**Trump’s Executive Order on Gender Provokes Debate and Ambiguity**

Following his inauguration on Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump promptly signed several executive orders that have garnered considerable attention. Among these decisions were the postponement of the TikTok ban, the commencement of withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, and the establishment of the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Yet, one particular executive order has ignited extensive discussion: a directive that redefines gender identity within federal law.

### A Disputed Redefinition of Gender

The executive order, titled *”Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,”* asserts that the U.S. government will acknowledge only two sexes—male and female—grounded in distinct biological criteria. Per the order, “‘Sex’ shall denote an individual’s unchangeable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Female’ signifies a person who, at conception, belongs to the sex that yields the larger reproductive cell. ‘Male’ designates a person who, at conception, belongs to the sex that produces the smaller reproductive cell.”

While the objective to uphold a binary perception of sex appears straightforward, the phrasing and repercussions of the order have confounded many. Detractors contend that the directive reduces complex biological truths and overlooks the reality of intersex individuals, whose traits do not fit neatly into the male-female framework.

### The Science Underlying the Discourse

The executive order’s dependence on “sex at conception” as a pivotal criterion has raised concerns among scientists and advocacy organizations. During conception, all human embryos are biologically similar in terms of sex organs—they possess none. It is only approximately six to seven weeks post-conception that the presence of the Y chromosome generally activates the formation of testes. Absent this mechanism, the embryo continues to form female genitalia by default.

This biological fact implies that, according to the logic of the executive order, all individuals could technically be categorized as female at conception. While this interpretation is evidently not the order’s intended purpose, it underscores the scientific inaccuracies and oversimplifications embedded in the directive.

### Overlooking Intersex Realities

The executive order also neglects the intricacies surrounding intersex individuals, who constitute around 1.7% of the population. Intersex people might possess chromosomes, gonads, or external genitalia that do not coincide with typical male or female definitions. For instance, individuals with ovotestes (combining ovarian and testicular tissue) are capable of producing both sperm and ova, challenging the rigid classifications presented in the order. Others, such as those with gonadal dysgenesis or Swyer syndrome, further complicate the simplistic division of sex.

Intersex advocacy group interACT criticized the order, asserting, “The Trump administration claims to discuss ‘biological realities’ but exhibits a clear lack of comprehension of the pertinent science.” The group further emphasized the potential for legal challenges, as the order’s definitions could facilitate discriminatory measures and harm intersex individuals.

### Outdated Definitions and Their Detrimental Effects

The executive order’s effort to enforce a binary view of sex has more extensive ramifications for intersex and transgender individuals. Human Rights Watch has previously criticized the U.S.’s treatment of intersex people, observing that it falls short of international human rights standards. Intersex infants in the U.S. are frequently assigned a gender at birth and subjected to medically unnecessary surgeries to conform their bodies to societal norms surrounding male or female. These procedures can lead to long-lasting damage, including sterilization, incontinence, and psychological distress.

By endorsing outdated definitions of sex, the executive order threatens to perpetuate these harmful practices. Additionally, it mandates the annulment of documents that advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, including Department of Education guidance for LGBTIQ students and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recommendations on workplace harassment.

### Advocacy Groups Respond

LGBTIQ advocacy organizations have vociferously condemned the executive order, asserting that it invalidates the existence of nonbinary and intersex individuals. Maria Sjödin, executive director of Outright International, remarked, “Individuals outside the binary genders have been part of cultures globally for millennia, including within many Indigenous American communities. No Presidential proclamation can erase them—it will only make their lives more hazardous.”

Sjödin also underscored the dangers of requiring individuals to possess identity documents that do not accurately represent their gender expression, cautioning that this could subject them to violence and impede their freedom of movement.

### An Absurd Moment

Although the executive order technically posits that all humans are female at conception, it is improbable that it would be enforced in this manner, as this was evidently not the president’s intention. Nonetheless, the scientific inaccuracies and contradictions within the directive have prompted widespread dissent and even a touch of humor. As one commentator quipped, “This year, International Women’s Day is for all of us.”

As legal challenges to the executive order approach, the discussion surrounding its consequences emphasizes