Trump's Anti-Trans Executive Order Technically Defines All Americans as Female: 'It Was Written by Morons'

President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at dialing back transgender rights has inadvertently classified every American as female, according to critics of the order's language.

The order—titled Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government—defines female as "a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell," and male as "a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell."

Critics were quick to highlight a scientific blunder embedded in the wording, which specifically refers to conception as the time biological indicators of sex should be evaluated.

Embryologists and geneticists have long observed that for the first several weeks after conception, all human embryos follow a "female" developmental blueprint until the activation of the SRY gene initiates sexual differentiation. Embryos with an XY genotype will begin developing male traits linked to the Y chromosome at roughly six weeks, but until then, human embryos have only developed female traits associated with the X chromosome.

If the sex of every American is determined at conception, all Americans could be legally considered female under Trump's executive order—a point social media users have gleefully seized on to.

"If you're going to legislate using scientific terms, you should probably understand the science," one critic quipped. Others jokingly suggested that Trump has inadvertently become the first female president in U.S. history.

The EO's misstep highlights the complexities of biological sex determination, which is far from the simplistic binary Trump's administration appears to endorse. Scientific experts have emphasized that sex is influenced by a range of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors, and cannot be reduced to a singular definition based on reproductive cells.

Legal precedent suggests that while the EO's technical wording is flawed, courts would likely interpret the order based on intent rather than its literal meaning. However, the incident has further fueled accusations that the Trump administration is more interested in pushing ideological agendas than in basing policy on scientific fact.