Upon his return to the White House, Donald Trump promptly began reshaping federal policies. In just a matter of hours, numerous executive orders were signed, overturning crucial decisions made by the previous administration. One of these directives, particularly controversial, concerns gender recognition.
A novel decree enforces a rigid binary definition of gender across all federal documentation. Non-binary and transgender individuals now encounter limitations on passports, legal records, and other official paperwork. The swift execution of these changes has left many in a state of confusion, scrambling to comprehend the repercussions and explore legal remedies.
Aside from passports, the order carries broader implications, influencing legal documents, penitentiaries, and federal policies pertaining to gender identity. Advocacy groups are mobilizing, lawsuits are being prepared, and affected individuals are seeking out alternatives ardently. Grasping the full extent of these alterations is imperative for those directly impacted and anyone with a vested interest in the future of gender identity rights in the United States.
Alterations in the Executive Order
Trump’s executive order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” enacts a sweeping rollback of gender identity recognition in federal records. This order enforces a strict sex definition based on biological characteristics at birth, effectively negating previous policies that acknowledged gender diversity.
During the Biden administration, Americans had the option to choose a non-binary X gender marker on their passports, aligning with a growing number of international practices. The first U.S. passport with an X marker was issued in October 2021, with officials hailing it as a step toward inclusivity. Jessica Stern, the former U.S. Special Envoy for LGBTQ+ Rights, remarked: “The addition of a third gender marker propels the U.S. toward ensuring that our administrative systems account for the diversity of gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics among U.S. citizens.”
Trump’s new order reverses this advancement, stipulating that all official documents must now only reflect male or female designations based on biological sex. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reinforced this shift in an internal memo, informing State Department employees: “The policy of the United States is that an individual’s sex is not changeable. Sex and not gender shall be used on passports and consular reports of birth abroad.”
Beyond documentation, the order significantly modifies policies related to incarceration. In the past, transgender women could be placed in women’s prisons under certain circumstances, but the new directive mandates that all federal prison housing assignments strictly adhere to biological sex.
This ruling has sparked safety concerns, as transgender advocacy groups argue that placing trans women in men’s prisons heightens the risk of violence and abuse. The executive order also curtails gender-affirming policies across other federal institutions, indicating that agencies which previously acknowledged gender identity in legal cases, healthcare records, and workplace protections may now revert to binary sex classifications.
Impact on Passports and Impacted Individuals
Trump’s executive order has resulted in an immediate suspension of all passport applications requesting an X gender marker, leaving countless non-binary, intersex, and gender-nonconforming individuals in legal uncertainty. This decision impacts future applicants and those requiring passport renewal or updates.
The X gender marker was introduced under the Biden administration as part of broader efforts to broaden recognition of gender diversity in federal documentation. The first U.S. passport with an X designation was issued in October 2021, marking a historic shift toward inclusivity. This decision aligned the U.S. with countries such as Canada, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand, which already offered non-binary gender options on official paperwork.
Jessica Stern, former U.S. Special Envoy for LGBTQ+ Rights, hailed the introduction of the X marker as “a momentous step,” stating, “The addition of a third gender marker propels the U.S. forward toward ensuring that our administrative systems account for the diversity of gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics among U.S. citizens.” Now, that progress has been eradicated.
In an internal memo obtained by The Guardian, Secretary of State Marco Rubio instructed State Department employees and stated: “Suspend any application requesting an X sex marker. Suspend any application where the applicant is seeking to change their sex marker.”
Individuals with pending passport applications and X-gender requests will no longer be processed. The State Department has not provided alternative solutions for those affected, creating uncertainty about how they will navigate travel, employment, or legal identification.
While existing X-marker passports remain valid, concerns have been raised. Firstly, no guidance has been given on whether X marker holders can renew their passports. Secondly, individuals traveling with X-marker passports could encounter heightened scrutiny at customs in countries that no longer recognize the designation. Lastly, U.S. citizens with an X passport but other legal documents (such as Social Security records or state-issued IDs) marked as male or female may encounter challenges with verification processes in federal and international systems.
Reactions and Legal Disputes
LG/BT/Q+ advocacy groups have denounced the executive order, denouncing it as a direct assault on the rights of transgender and non-binary individuals. President of GLAAD, Sarah Kate Ellis, condemned the decision and remarked, “Transgender people are already serving in the military with honor and keeping our country and military safer and stronger. They meet the same rigorous health and readiness standards and continue to do so. The Trump administration’s inaccurate statements and rhetoric targeting transgender people are not based on facts.”
Legal experts anticipate a surge of lawsuits contesting the constitutionality of the executive order. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has already indicated intentions to file an injunction, arguing that the order discriminates against a legally recognized group of individuals.
Legal challenges to the executive order are expected to revolve around multiple arguments. Advocates contend that the policy infringes upon the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against non-binary individuals and compelling them to misrepresent their identity on official documents. Another crucial legal contention involves administrative law, with opponents asserting that the State Department lacks the authority to suspend X gender passports without proper legislative oversight retroactively. Furthermore, human rights organizations have raised alarms regarding potential violations of U.S. treaty obligations, emphasizing that this policy shift may undermine identity protections recognized by international law.
