New Executive Order: Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation

[NotBadConsidering]

Here we go…

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation/

How are Mermaids going to respond to their support for the Mutilation of Children?

How will Stonewall frame their support for the Mutilation of Children?

For that matter, how will the NHS?

It might have been helpful to call it the Mutilation and Sterilisation of Gender Non Conforming Children.

Well that is fucking awesome. And while some pp’s are worried it will backfire, I think that underestimates the (silent majority?) number of people out there who are 100% behind this, even plenty of left-wing Dem voters are fed up with the trans agenda. Who can, in all honesty, argue against protecting children?

Very happy to see the side-swipe at WPATH too.

I don’t have much in common with Trump’s policies or views, but I say thankyou for this!

Don't the Republicans just need to base their next election campaign around reminding voters that the Democrats are funded by those sterilising children for profit? I mean, how do the Dems actually refute it?

I mean if the Dems are dumb enough to nominate Pritzker, "the Democratic candidate wants to cut your DS's nuts off" is an attack ad that writes itself.

"Vance wants your Vote
Pritzker wants your nuts"

That is interesting.

She explains the limitations that Trump has in who is covered by this EO.

Basically, it's a step forward. Especially in terms of whether or not private insurance companies will cover doctors for malpractice over gender issues.

Once that stops, the ops stop.

I mean, politics is a dirty business. An expensive business in the US. I assumed all major politicial parties employed people to tell them vital but unpleasant truths like "your pet policy is going down like a cup of cold sick and will lose you x seats/Politician z is a total liability and needs to be quietly removed" etc.

Republicans say balls to this
The Dems say thank you, just leave them in a box by the door

@Datun 🤣

In the UK the NHS was the crucial thing.

In the US, it's the insurance companies.

Absolutely this

Yes. Given the trans capture of the NHS & so many medical organisations, Cass was quite an achievement wasn't it?

The BBC framed it as 'restricting young people's access to gender-related medical treatments'.

But would you expect anything else from them?

*Basically, it's a step forward. Especially in terms of whether or not private insurance companies will cover doctors for malpractice over gender issues.

Once that stops, the ops stop.*

I can't find the original article which alerted me to this, it was connected to an in depth article about Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher but I had previously had no idea that it was legal in many states (32) for doctors to eschew malpractice insurance. I think the discussion was that SG would just move her practice to another state if she got shut down, whilst protecting assets off shore or whatever.

Of course hospitals may choose not to give operating rights to doctors who do not have insurance so hopefully there will be a shake down.

From what I've seen so far it seems detransitioners are having difficulty pinning down cases let alone getting anywhere near the compensation they deserve but I'm sure someone else here may no better.

www.gallaghermalpractice.com/blog/post/going-bare-are-doctors-required-to-have-malpractice-insurance/

As expected. Did they manage to omit the title entirely?

The BBC used the phrase here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvqe3le3z4o

'Also on Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order aimed at restricting young people's access to gender-related medical treatments.
The order, titled Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, says it would prevent those aged under 19 from making "life-altering" choices.
"It is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called 'transition' of a child from one sex to another," the order said.
It is unclear how the order would be implemented and it is likely to be challenged in court.'

I think that title was a stroke of genius. It's possibly why we've not seen the very large headlines one might have expected? Drawing attention to it risks prompting people to think about what 'transition' actually involves.

How odd that the EO is covered by a few short lines tacked onto the bottom of a piece about Trump's policies on federal jobs (which would be of limited interest to UK readers, you'd think), and not considered worth its own article. But it'll probably be challenged anyway. So that's all right, then. 🙄

Thanks for sharing, it's true the EO's are only Federal, but the states that are Republicans now have something they can copy straight into their own legislation frame work. Lest hope they do.

Exactly, it's a useful template for others to follow.

It's a step in the right direction.

The two gender EOs appear to have been written by the same lawyer.
They are "a good thing"
but sadly are part of Project 2025
which contains many "bad things" for women

Well perhaps the Democrats could adopt these good things as part of their programme.

Just an idea.

Exactly.

It's such an obvious plan, they would be mad not to implement it

@Chersfrozenface
The Democrat leadership are still in absolute denial that gender ideology impacted the election.
They still say "be kind" even while in the real world we have reached "its a bloke"