Shortly after his inauguration, President Donald Trump signed a series of controversial executive orders, including decisions to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change and the World Health Organization.
Among these, one targeting trans and non-binary individuals has drawn attention for its surprising scientific implications—technically categorizing all Americans as “female.”
The order defines “female” as “a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.”
While this definition was seemingly intended to reinforce anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion rhetoric, it inadvertently demonstrates a lack of understanding of fundamental biology.
At the earliest stages of human development, all embryos share a “unisex” structure—effectively beginning as female.
This scientific fact has led many to highlight the unforeseen consequences of the EO’s wording.
Trump’s anti-trans Executive Order is bad BUT it technically defines everyone as female. It states: “'Female' means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell." Since all fetuses "at conception" are female, Trump just defined EVERYONE as female.
— Jessie Gender (@jessiegender.bsky.social) January 21, 2025 at 6:39 AM
The Science Behind Early Development
In the first few weeks following conception, all human embryos appear identical.
This “unisex” phase aligns more with female traits, which explains why all humans develop features like nipples, regardless of sex.
Around the sixth week of embryonic development, the SRY gene—found on the Y chromosome—activates.
This initiates the process that typically results in male development for embryos with XY chromosomes.
However, this process is far from simple. The signals sent by the Y chromosome can sometimes be misinterpreted, resulting in variations in sexual development.
For example, individuals with Swyer syndrome are genetically XY but develop as cisgender women due to minor genetic anomalies, sometimes as small as the presence or absence of a single oxygen atom.
There are also cases where unusual chromosomal combinations defy the binary model of sex.
For instance, a Croatian woman with predominantly XY cells was able to conceive and give birth, illustrating how intricate sexual development can be.
Many others with atypical chromosomal patterns might never discover them, as DNA testing is not a routine practice.
Challenging the Binary Perspective
Sex is usually assigned at birth based on external genitalia, a method that doesn’t account for intersex individuals or the complexities of chromosomal and hormonal interactions.
While most women have XX chromosomes and most men have XY, the concept of a strict binary system fails to reflect human diversity.
Overlooking these realities is like ignoring the existence of elements beyond hydrogen and helium simply because they’re the most common in the universe.
The EO’s language promotes “ordinary and longstanding” definitions of biological terms.
However, these terms must be used accurately, not manipulated to serve political agendas.
By relying on oversimplified science, the EO inadvertently undermines itself, suggesting that every American could technically be classified as “female.”
What Are the Implications?
Does this make Donald Trump the first female president? Probably not. Courts would likely consider the intent of the EO rather than its literal wording.
However, in science, precise language matters, and misusing terms can lead to confusion.
Instead of resisting these technicalities, perhaps we could embrace the broader interpretation.
After all, when Shania Twain says, “Let’s go, girls,” maybe she really does mean everyone!