming care." Tight regulation, not prohibition, is what would work best in this situation.
30 year statute of limitations.
Hi! I couldn't find a way to leave a message except on individual posts. I have a suggestion for your trans history digs: the development of trans research through Holly, now Aaron, Devor's research papers. I think most are available through her website: https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/ahdevor/publications/
She used to spill a lot of interesting truths about "gender dysphoria", enough that Sheila Jeffreys keep citing her. Then she transitioned and got a lifetime chair in "transgender studies" sponsored by the usual transhumanist tech bros and now she co-authors child transition apologies with butchers like Johanna Olsen.