Trump EO's

[mspart]

But are they beautiful chromosomes, the best in the world?

mspart

[mspart]

17 hours ago, VakAttack said:

The trans one effectively defines every person in the country as female, so that was a banger start for the geniuses in charge of the country.

I'm reading the EO now and don't see where it says everyone is a female:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/

Sec. 2.  Policy and Definitions.  It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.  These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.  Under my direction, the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality, and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:

(a)  “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.  “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”

(b)  “Women” or “woman” and “girls” or “girl” shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively.

(c)  “Men” or “man” and “boys” or “boy” shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively.

(d)  “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

(e)  “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

I am not seeing where men are women.   If you are talking about the development of a child in the womb, most of you that are on this side of the argument don't consider that a human at all, but just a clump of cells.  It helps to be consistent in your thought process.  

If you are trying to say that items d) and e) above mean that for the first six weeks all are female because of the development process, that is patently not true.   The roadmap for development is held in the genes within the chromosomes.   With regard to the chromosomes, you belong to either the female sex or the male sex at conception.    Period.  There is no ambiguity here.    You might as well say that everyone has no arms, or has no legs because the development of the body hasn't gotten to that stage yet.  It is a supercilious argument to make.  

The issue here is not intersex which is a mutation that appears in a very small minority of individuals.   The issue here is of males saying they are females and should be treated as such and they have the rights that all other females have with regard to sports, locker rooms, rest rooms, jail cells, etc.   And the opposite is true as well regarding females who say they are male etc.  

I don't think the interpretation being put forth here holds any water. 

mspart

[VakAttack]

20 minutes ago, mspart said:

I'm reading the EO now and don't see where it says everyone is a female:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/

Sec. 2.  Policy and Definitions.  It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.  These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.  Under my direction, the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality, and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:

(a)  “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.  “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”

(b)  “Women” or “woman” and “girls” or “girl” shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively.

(c)  “Men” or “man” and “boys” or “boy” shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively.

(d)  “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

(e)  “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

I am not seeing where men are women.   If you are talking about the development of a child in the womb, most of you that are on this side of the argument don't consider that a human at all, but just a clump of cells.  It helps to be consistent in your thought process.  

If you are trying to say that items d) and e) above mean that for the first six weeks all are female because of the development process, that is patently not true.   The roadmap for development is held in the genes within the chromosomes.   With regard to the chromosomes, you belong to either the female sex or the male sex at conception.    Period.  There is no ambiguity here.    You might as well say that everyone has no arms, or has no legs because the development of the body hasn't gotten to that stage yet.  It is a supercilious argument to make.  

The issue here is not intersex which is a mutation that appears in a very small minority of individuals.   The issue here is of males saying they are females and should be treated as such and they have the rights that all other females have with regard to sports, locker rooms, rest rooms, jail cells, etc.   And the opposite is true as well regarding females who say they are male etc.  

I don't think the interpretation being put forth here holds any water. 

mspart

I'm sorry that you don't understand how biology and language works.  Just handwave it away, though, that will change it.  The language says gender at conception.  We are all either female or intersex (apparently) at conception.  As to the roadmap line that followed it, no, it's still not that simple although many of you would like it to be.  Genetic abnormalities occur and then what?  Are those people no longer people?  Are they some third gender?  Are they whatever Trump et al feels like that day?  Try as you might, it's just not quite so simple as a binary, no matter how much that bothers you and others.

[PortaJohn]

11 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I'm sorry that you don't understand how biology and language works.  Just handwave it away, though, that will change it.  The language says gender at conception.  We are all either female or intersex (apparently) at conception.  As to the roadmap line that followed it, no, it's still not that simple although many of you would like it to be.  Genetic abnormalities occur and then what?  Are those people no longer people?  Are they some third gender?  Are they whatever Trump et al feels like that day?  Try as you might, it's just not quite so simple as a binary, no matter how much that bothers you and others.

Sex is determined at conception but anatomically we have no gender in the embryonic stage.  Intersex was probably the wrong word

[Tripnsweep]

My father actually told me today that specifically, if one of his clients is harmed, due to the suspension of asylum claims, that his surviving family will retain him as co counsel to sue the Trump administration and all relevant authorities. It might take a few years, but with such easily provable evidence, I'd be shocked to find any judge in a civil case who wouldn't find for the family. Some people are going to cash in at the expense of the federal government. 

This is what happens when you elect a moron who doesn't care about America at all. Just lining his own pockets and having power. That's all Trump ever has cared about. And you suckers who voted for him really believe he cares about anything but himself or his own interests

 

[mspart]

16 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I'm sorry that you don't understand how biology and language works.  Just handwave it away, though, that will change it.  The language says gender at conception.  We are all either female or intersex (apparently) at conception.  As to the roadmap line that followed it, no, it's still not that simple although many of you would like it to be.  Genetic abnormalities occur and then what?  Are those people no longer people?  Are they some third gender?  Are they whatever Trump et al feels like that day?  Try as you might, it's just not quite so simple as a binary, no matter how much that bothers you and others.

