President Trump's executive orders on gender and sexuality

In some of his first acts as the 47^th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump signed two executive orders: “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (Jan. 20, 2025) and “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” (Jan. 28, 2025). These presidential actions are unprecedented and decisive, officially opposing the spread of transgender ideology, promoting common sense notions and traditional understandings of men and women, and stopping the maiming of children (defined as individuals under the age of 19) burdened by gender confusion and seeking physical transition from their biological sex to their perceived gender (e.g., a girl to a boy).

These presidential actions are unprecedented and decisive, officially opposing the spread of transgender ideology.

In this essay, I address what these executive orders are and do as well as offer some theological and practical reflections on them.

“Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (DWGIE)

As for its purpose, DWGIE (Section 1) states,

Across the country, ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women’s domestic abuse shelters to women’s workplace showers. This is wrong.¹

At the heart of this gender ideology extremism stands a rejection of “the ordinary and longstanding use and understanding of biological and scientific terms, replacing the immutable biological reality of sex with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts.” Put simply, this radical ideology depends on the separation of sex from gender. The former term refers to one’s “immutable” biological sex (“biological facts” such as XX or XY chromosomes, female or male genitalia, and the production of ova or sperm) or, as the saying goes, “one’s sex as assigned at birth.”² The latter term refers to one’s “internal” perception of or “subjective” feeling about one’s gender identity and/or gender expression. For example, a man believes that he is actually a woman, or a woman shapes her appearance to be like a man and engages in male-typical behavior.³

To officially challenge this gender ideology extremism, DWGIE (Section 2) declares, “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.” In one sense, this declaration is unremarkable; for most of world history and throughout most of the contemporary world, a fundamental given is that humankind is of (only) two types: male and female. Given gender ideology’s current vice-grip on American society, this presidential policy is necessary to stem and reverse the tide.

DWGIE provides several common sense and traditional definitions of key words in this controversy (with my accompanying commentary on them):

(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.”

(Such a declaration means that a man is a sexed male whether or not he considers his gender to be female. Accordingly, the sex of Bruce Jenner, the 1976 Olympic decathlon champion, is male even though in 2015 he claimed as Caitlyn Jenner that his gender is female.⁴)

(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.

(In other words, a woman is a person who is biologically characterized by her production of eggs [ova], enabling her to be impregnated by a man and thus become a mother. This reproductive capacity is true for all women, both married and single, even if this potentiality is not actualized.⁵)

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

(That is, a man is a person who is biologically characterized by his production of sperm, enabling him to impregnate a woman and thus become a father. This reproductive capacity is true for all men, both married and single, even if this potentiality is not actualized.⁶)

DWGIE (Section 2) continues with a detailed discussion of two key expressions in our contemporary American society:

(f) “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.

(g) “Gender identity” reflects a fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum, that does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.

As for the vast spectrum disconnecting gender from sex, a prevalent example (since Feb. 2014) is Facebook’s 50-plus options for members to identify as their gender. These choices include agender, androgyne, bigender, gender fluid, neither, non-binary, pangender, transman, transwoman, and two spirit.⁷

The inconsistency of this gender ideology is underscored by Helen Joyce: “The central doctrine of gender-identity ideology—that your gender identity is what you say it is—necessarily precludes any objective delineation.”⁸ An example is the self-referential circularity of the word “gender” as expressed in the University of Oregon’s definition of “gender identity”: “a person’s sense of their own gender.” This definition is one entry in the University’s “Trans Glossary;” perplexedly, there is no entry for “gender,” but there are definitions for “agender,” “cisgender,” “gender expression,” “gender role,” “gender queer,” and “transgender.”⁹ As Ryan Welsh questions, “How can any of these definitions, which include the word ‘gender,’ be understood in any rational way if the term ‘gender’ is never defined? The term ‘gender’ has become a word empty of meaning. Appending an adjective to an undefined word renders the term/phrase vacuous; it means everything and, therefore, nothing.”¹⁰

As practical applications of its policy, DWGIE (Section 3) directs federal agencies to begin to use the “sex-based definitions” noted above, enforce laws “to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes,” terminate the term “gender” and use only the term “sex,” and ensure that all official United States documents (for example, passports, visas, and Global Entry cards) “accurately reflect the holder’s sex.”

