By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent executive order defining sex based solely on gamete size at conception has sparked debate, with some claiming it inadvertently declared all individuals female. However, this interpretation is inaccurate, though the order’s ambiguity does highlight the complexities of sex determination. Scientific consensus rejects a strictly binary understanding of sex, emphasizing the multitude of factors involved. The order’s true intention appears to be advancing the concept of “fetal personhood,” potentially impacting abortion rights.
Read the original article here
After his executive order on sex, is Trump legally the first female president? The question itself hinges on a highly contentious and frankly bizarre hypothetical, stemming from a purported executive order redefining sex. Let’s unpack this. The core issue revolves around the legal validity and interpretation of such an order – an order that, if we accept its premise for the sake of argument, would seemingly redefine the biological understanding of sex. The idea that an executive order can unilaterally override established scientific and legal definitions is inherently problematic, bordering on the absurd.
Even assuming such an order were somehow legally sound (which it demonstrably is not), the question of whether Trump would then be considered the “first female president” is complex. The order, if interpreted literally, might technically classify all individuals as female, thus rendering the concept of “first female president” meaningless. It would completely erase the historical and social context behind the concept of a female president, a milestone achieved through decades of struggle for gender equality.
The assertion that this would grant women equal rights is a vast oversimplification and a misdirection. Equal rights are about fundamental rights, not arbitrary relabeling. True gender equality requires dismantling systemic barriers, not renaming everyone as the same gender. This redefinition wouldn’t address the root causes of gender inequality, but would instead create an entirely new layer of confusion and potential legal battles.
Several comments suggest Kamala Harris briefly served as president during a period when President Biden underwent a medical procedure. While technically accurate based on the line of succession, this instance doesn’t negate the unique significance of a woman being democratically elected to the presidency. It remains a distinct and crucial landmark in history, regardless of any hypothetical executive orders changing sex classifications.
The notion that George Washington, or any past president, could be retroactively considered the “first female president” is a nonsensical consequence of this hypothetical order. The legal and social understanding of sex and gender at the time of their presidencies were drastically different and cannot be arbitrarily changed by a modern executive order.
Many comments highlight the absurdity of the situation, pointing out the potential for widespread chaos and legal challenges should such an order take effect. It would create a legal and social morass, impacting everything from legal contracts to bathroom designations. The possibility of half the US population suddenly being legally considered to have penises demonstrates just how far-reaching and impractical the implications of this hypothetical scenario would be.
The comments also reveal an undercurrent of political frustration and cynicism. The discussion often veers into broader anxieties about political polarization, the erosion of trust in institutions, and the potential for escalation of societal tensions. Regardless of the legal technicalities of the hypothetical executive order, the underlying sentiments speak to a sense of disillusionment and a desire for significant societal change.
This hypothetical situation serves to highlight the importance of respecting established legal frameworks and scientific understanding. While playful speculation can be entertaining, it’s crucial to maintain a clear understanding of the real-world consequences and the potential for such hypotheticals to be misused for political gain or to distract from more important issues. The focus should remain on addressing real-world challenges and enacting meaningful reforms, not on creating absurd legal loopholes.
In conclusion, while the question of Trump becoming the “first female president” due to a hypothetical executive order is a thought experiment, the legal and practical impossibility of such an order render the entire premise absurd. The exercise exposes the fragility of language, the importance of clear legal frameworks, and the danger of disregarding established scientific knowledge. The discussion underscores a deeper anxiety within society about political polarization and the need for more meaningful discussions on critical issues.