Obviously I do and accurately described it.   The fact you want to continue on this track says more about your understanding of the subject than mine  

Said one more time, at conception, you have one of two pairing of chromosomes, XX or XY.   That is at conception.   What you are talking about is after conception and along the development path.   At conception, there is no development, only a sperm entering an egg.   The language of the EO does not say anything about the development, it says conception.   And at conception, the sex of the child is determined by the chromosomes.  

The twisting and driving yourself into a corner is interesting for sure.  

Care to try again? 

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

Can we talk about another EO that has my attention?

All Presidents over reach and play to their base (Biden's 162 EOs, and pre-pardoning, Trump's 26ish so far with the promise of many more to go along with the 220 he issued last time around). I get that. I do not agree with it more often that not in both directions, but I get it.

But there is one EO in particular I am interested in. I am interested because of it's precedence and boldness. With "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" Trump is attempting to over ride the Constitution. That has to be the single most dictatorial move ever attempted by a President.

And in his attempt to justify, there are a few notable lies. 

"But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." That is just plain false.

'The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”' This one is more insidious. It ignores the fact that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was in reference to Native Americans whose land we had not yet taken, but would, and who were not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There were no plans to grant Native Americans citizenship. That only changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Every person now born in the US, hell every person who is in the US, legally or illegally, is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. To claim otherwise is dumb.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

[Bigbrog]

25 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

My father actually told me today that specifically, if one of his clients is harmed, due to the suspension of asylum claims, that his surviving family will retain him as co counsel to sue the Trump administration and all relevant authorities. It might take a few years, but with such easily provable evidence, I'd be shocked to find any judge in a civil case who wouldn't find for the family. Some people are going to cash in at the expense of the federal government. 

This is what happens when you elect a moron who doesn't care about America at all. Just lining his own pockets and having power. That's all Trump ever has cared about. And you suckers who voted for him really believe he cares about anything but himself or his own interests

 

I think you have officially fallen off the deep end

[VakAttack]

13 minutes ago, mspart said:

Obviously I do and accurately described it.   The fact you want to continue on this track says more about your understanding of the subject than mine  

Said one more time, at conception, you have one of two pairing of chromosomes, XX or XY.   That is at conception.   What you are talking about is after conception and along the development path.   At conception, there is no development, only a sperm entering an egg.   The language of the EO does not say anything about the development, it says conception.   And at conception, the sex of the child is determined by the chromosomes.  

The twisting and driving yourself into a corner is interesting for sure.  

Care to try again? 

mspart

Except, again, this is not true.  People are born with XO or XXY chromosomal groupings, which are not that uncommon, and there are others that are more rare, but do exist.  What are we doing with those people?

[Ohio Elite]

44 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

My father actually told me today that specifically, if one of his clients is harmed, due to the suspension of asylum claims, that his surviving family will retain him as co counsel to sue the Trump administration and all relevant authorities. It might take a few years, but with such easily provable evidence, I'd be shocked to find any judge in a civil case who wouldn't find for the family. Some people are going to cash in at the expense of the federal government. 

This is what happens when you elect a moron who doesn't care about America at all. Just lining his own pockets and having power. That's all Trump ever has cared about. And you suckers who voted for him really believe he cares about anything but himself or his own interests

 

Your father sounds like a f*cking idiot.  Apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

Edited 23 hours ago by Ohio Elite

[PortaJohn]

Determining sex XO is  female  and XXY  is male.  You're looking for 46XX/46XY

[mspart]

19 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Except, again, this is not true.  People are born with XO or XXY chromosomal groupings, which are not that uncommon, and there are others that are more rare, but do exist.  What are we doing with those people?

Now you are conflating the issue.   The issue is protecting women from men who claim to be women.   The whole trans movement was never about intersex individuals.  It was about fully male men saying they are women and expecting to all the rights and privileges of such.   And vice versa. 

Your latest is the go to when this line of argument fails and this is the last gasp.   XO happens to girls 0.05% or 1 in 2000 times.     XXY happens to boys about 0.13% of the time or 1 in 750.   These are not the people being targeted in the EO.  

mspart

[VakAttack]

7 minutes ago, mspart said:

Now you are conflating the issue.   The issue is protecting women from men who claim to be women.   The whole trans movement was never about intersex individuals.  It was about fully male men saying they are women and expecting to all the rights and privileges of such.   And vice versa. 

