Narrowing the Definition of Sex: A Shift in Federal Policy and Its Implications

A New Era of Policy: Redefining Sex and Gender

In a significant move under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency has released new guidance that narrows the definition of sex, aligning it with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January. This move marks a sharp departure from the inclusive policies of the Biden administration, which had sought to recognize and protect the rights of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals. The HHS guidance, released on Wednesday, defines sex in rigid, biological terms, effectively ignoring the broader scientific understanding of gender as a complex interplay of biology, identity, and culture.

The new definitions are part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to roll back progressive policies on gender and sexuality. The executive order, titled Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, mandates federal agencies to adopt narrower definitions of terms like "sex," "female," "male," "woman," and "man." These definitions prioritize biological determinism over the diverse experiences of individuals who identify as transgender, nonbinary, or intersex. The HHS guidance also includes a video defending a ban on transgender women participating in women’s sports, a move that has sparked widespread controversy.

Redefining Sex: A Departure from Scientific Consensus

The Trump administration’s new definitions of sex and gender are narrowly focused on biological characteristics, with the HHS describing sex as "a person’s immutable biological classification as either male or female." This definition excludes any recognition of gender identity, which refers to an individual’s internal sense of their own gender. Previously, federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), had acknowledged that sex could be more fluid, defining it as "an individual’s biological status as male, female, or something else." The CDC also recognized gender as a separate but related concept, encompassing cultural roles and behaviors associated with biological sex.

However, within days of President Trump’s inauguration, the CDC removed these inclusive definitions from its website, along with hundreds of other pages that acknowledged gender diversity. After legal challenges, a court ordered the restoration of these pages, but they now carry a disclaimer dismissing "gender ideology" as "extremely inaccurate and disconnected from the immutable biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female." The HHS guidance released this week takes this a step further, explicitly narrowing the definition of sex and excluding any mention of gender identity.

The Impact on Health and Science: A step Backward for Inclusivity

The narrowing of sex and gender definitions under the Trump administration has far-reaching implications for health care, scientific research, and civil rights. Legal and health experts have criticized the move, arguing that it ignores the complexity of human experience and violates scientific principles. Michele Bratcher Goodwin, a health law professor at Georgetown University, called the definitions "unscientific" and "unconstitutional," pointing out that they dismiss the lived realities of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals.

The HHS guidance also has practical consequences for health care providers and researchers. Narrow definitions of sex can limit the scope of medical research, excluding individuals who do not conform to the male-female binary. For example, surveys and studies that once included data on transgender youth may now be restricted, potentially perpetuating health disparities. Omar Gonzalez, a health law expert with Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, described the new definitions as "showmanship" and "smoke and mirrors," emphasizing that they contradicts peer-reviewed science and fail to reflect the diversity of human experience.

Criticism and Constitutional Concerns: A Threat to Civil Rights

The Trump administration’s efforts to redefine sex and exclude transgender and nonbinary individuals from federal recognition have drawn sharp criticism from civil rights advocates and legal experts. Many argue that the executive order and the HHS guidance are unconstitutional, as they violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts have already begun to push back against similar policies, with a judge recently granting a temporary restraining order related to the housing of transgender prisoners.

Legal experts warn that the new definitions will have real-world consequences for marginalized communities. By erasing the recognition of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals, the federal government is sending a dangerous message that these groups do not exist or do not deserve protection. Bratcher Goodwin emphasized that intersex individuals, who make up an estimated 2% of the US population, are particularly vulnerable under these policies. Intersex people are born with sexual or reproductive anatomy that does not fit neatly into the male-female binary, and their existence challenges the notion of a strict biological divide between the sexes.

The Erasure of Intersex Individuals: A Denial of Reality

The Trump administration’s new definitions of sex and gender completely ignore the existence of intersex individuals, who have been present throughout history and across cultures. Intersex people are not a new or niche group; they are a natural part of human diversity. However, the executive order and the HHS guidance suggest that intersex individuals are invisible or nonexistent. This erasure is not only unscientific but also dehumanizing, as it denies the validity of their experiences and identities.

Bratcher Goodwin condemned the administration’s approach as "sophistry," arguing that it seeks to invalidate the lives of intersex individuals. By defining sex in rigid, binary terms, the federal government is dismissing the complexity of human biology and perpetuating harmful stereotypes about gender. This erasure is particularly damaging for intersex individuals, who already face significant discrimination and marginalization in society.

The Broader Implications: A Battle Over Inclusion and Rights

The debate over the definition of sex and gender is not just about semantics; it is a battle over inclusion, equality, and human rights. The Trump administration’s efforts to narrow these definitions reflect a broader conservative agenda to roll back protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. However, legal experts and civil rights advocates emphasize that the law remains on the side of equality, with federal courts consistently ruling in favor of transgender rights in recent years.

Cait Smith, director of LGBTQI+ policy at the Center for American Progress, described the new definitions as "mean-spirited" and "unscientific," noting that they resemble anti-transgender bills that have been introduced in state legislatures across the country. Smith and other advocates are working to help schools, medical organizations, and other stakeholders navigate these changes while challenging discriminatory policies in court.

Despite the challenges posed by the Trump administration, Smith remains optimistic, pointing out that the law continues to protect transgender individuals from discrimination. While the administration’s actions may create confusion and uncertainty, they do not change the legal landscape. Advocates are prepared to fight these policies, recognizing that the battle for inclusion and equality is far from over.

In conclusion, the narrowing of sex and gender definitions under the Trump administration represents a significant setback for inclusivity and civil rights. By ignoring the complexity of human biology and identity, the federal government is perpetuating harm and discrimination against transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals. However, the resilience of marginalized communities and the commitment of legal advocates give hope for a future where everyone is recognized and protected under the law.