What to Do If Affected
Passports issued with an X gender marker remain valid for the time being, but individuals may encounter challenges when updating or renewing them down the line. It is critical to monitor passport expiration dates, as currently valid passports can still be utilized for travel until they expire.
Those eligible for renewal should contemplate doing so at the earliest opportunity to avoid possible limitations if the policy becomes stricter. Staying abreast of legal developments is also crucial, as multiple advocacy groups and legal organizations are actively contesting the executive order, and forthcoming court rulings could impact passport regulations.
Individuals who applied for an X gender marker passport before the executive order went into effect should first reach out to the U.S. State Department to check the status of their application. Many applications may have been placed on hold or rejected due to the policy modification. Seeking legal counsel can also be beneficial, as groups like the ACLU and Lambda Legal offer assistance and guidance for those affected by gender-related documentation policies.
Non-binary individuals traveling with an X-gender passport may face hurdles due to discrepancies in U.S. policy and international recognition. Some countries might refuse entry or question passport validity, emphasizing the need to consult the embassy of the destination country before making travel arrangements. Airlines and TSA may demand supplementary verification if passport details do not align with official policies. Carrying supporting documentation, such as a state-issued ID or previous passport records, can assist in mitigating potential challenges. While U.S. consulates provide limited aid in cases of refusal at borders or discrimination, consular officers must now adhere to updated federal documentation rules.
The Future of Gender Identity Documentation in the U.S.
Trump’s executive order has revamped federal gender documentation policies, eliminating the X gender marker choice for passports and reinforcing a binary definition of sex. These adjustments impact numerous non-binary Americans, sparking worries about legal recognition, travel rights, and broader civil liberties.
Legal disputes are underway, with advocacy groups and civil rights organizations contending that the order violates constitutional safeguards and anti-discrimination statutes. Court decisions in the forthcoming months may determine the fate of the policy. The introduction of the X gender marker by the Biden administration in 2021 was viewed as a significant stride toward inclusivity, and its abrupt reversal underscores the profound political schism over gender identity rights in the U.S.
Beyond legal skirmishes, the new policy instigates uncertainties concerning future federal documentation regulations. If successfully challenged, passport choices may be reinstated; however, if upheld, similar restrictions could extend to other government-issued identification.
Feel free to SHARE this article with your loved ones!
A horror movie is so gross and disturbing that it’s been banned in more than 40 countries. In fact, someone even got arrested for showing it!
Warning: The content of this piece may upset some readers.
Most people enjoy getting a little scared by a horror movie every once in a while, right? The kind that’s packed with blood, guts, and surprise moments that you can’t forget.
But do you think you could handle the most talked-about horror movie out there? This one is on another level.
We’re not talking about something like Sydney Sweeney’s Immaculate, which might cause a little buzz because of its satanic themes.
We’re talking about a horror movie so extreme that it’s been banned in over 40 countries. Yes, seriously!
It even got a film festival director in trouble, and he was arrested for showing it.
The movie we’re talking about? A Serbian Film. And believe me, I’m not exaggerating with how intense it is.
The story follows Milos, a retired Serbian porn star, who gets an offer to star in one last movie for a lot of money.
But soon, he finds himself stuck in a horrifying snuff film, filled with such disturbing sexual scenes and violence that some of it is too shocking to even explain.
When the director, Srđan Spasojević, was interviewed by Indiewire about what inspired the film, he said: “We wanted to show our true feelings about our region and the world. On the surface, everything seems polite and politically correct, but underneath, it’s really messed up.”
Released in 2010, the movie caused a huge controversy.
To be shown in any country, major cuts had to be made just to get a rating.
In the US, about a minute was cut to get an NC-17 rating.
In the UK, they had to cut a massive three minutes and 48 seconds from 11 different scenes just to show it in theaters.
In 2011, a bold film festival director, Angel Sala, got into trouble and was charged with “exhibiting child pornography” after a Roman Catholic group complained about a screening of the movie.
Although the charges were dropped, Sala could have faced a year in prison if things had gone differently.
Out of the 46+ countries that have banned the film, big ones like Spain, Australia, and Malaysia won’t allow it to be shown at all.
Critics are divided on A Serbian Film. Some admire the director’s vision, while others call it “disgusting.”
Film critic Mark Kermode said, “The director claims it’s symbolic, but if that’s true, the message gets lost in the ridiculous gore.”
“The most frustrating part is that regular torture porn is bad enough, but when it tries to be deep and artsy, it’s even worse.”
If you’re still thinking, “Hmm, I might give it a try,” a top review on IMDB might change your mind. It says: “I heard about this movie on YouTube, someone said don’t watch it, it’s made to disturb you. But I didn’t listen, and now I feel like throwing up. Please don’t watch this, just don’t, I’m literally crying right now.”
After reading that, I’m thinking I’ll take their advice.
If you’re in the US and still curious, A Serbian Film is available on Vudu.
But honestly? I’d skip it. Seriously.
Leave a Reply