Did Trump go too far on gender ideology?

The turmoil of the first several days of Donald Trump’s second presidency — particularly the blanket pardon for Jan. 6 rioters — has almost overshadowed what, in more normal times, would be an explosive controversy: an executive order on "gender ideology." Some say it eviscerates the rights of transgender Americans. Others — including many people who are generally not Trump fans — see it as restoring women’s rights and common sense.

Is it a positive step, a pointless culture-war battle, or a mixed bag?

The order, which affirms the "biological reality of sex," declares that "it is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female" (as defined by reproductive cells); that "these sexes are not changeable"; and that "gender identity" apart from biological sex should have no legal recognition. The order further clarifies that the terms "man," "woman," "boy" and "girl" will be used solely in reference to biological sex and that all single-sex activities and facilities, from educational programs to prisons, should be based on biological sex alone. 

Additionally, federal agencies are directed to purge all statements, regulations and documents of language promoting "gender ideology" — the view that subjectively defined gender identity can supersede biological sex. The order also forbids using federal funds to promote such ideology.

Trump’s move on transgender issues reflects his campaign strategy: During the election, surveys confirmed the impact of ads attacking Kamala Harris' views of transgender rights, such as support for biologically male trans athletes playing in women’s and girls’ sports. More recently, a New York Times poll found that nearly 80% of all Americans — and two-thirds of Democrats — say transgender athletes born male should not be allowed to compete against women.

In addition, 71%, including 54% of Democrats, oppose making medical treatments for gender reassignment available to anyone under 18. While the executive order doesn’t mention this issue, Trump has long promised to outlaw such treatments for minors.

Progressive advocacy on transgender rights, which has included access to intimate women’s spaces such as locker rooms and showers for individuals who identify as female but have a male appearance, has alienated large numbers of Americans who generally support people’s freedom to live their lives as they wish. There is also an understandable wariness of gender experimentation for children who are generally seen as insufficiently mature to make life-changing decisions.

This pushback against overreach on transgender issues has helped Trump and the Republicans. But the executive order goes too far in the other direction: It seems to deny any legal recognition for gender reassignment even for people who have undergone surgical, hormonal or cosmetic interventions and who "pass" as the opposite sex. Not only does the order require them to have their birth sex marked in their passports, which may create problems at border crossings, it would also force female-presenting individuals to use male facilities and vice versa.

Transgender women convicted of crimes, even if they are fully transitioned and female-presenting, would have to be to be sent to male prisons, while female-born but male-appearing transgender inmates would have to be housed with women. The potential for disruption, discomfort and personal danger seems obvious. The order is certain to face legal challenges on those grounds alone.

Many people alarmed by the success of radical transgender advocacy, including feminists, have welcomed Trump’s support for their pushback. They should be careful what they wish for: Trump’s own overreach may hurt their cause more than it helps. 

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.