Your latest is the go to when this line of argument fails and this is the last gasp.   XO happens to girls 0.05% or 1 in 2000 times.     XXY happens to boys about 0.13% of the time or 1 in 750.   These are not the people being targeted in the EO.  

mspart

I, too, would abandon the issue and try to shift the conversation.  Now we're talking about how often things happen to be warranted?  The number of people in the US that identify as transgender is somewhere between .5% and 1.3%.  So under your own logic, there's no need to ever address this issue at all (something I've argued previously given the outsized importance placed on it relative to it's actual impact on society. And you still haven't dictated how this policy will affect those people (or intersex people).

Has there ever been a transgender person who has sexually assaulted a woman in a bathroom?  I'm sure there has, but the vast, vast, vast majority of sexual assaults are from men with no gender identity issues, yet I have to sit here and have some of you pretend this is some epidemic of violence from trans people.  It's already illegal to sexually assault someone.  So what does this do other than demean individuals making individual choices for themselves?

So next question, how are we enforcing this?  Requiring people to disclose their medical records to the federal government?  Submit themselves to genetic testing before going into the bathroom?  What if a child is born with both sex organs?  What about people who have already transitioned genders?  Is Caitlyn Jenner now Bruce again?

 

This was stupid and scientifically baseless for the pure purpose of centering a relatively unimportant issue, and because of the way they chose to phrase it to try to make it sound scientific, it doesn't even have the desired effect and just leaves some of you saying "you know what they meant!" and "it's not targeted at those people."  That's not how law works, the wording is extremely important in the law.  Again, sorry if this bothers you.

[mspart]

So now you have ditched the argument for an intersex argument, like that is what you are really concerned with.    

It doesn't matter what you think has happened, women don't want men in their bathrooms, locker rooms, jail cells, etc.  Having a  man in there makes them feel threatened and unsafe.   They don't count in your calculation apparently.

This is about boys/men playing against girls/women in girls/womens sports.   This is about protecting opportunities for women.   You are apparently against protecting opportunities for women, making safe spaces for women.   These are things that were taken for granted until the trans thing happened.   This has to do with people without mutation trying to be the other sex.   This has nothing to do with people who have a mutation.

You are now arguing a different thing than you stated with and that is what this always devolves to.   If you honestly are for trans rights, you should make your daughters (if you have any) and your wife (if you have one) and your mother accept men in their spaces.   Ask them if they mind a man being in the womens bathroom.  Ask them if they mind men being in their locker room?   See how that goes for you.  It might go fine.   But probably not.  They are probably just not as enlightened as you are.  

mspart

[Tripnsweep]

5 hours ago, Ohio Elite said:

Your father sounds like a f*cking idiot.  Apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

We have this thing called the Constitution, of which we have codified rights (first ten amendments), so violating that and causing somebody to be harmed or killed sounds like a great way to open yourself up to a lawsuit. 

Now let's hear your argument that people here illegally aren't subject to our rules or jurisdiction. That'll be fun to hear. 

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

We have this thing called the Constitution, of which we have codified rights (first ten amendments), so violating that and causing somebody to be harmed or killed sounds like a great way to open yourself up to a lawsuit. 

Now let's hear your argument that people here illegally aren't subject to our rules or jurisdiction. That'll be fun to hear. 

My father said.  Any illegal alien who kills a us citizen.   My father will represent the surviving family and sue the crap out of the Biden crime family.   Don’t contact me for representation directly on this forum just pm me if needed.  

[Offthemat]

9 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Can we talk about another EO that has my attention?

All Presidents over reach and play to their base (Biden's 162 EOs, and pre-pardoning, Trump's 26ish so far with the promise of many more to go along with the 220 he issued last time around). I get that. I do not agree with it more often that not in both directions, but I get it.

But there is one EO in particular I am interested in. I am interested because of it's precedence and boldness. With "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" Trump is attempting to over ride the Constitution. That has to be the single most dictatorial move ever attempted by a President.

And in his attempt to justify, there are a few notable lies. 

"But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." That is just plain false.

'The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”' This one is more insidious. It ignores the fact that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was in reference to Native Americans whose land we had not yet taken, but would, and who were not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There were no plans to grant Native Americans citizenship. That only changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Every person now born in the US, hell every person who is in the US, legally or illegally, is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. To claim otherwise is dumb.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

John Eastman:

