![](https://uploads.ovarit.com/da064b14-e736-55fc-a1b0-f84fb0c2c379.jpg)
Just as last week's EO focused on the harms that gender ideology does specifically to women, this EO was clearly written with an understanding that the majority of minors subjected to "youth gender medicine" interventions in the past 10-15 years have been girls.
Whilst mainstream media and public discourse give the impression that the typical "trans child" who undergoes early "medical transition" is a male who was enthralled with dolls, dresses and pink, sparkly, shiny, frilly "girly things" as a little boy - like Jazz Jennings, Kim Petras, Kai Shappley, Trinity Neal, Becky Pepper Jackson, Rebekkah Bruesehoff - this EO implictly acknowledges that the typical victim of "youth gender medicine" is more likely to be female:
Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding. Moreover, these vulnerable youths’ medical bills may rise throughout their lifetimes, as they are often trapped with lifelong medical complications, a losing war with their own bodies, and, tragically, sterilization.
Sec. 8. Directives to the Department of Justice. The Attorney General shall:
(a) review Department of Justice enforcement of section 116 of title 18, United States Code, and prioritize enforcement of protections against female genital mutilation;
(b) convene States’ Attorneys General and other law enforcement officers to coordinate the enforcement of laws against female genital mutilation across all American States and Territories;
There's no mention of children growing up unable to father children or experience erections. There's no specific mention of male genital mutilation. Of course, male minors are covered by this EO. So it's fuly "inclusive" of both sexes. It's just that for the first time, male patients of the gender medicine industry aren't automatically awarded top billing and their problems and suffering haven't been given center stage.
It's wild, but glorious, to see girls being centered like this in a conservative-produced document protecting children's and women's rights. I've never felt so politically homeless.
I've got $20 on the first female president being a Republican.
California has never had a female governor. Labour in the UK has never had a female PM. :/
I’ve thought this for a while. If Condoleeza Rice had run in 2008, she just might have won.
Yeah I expect if Trump doesn't run again (because old), JD Vance likely will, and I sussssspect his VP candidate will be Tulsi Gabbard. And then if he's in for two terms, Tulsi, and if he's out after one, Tulsi.
Because old???? Because it would be his third term and we’re all hoping that he doesn’t change the law that prevents a third term of a presidency.
The 20th Amendment prohibits anybody from being elected to more than two Presidential terms, but Constitutionally there is theoretically nothing to stop Republicans in 2028 from running a placeholder candidate for President and Trump for Vice President, with the understanding that the placeholder candidate will just resign immediately after inauguration—thus putting Trump back into the Oval Office.
Whether voters would actually pull the lever for such a caper, of course, is another question—not to mention that there'd also be nothing stopping the persona non grata at the top of the ticket from just being like "Sike!" and doing an American version of "Fico" (I'm staying).
I mean they’re banning contraceptives and abortion meds by mail too. It’s really all about forcing more females to give birth. Every time JD Vance has crawled out from Musk’s shadow since taking office he has pushed breeder rhetoric. It’s 90% of everything that comes out of his mouth and a fundamental tenant of Project 2025.
They are obsessed with more children being born by women. This goal is apparent in so many of their actions. You’re naive to think this order was written this way because they just respect women so much and want to protect us. They want to protect our baby-making and -rearing capabilities.
So it’s really not as uplifting as you think it is. I know there’s Orangeys in here, but wow. Some folks truly living with blinders on to think this is driven out of love for women.
You’re naive to think this order was written this way because they just respect women so much and want to protect us
Some folks truly living with blinders on to think this is driven out of love for women.
But I never said I thought this order "was written this way because they just respect women so much and want to protect us." Nor did I say that I believe the slant of this EO "is driven out of love for women."
I don't know why this and the other EO about gender ideology and women last week have been approached, worded, framed and slanted the way they have been. I've just taken note that they are framed and focused much more on women and girls than any policy directive, guidance document or other similar material about sex and gender identity that's been produced by any government, official agency, or other major establishment institution since the craze for gender identity ideology reached a fever pitch about a decade ago.
I have a feeling that part of the reason for the framing around/slanting towards women and girls is that the people who've been at the coalface dealing with the host of negative effects of GI ideology, and fighting it, for years now have primarily been women - including Republican women who comprise a big portion of Trump's base. But that's just a hunch. I honestly have no idea. Nor did I make any statements speculating about what the WH and and Trump adminstration's motivations might be in my earlier comment.
So please give me a break by not putting words into my mouth and not taking potshots at me for making comments about motives and drives that I actually did not make. It's really annoying and offensive when people conjure up and project their own ideas into the minds of others like you've done to me here. And it's even more galling when people use their own projections as an excuse to launch into some supercilious, holier-than-thou finger wagging at the other person whilst handing down a stern reprimand from on high.