To summarize, the executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (Jan. 20, 2025) is a decisive move to officially reverse the spread of transgender ideology and promote common sense notions and traditional understandings of men and women. It dovetails well with the second executive order (Jan. 28, 2025).

The executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (Jan. 20, 2025) is a decisive move to officially reverse the spread of transgender ideology and promote common sense notions and traditional understandings of men and women.

“Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” (PCCSM)

As for its purpose, PCCSM (Section 1) states,

Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions. This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation’s history, and it must end.

The section rehearses a tragic outcome of such interventions:

Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding. Moreover, these vulnerable youths’ medical bills may rise throughout their lifetimes, as they are often trapped with lifelong medical complications, a losing war with their own bodies, and, tragically, sterilization.

At the root of this radical “solution” is the contemporary phenomenon of gender dysphoria, which “refers to intense psychological distress or impairment in functioning attributed to the feelings of incongruence between one’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth.”¹¹ Often, such incongruence is seen among teenage girls who are socially awkward, outliers in their schools, anxious and/or depressed, and starving for acceptance and relationships. Once they come out as transgender, they experience much adulation (especially on social media), encouragement, and recognition.¹²

Though statistics show that a high percentage of adolescents emerge out of their gender confusion as they move toward adulthood (98% of these boys and 88% of these girls accept their biological sex after puberty),¹³ some adopt extreme measures to solve their gender incongruence. PCCSM (Section 2) briefly explains these interventions, highlighting three elements:

The phrase “chemical and surgical mutilation” means [1] the use of puberty blockers, including GnRH agonists [gonadotropin-releasing hormones, used primarily to treat infertility, endometriosis, prostate cancer, and fibroids] and other interventions, to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex; [2] the use of sex hormones, such as androgen blockers, estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone, to align an individual’s physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex; and [3] surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual’s physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex or that attempt to alter or remove an individual’s sexual organs to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions. This phrase sometimes is referred to as “gender affirming care.”¹⁴

With all these measures, the hope is to make one’s body conform more to one’s gender identity; that is, for boys and men to appear more feminine and for girls and women to appear more masculine. They are radical solutions to gender incongruence and result in the mutilation of children and adolescents. Dangers include tissue necrosis (damaged or dead body tissue), thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, fistula (an irregular connection between, for example, the bladder or bowel into the vagina), incontinence, loss of sexual function, sterility, and worsening of a behavioral health problem.

To put an end to this mutilation of children, at least officially, PCCSM (Section 1) declares, “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, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”

This executive order places blame for this evil practice on the pseudo-science of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). To offset this organization’s influence in the United States, PCCSM (Section 3) directs the appropriate government agencies to research and provide scientifically grounded “practices for improving the health of minors with gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other identity-based confusion, or who otherwise seek chemical or surgical mutilation.”¹⁵

While President Trump’s executive orders appear unprecedented, they are not in their sentiment. At the SBC annual meeting in June 2023, Southern Baptists affirmed a resolution “On Opposing ‘Gender Transitions,” appealing to both Scripture and the Baptist Faith and Message (Article III) in condemning “gender-affirming care” and “gender transition” intervention.¹⁶ More recently, the ERLC was a clear voice on this issue, urging the incoming president to take decisive steps to reverse Biden administration policies:¹⁷

The ERLC asked the Trump administration to undo a harmful executive order, “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation,” signed by President Biden.¹⁸ This executive order directed each federal agency to develop new policies that promote “gender transitions” and violate religious liberty to support unbiblical views of gender and sexuality.

