I want to be clear that I disagree with the EO; it's not well written, has holes, and (most importantly) is ethically abhorrent. Your first paragraph gives many examples, good job.
But accurate understanding is crucial to effective resistance.
"Sex at time of conception" can ONLY be interpreted as chromosomal sex, as there is no other means of determining sex at that time of development.
The EO doesn't concern itself with which gametes a person ACTUALLY produces, only which ones they WOULD produce based on the zygote's (chromosomal) sex.
Unfortunately this isn't true, which is too bad because it'd be hilarious if it were.
The "everyone is female" thing doesn't apply until the embryonic stage, weeks after fertilization, while the EO specifies "at conception" which is the germinal stage when the offspring is only a zygote. As a zygote it has no phenotypical sex, only chromosomal sex.
"Everyone is female" may be funny, but bad information doesn't help anyone and it certainly doesn't save trans lives.
The only unintended consequence of the EO that I can see is that anyone who's infertile (specifically anyone who doesn't produce sperm or eggs) as a direct result of their DNA is now legally unrecognizable by the federal government.
I hate these "gotcha" responses like the "everyone is female" thing.
Of the many MANY ways that "biological sex" can be determined (phenotype, hormone, etc) the ONLY one that exists at the time of conception when we're not even talking embryo stage yet because there's only one fertilized cell (or two if you want until mitosis begins) is chromosomal sex.
"But we're all female at first" isn't going to hold up in court, and it's NOT going to save trans lives. We need to do better.
Yeah, hypothetically anyway. I technically count as being "in the thousands" because I own my home and car but I have no savings, no retirement, and have only 3 digits in my bank account which will go down to 2 digits soon enough.
That's the tricky thing about "net worth." It can be a very descriptive deceptive way of measuring things.
Edit: is the autocorrect error why I was getting down votes? I can't figure out what else people would be objecting to :(
The biggest reason we (the USA) are losing to fascists is because half of Americans are fascists, whether they realize it or not. And it's been that way for a hundred years (and they were proto fascists, aka Confederates, before that)
Hence "with all due acknowledgement" because I understand that 10 mil is nothing, comparatively.
But I also understand that, to the Amazon warehouse worker with a net worth of a few thousand, or the disabled person who isn't allowed to have a net worth greater than 2 thousand, 10 mil is a a fuck ton of money. You know, comparatively.
So what they're saying is that times have changed and things that used to be considered rights guaranteed by the Constitution need to change with the times.
I'm sure this logic can be applied to other rights as well, as long as those rights aren't laid out in any amendments that come after 1 and before 3.
What's taught in schools: the parents should have a say! Don't let the government decide what to teach our kids!
Books in libraries and content on the internet: the government must step in and make certain content illegal!
Of course, fascists don't care if they're hypocritical. They say whatever gives them the most power in any situation, so calling out hypocrisy won't stop them. It's still good to do, though.
False dichotomy. Sliding further into fascism was something we could have avoided while also recognizing the administration's failure to address the genocide for the very real moral & ethical dilema that it is and give that issue the weight it truly deserves.
It's standard procedure to deny that a sale is happening untill the moment of no return because public reactions to the sale can impact negotiations. Rumors like the are denied no matter what, even if they're true.
So we can't believe them, but we also can't say for sure their lying. Basically we just have to wait and see.
My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.
Only because The Party has no regard for the truth. If, in 1984, The Party were concerned with truth at all then thought crime would also be concerned with the truth. This is because the real definition of thought crime in the context of that story is any thought that isn't approved by The Party.
But you've brought the phrase "thought crime" out if that context and into the real world. Here, truth matters.
Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less
Completely untrue, and very disturbing that you'd think otherwise.
anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid
That's not why you're stupid, it has nothing to do with me.
Liberalism is all about maintaining the status quo and not rocking the boat. Liberals are useless when significant change needs made. For that, you have to move away from the center at least a little bit.
Guarantee you most of the infighting the article mentioned was the more Progressives members pointing out that the proposed bills aren't sufficient to cause real change, and the Liberal members fighting to keep it that way.
Indeed, the whole point of my comment is that your definition is bad because it doesn't take into account if something is true or not. Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.
I'm not accusing you of thought crime, I'm accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.
In the context of trans people, anti trans rhetoric goes away beyond "unapproved" or "unpopular" though. It's straight up non-factual pseudoscience at best. A lot of it is straight up lies and libel/slander. It does real, lasting harm. That's not "thought crime" as you describe.
I want to be clear that I disagree with the EO; it's not well written, has holes, and (most importantly) is ethically abhorrent. Your first paragraph gives many examples, good job.
But accurate understanding is crucial to effective resistance.
"Sex at time of conception" can ONLY be interpreted as chromosomal sex, as there is no other means of determining sex at that time of development.
The EO doesn't concern itself with which gametes a person ACTUALLY produces, only which ones they WOULD produce based on the zygote's (chromosomal) sex.