You have no right to scold and school me. And you especially have no right to take me to task for saying things I did not say. So quit it.
“I don't know why this and the other EO about gender ideology and women last week have been approached, worded, framed and slanted the way they have been.”
It’s because the left forgot what women are, and the right is obsessed with women for all the wrong reasons. This party is about making us into broodmares.
And the haute-left also made a darling out of Vance's Hillbilly Elegy when it was published, lest we forget.
You’re absolutely right, and shouldn’t be getting downvoted for shining a light on the ulterior motives driving this. Though I can’t blame anyone for not wanting to hear the truth when it’s so ugly.
Are the downvotes about the disagreements, or are they about the strawmen and the ad hominems? I'm not a fan of downvoting, but my bet is on the latter.
yeah there have been a lot of comments lately implying that every Ovarit poster who discusses the merits of the work currently being done is going heart eyes for Trump, Vance and Walsh. I think the vast majority of the women on this site know exactly who these men are.
You're right, I could have worded that better. Every EO has been one step forward, two steps back for our rights.
Shared this with a friend and she pointed out the possibility that the EO doesn't specify "male genital mutilation" because that would implicate circumcision.
Yes, I thought of that too. But I have a hunch that the main reason that the EO mentions female genital mutilation is that FGM is widely seen as abhorrent and it's already illegal in the USA; Congress passed a law making it illegal 1996 when Bill Clinton was POTUS.
The US federal government has a long track record under both Democratic and Republican leadership of opposing FGM on the grounds that it's child abuse and a serious human rights violation. What's more, under Democratic presidents, various agencies of the US government have done a lot of preachy public grandstanding condemning FGM.
FGM is a form of child abuse, a serious human rights violation and, since 1996, a federal crime. In 2013, Congress amended the federal FGM statute, 18 U.S.C. § 116, to prohibit taking a girl out of the United States for the purpose of performing FGM. In 2021, the STOP FGM Act 2020 was signed into law, strengthening the law by expanding the scope of punishable acts, and increasing the maximum penalty.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6100/all-actions
FGM/C refers to all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. It may be called “female circumcision” in some parts of the world. The practice has no health benefits and can lead to a range of serious physical and mental health problems.
The U.S. government opposes FGM/C, no matter the type, degree, or severity, and no matter what the motivation for performing it. The U.S. government considers FGM/C to be a human rights violation and a form of child abuse, gender discrimination, and gender-based violence.
It is against the law to perform FGM/C in the United States on a child under the age of 18, or for the parent, caretaker, or guardian of a child under the age of 18 to facilitate or consent to FGM/C being performed . It is also against the law to send or attempt to send a child outside the United States so FGM/C can be performed.
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/brochures/FGMC_Brochure.pdf
In the 2022 update to the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally, the Department of State defines female genital mutilation and cutting (FGM/C) as all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. FGM/C is typically carried out on young girls between infancy and adolescence, and occasionally on adult women.
An individual who has undergone FGM/C is not at fault. They have not violated any U.S. laws by undergoing the procedure.
U.S. federal law prohibits performing, attempting to perform, or conspiring to perform FGM on anyone under the age of 18, or transporting anyone under the age of 18, out of state or country, for the purpose of the FGM (18 U.S. Code § 116).
There's no exception for performing FGM as a matter of religion, custom, tradition, ritual, or standard practice.
The FBI is committed to protecting the rights of young women and children and bringing justice to those who violate them. Anyone found guilty of FGM faces up to 10 years in prison.
So even though it's a stretch to try to include the damage that testosterone does to female genitals in the definition of FGM that's spelled out in the US federal statute outlawing FGM, bringing up the USA's already-extant laws, policies and showy public pronouncements opposing FGM "no matter the type, degree, or severity, and no matter what the motivation" nevertheless serves several purposes: it's a good way of drawing a parallel between "gender affirming care" and FGM; it helps to widen the Overton window; and it puts proponents of "youth gender medicine" including Democratic members of Congress on the spot and on the back foot. After all, how can people who oppose FGM, and have made a point of voicing strong opposition to it in the public arena for years, turn around and justify and defend the use of heavy-dury prescription pharmaceutical drugs to stop the normal healthy sex and genital development of young people like Jazz Jennings, Clementine Breen and Chloe Cole for medical reason starting when they were just kids?
This is all good info to know. Thanks for sharing. I've heard of TRAs trying to redefine FGM to be "more inclusive and sensitive" to trans people so it makes sense for the EO authors to reestablish the original term and its definition.