The ERLC asked the Trump administration to undo several federal rules finalized by the Biden administration to uphold religious liberty, empower parents, and shield children from dangerous gender ideology, starting by:

Theological and Practical Reflections

A theology of human embodiment stands against the extremism of gender ideology and provides a theological foundation from which to address the fact of only two genders (and to reject the idea of many genders). It further attends to the suffering due to gender dysphoria, transgenderism, and the extreme measures being employed today to (incorrectly and harmfully) rectify such suffering.²²

This theology is grounded on the Bible’s rehearsal of the creation of human beings in Genesis 1:26-28. First, the triune God deliberated concerning the creation of humankind as his image bearers who would rule over the created order (v. 26). Second, God actualized his purpose: he created humankind in his divine image such that there were male-gendered image bearers and female-gendered image bearers (v. 27). Finally, God gave the cultural mandate, a charter he established with humankind to build society for human flourishing (v. 28). Importantly for this discussion, for human beings to carry out their divinely designed purpose, they are and must be embodied image bearers. Embodiment is the proper state of human existence. In this earthly life, if we are not embodied, we do not—even more, we cannot—exist, nor can we fulfill the charter that God has established with us, his image bearers. God has created us to be embodied people, so we embrace our created embodiment.

Furthermore, because sex (maleness or femaleness) maps on to embodiment, it is an essential given of human existence. God’s design for his human creatures is that we are male-gendered embodied image bearers or female-gendered embodied image bearers. Put simply, we are gendered all the way down.

God’s design for his human creatures is that we are male-gendered embodied image bearers or female-gendered embodied image bearers. Put simply, we are gendered all the way down.

This theology of created and sexed embodiment (1) contradicts gender ideology extremism that denies “the immutable biological reality of sex” and seeks to replace this unchangeable reality “with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts;” (2) underscores the reality of only two sexes—male and female—and negates the notion of 50-plus genders; and (3) offers hope to adolescents struggling with their sense of sex by pointing them to the One who created them as they are—male or female—and who will provide concrete help through his Word, the Holy Spirit, sympathetic and compassionate family members, leaders, and friends. As Christians and churches who come alongside to assist these struggling image bearers, we need to be ready to care for and support them in both the short- and long-term as they wrestle with their identity. Having a firm theological foundation does not necessarily make conversations and care easier, but it does provide us with a starting point for such engagement. As the above SBC resolution urged, we are to “extend the love of Christ, who can save anyone who would call on his name, as well as compassionate care and tender mercy to those experiencing identity or body-related distress and/or are currently undergoing or have undergone ‘gender transition’ interventions.”²³

We are to “extend the love of Christ, who can save anyone who would call on his name, as well as compassionate care and tender mercy to those experiencing identity or body-related distress and/or are currently undergoing or have undergone ‘gender transition’ interventions.”

Some may question how executive orders issued by the president of the United States can have any impact on these issues; indeed, some would insist that they are worthless at best and damaging at worst. However, I believe they can help. A recent British study published in The Archives of Disease in Childhood reported “there was a 50-fold increase in recorded prevalence of gender dysphoria among patients 18 or younger in primary care settings in England between 2011 and 2021.”²⁴ Though the scientists did not study the causes for the disconcerting uptick in adolescent gender incongruence, they proposed that social and cultural factors—“a greater acceptance and awareness of gender differences, increased social media use, and increased rates of poor mental health”—may have contributed to the rising rate.²⁵ The study did suggest that the presence of eating disorders, suicide and/or self-harm, depression and/or anxiety, autism spectrum disorder, adverse childhood experiences (e.g., emotional and/or sexual abuse), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may be higher in adolescents who are referred to gender services than in the general population.²⁶

Assuming a similar alarming trend among adolescents in the United States, and assuming some contribution of social and cultural influences to this trend, I propose that these two executive orders may help to reduce such influences. If American society, prompted by these directives, begins to reverse the spread of transgender ideology, affirms the existence of only two sexes, and halts the mutilation of adolescents, then new cultural and social factors will begin to influence these vulnerable youths positively. As gender fluidity is no longer promoted in the mainstream as normative, adolescents may once again recognize their sex as natural and immutable. Additionally, young people who are currently reluctant to talk with their peers about these issues because it is not socially and culturally acceptable to do so, may take heart and speak up. Furthermore, vulnerable girls and young women, especially, will be better protected as sports, dressing rooms, bathrooms, and other spaces are enforced as sex-specific. Such appeal to governmental directives is certainly not ultimate—that foundation belongs to God, Scripture, and a robust theology of created and sexed embodiment. However, it may serve an auxiliary purpose to stem the tide of gender ideology and adolescent mutilation, which is exactly what these two executive orders are intended to do.