Alas, when it comes to anything related to Trump, there are very few honest scholars. Instead of acknowledging the Supreme Court’s limited, actual holding in Wong Kim Ark, they will point to dicta in which the Court’s majority falsely claimed that the Citizenship Clause codified the old English common law rule known as jus soli—that anyone born on the king’s soil owed perpetual allegiance to the king.  They will overlook that our Declaration of Independence was an explicit and eloquent repudiation of jus soli, stating in its closing paragraph that “these United Colonies…are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown.” They will overlook that Congress did not view Wong Kim Ark as mandating automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil when, a quarter century later, it extended citizenship to Native Americans pursuant to its power under the Naturalization Clause, an act that would have been superfluous if Wong Kim Ark had already settled the matter that everyone born in the U.S., including Native Americans, were automatically citizens. And they will overlook that when a 1920s guest worker program ended in the wake of the Great Depression and more than a million Mexican workers were repatriated to Mexico, the repatriation included their U.S.-born children. No one at the time claimed that the children were U.S. citizens.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/birthright-citizenship-game-on/

 

[billyhoyle]

I know this might seem like a joke, but honest question here. Trump got a ton of support from wrestlers during both of his campaigns.  Gable, Jim Jordan, Penn State wrestling... The wrestling community in PA probably shifted that state to him. 

 

Could he sign an executive order that puts pressure on universities to add wrestling programs back? Obviously it can't say that directly, but some type of executive order "protecting" non revenue sports, especially those that teach the traditional values stuff that he's all about?

 

Why as a community are we not pushing for this? This is a once in a lifetime opportunity.  

Edited 14 hours ago by billyhoyle

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

10 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

We have this thing called the Constitution, of which we have codified rights (first ten amendments), so violating that and causing somebody to be harmed or killed sounds like a great way to open yourself up to a lawsuit. 

Now let's hear your argument that people here illegally aren't subject to our rules or jurisdiction. That'll be fun to hear. 

What are your thoughts on the 2nd amendment?

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

16 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

My father actually told me today that specifically, if one of his clients is harmed, due to the suspension of asylum claims, that his surviving family will retain him as co counsel to sue the Trump administration and all relevant authorities. It might take a few years, but with such easily provable evidence, I'd be shocked to find any judge in a civil case who wouldn't find for the family. Some people are going to cash in at the expense of the federal government. 

This is what happens when you elect a moron who doesn't care about America at all. Just lining his own pockets and having power. That's all Trump ever has cared about. And you suckers who voted for him really believe he cares about anything but himself or his own interests

 

Sounds like someone is lining their pockets! Could be a windfall for some attorneys in AZ!

[Wrestleknownothing]

8 hours ago, Offthemat said:

John Eastman:

Alas, when it comes to anything related to Trump, there are very few honest scholars. Instead of acknowledging the Supreme Court’s limited, actual holding in Wong Kim Ark, they will point to dicta in which the Court’s majority falsely claimed that the Citizenship Clause codified the old English common law rule known as jus soli—that anyone born on the king’s soil owed perpetual allegiance to the king.  They will overlook that our Declaration of Independence was an explicit and eloquent repudiation of jus soli, stating in its closing paragraph that “these United Colonies…are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown.” They will overlook that Congress did not view Wong Kim Ark as mandating automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil when, a quarter century later, it extended citizenship to Native Americans pursuant to its power under the Naturalization Clause, an act that would have been superfluous if Wong Kim Ark had already settled the matter that everyone born in the U.S., including Native Americans, were automatically citizens. And they will overlook that when a 1920s guest worker program ended in the wake of the Great Depression and more than a million Mexican workers were repatriated to Mexico, the repatriation included their U.S.-born children. No one at the time claimed that the children were U.S. citizens.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/birthright-citizenship-game-on/

 

He has his jus wrong. And his logic wrong as a result. The Colonies rejected jus sanguinis in favor of jus soli.

The British Crown, along with most of Europe, practiced, and still practice, jus sanguinis where citizenship flows from blood not location. That way as they colonized the world (note the reference to "these United Colonies" above) any progeny of British citizens would remain British citizens subject to the laws of Britain, not the locality.

[red viking]

Several of these were unconstitutional and he knew it. He doesn't care. He'll get away with whatever he can get away with and bypass the other branches of government if he can get away with it. 

[Bigbrog]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Several of these were unconstitutional and he knew it. He doesn't care. He'll get away with whatever he can get away with and bypass the other branches of government if he can get away with it. 

Look at me...I like to just spew words...weee...

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Several of these were unconstitutional and he knew it. He doesn't care. He'll get away with whatever he can get away with and bypass the other branches of government if he can get away with it. 

Sounds familiar...

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

He has his jus wrong. And his logic wrong as a result. The Colonies rejected jus sanguinis in favor of jus soli.

The British Crown, along with most of Europe, practiced, and still practice, jus sanguinis where citizenship flows from blood not location. That way as they colonized the world (note the reference to "these United Colonies" above) any progeny of British citizens would remain British citizens subject to the laws of Britain, not the locality.

He doesn’t have his jus mixed up, he’s talking about one and not the other.  He’s talking about the one that dims will try to use in their favor.