Yep they gotta keep their precious circumcision even though it isn’t even science based
Except for men who can’t be bothered to wash properly
But we all know the real reason is so we can pretend a man in a dress in the sky is omnipotent and has the power of creation … instead of the truth, women harbor the power of creation.
… ooops I said the quiet part out loud
Say it with me: the Romans refashioned Abrahamic traditions to be Patriarchal and Imperialistic
I’m honestly a bit surprised they haven’t gone for it with the rise of anti-semitism.
Considering how ubiquitously it's done to baby boys in the US, it would require a bunch of male politicians to agree that something is wrong with their own dicks. FAT CHANCE. Of course, after they bother to care about the welfare of boys enough to draft a law about it. I don't see that happening any time soon. The predominant response I've seen from other US men to "intactivists" is mockery.
There are no laws against "male genital mutilation" specifically the way there are for female genital mutilation, so there is no equivalent statute the EO could have cited.
Children can be conceived in a petri dish. I think conceiving children is something both sexes do, so I did not read that phrase as only applying to females. If a man can't produce sperm, he can't conceive a child.
This warms my heart. I’m so pleased to see this EO. And so pleased females are being centred in its language.
I love this section:
The phrase “chemical and surgical mutilation” means the use of puberty blockers, including GnRH agonists and other interventions, to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex; the use of sex hormones, such as androgen blockers, estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone, to align an individual’s physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex; and surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual’s physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex or that attempt to alter or remove an individual’s sexual organs to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions. This phrase sometimes is referred to as “gender affirming care.”
8(e) prioritize investigations and take appropriate action to end child-abusive practices by so-called sanctuary States that facilitate stripping custody from parents who support the healthy development of their own children, including by considering the application of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act and recognized constitutional rights.
Awesome. Too many sane parents have lost their children
President Trump made a statement about the executive order:
Today, it was my great honor to sign an Executive Order banning the chemical castration and medical mutilation of innocent children in the United States of America. Our Nation will no longer fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support so-called “gender affirming care,” which has already ruined far too many precious lives. My Order directs Agencies to use every available means to cut off Federal financial participation in institutions which seek to provide these barbaric medical procedures, that should have never been allowed to take place!
Clearly not written by him lmfao but thank you to the woman that made him the mouthpiece.
Beat me to it! By 2 minutes! I came here to post the same thing!
What does this mean in regards to medically unnecessary mastectomies?
The EO is focused on FGM, which is great, but I don’t know if there were any phalloplasties or vaginectomies happening to under 18s
Not sure about girls, but there are definitely genital surgeries being performed on boys under 18.
The EO is focused on FGM
I don't think that's really the case. FGM is brought up in the one section giving a directive specifically to the DoJ because there's already illegal across the USA under federal law, and 41 states have their own laws against it too.
Sec. 8. Directives to the Department of Justice. The Attorney General shall:
(a) review Department of Justice enforcement of section 116 of title 18, United States Code, and prioritize enforcement of protections against female genital mutilation;
(b) convene States’ Attorneys General and other law enforcement officers to coordinate the enforcement of laws against female genital mutilation across all American States and Territories;\
But up top, a broad definiton is given of what the EO is seeking to ban:
The phrase “chemical and surgical mutilation” means the use of puberty blockers, including GnRH agonists and other interventions, to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex; the use of sex hormones, such as androgen blockers, estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone, to align an individual’s physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex; and surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual’s physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex or that attempt to alter or remove an individual’s sexual organs to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions.
Since the EO mentioned FGM, I think it probably should have mentioned that the surgical procedures billed as "gender affirming care" that it seeks to bar for minors include double mastectomy for females, breast augmentation for males, and genital surgeries for both sexes.
The mammary gland is a vital accessory organ in the female reproductive system.
The primary purpose of the mammary gland is to secrete milk for infant breastfeeding. This organ also plays an essential role in female sexuality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547666/
The breasts are present in both sexes. However, the female breasts are more developed. The breasts are also an important component of the female reproductive system.
The primary functionTrusted Source of the female breasts is to produce milk for breastfeeding...The female breast also has a sexual function, as stimulation of the breasts or nipples may enhance pleasure.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/breast-anatomy#function
Mastectomies are covered, the EO isn't limited to the portions that reference FGM. It prohibits any surgeries for the purpose of helping soneone who identifies as the opposite sex conform their body to align with their "identity". So mastectomies, masculinizing/femininizing facial surgeries, other body modifying surgeries, like clavicle surgery to narrow TIMs shoulders, can't be performed if the practitioner receives federal funds.
Why are TRAs angry? They always said there were no surgeries happening under 18 yo.