HHS Issues Narrower Definitions of Sex, Sparking Criticism from Legal and Health Experts

[Social Media]

  

In one of his first major actions as secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has issued new guidance that provides a more rigid definition of sex, aligning with a January executive order signed by President Donald Trump. The department also launched a website reinforcing these definitions and released a video defending restrictions on transgender women participating in women’s sports.  

 

According to HHS, the move was prompted by Trump’s executive order titled *“Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,”* which required the agency to provide “clear guidance expanding on the sex-based definitions set forth in the order” within 30 days. The newly issued guidance reflects a shift in federal policy, rejecting broader interpretations of sex and gender identity embraced during the Biden administration in favor of definitions that critics argue exclude transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals.  

 

Both the executive order and the HHS document define terms like "sex," "male," "female," "man," "woman," "boy," and "girl" in a narrow biological sense. HHS’s definition of male states that it is “a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing sperm,” while female is described in terms of reproductive function related to eggs. Additionally, HHS provides definitions for “father” as a male parent and “mother” as a female parent.  

 

The agency’s statement mirrors language from Trump’s order, asserting that sex is “a person’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.” However, it omits a sentence from Trump’s directive that explicitly stated sex “is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’” Unlike the executive order, the HHS document does not directly address gender.  

 

Previously, federal agencies, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), defined sex in broader terms, acknowledging that sex is “an individual’s biological status as male, female, or something else.” The CDC also previously distinguished between sex and gender, defining gender as “the cultural roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes expected of people based on their sex.” Shortly after taking office, the Trump administration removed the CDC website containing these definitions, along with hundreds of other gender-inclusive resources.

 

After legal challenges, a judge ordered the administration to restore the pages, though they now include a disclaimer stating, “Any information on this page promoting gender ideology is extremely inaccurate and disconnected from the immutable biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female.”  

 

Kennedy defended the new definitions as a necessary correction to what he described as the previous administration’s overreach. “The prior administration’s policy of trying to engineer gender ideology into every aspect of public life is over,” he said in a news release. “This restores biological truth to the federal government.”  

 

The new definitions have sparked significant criticism from legal and health experts. Michele Bratcher Goodwin, a professor of health law at Georgetown University and co-faculty director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, argued that the definitions ignore scientific consensus and are legally questionable. “What we’ve seen coming from the Trump administration is to proffer matters that are unconstitutional, that are blatantly illegal, that have been shut down by an array of federal judges,” Bratcher Goodwin said.  

 

Critics warn that these definitions could have far-reaching consequences in healthcare and research. Bratcher Goodwin noted that narrowing the definition of sex could limit data collection on transgender individuals, affecting studies on health disparities and patient care.  

 

Health law expert Omar Gonzalez of Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, condemned the guidance as political theater. “This is just showmanship,” Gonzalez said. “It’s pure smoke and mirrors. It’s a website that links to the very executive orders that we’ve already challenged and even gotten some of them enjoined in court.”  

 

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on February 4 related to one aspect of the executive order, specifically concerning the housing of transgender prisoners.  

Bratcher Goodwin also pointed out that the new definitions fail to acknowledge intersex individuals—those born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not fit typical definitions of male or female. By some estimates, up to 2% of the U.S. population is intersex. “Intersex people have been documented for millennia. It’s nothing new. It’s not as if the president could say, ‘Oh, this is some new trend, some fad,’” she said. “What the president’s executive order and also this guidance suggests is that they’re invisible. That these individuals don’t exist. It’s sophistry.”  

 

Cait Smith, director of LGBTQI+ policy at the Center for American Progress, called the new definitions “mean-spirited” and “unscientific,” arguing that they echo language from anti-transgender legislation introduced in state legislatures across the country. “The law today is no different than the law was yesterday. The law still protects trans folks from discrimination, so that is the reason that we’re seeing a lot of these PR stunts like this announcement,” Smith said. “I think it’s still unclear if they can do more than this at this point without courts intervening like they are.”  

 

Smith and other civil rights advocates are working with schools and medical organizations to interpret the policy changes while simultaneously pursuing legal action to block them. “Unfortunately, this will probably be a problem for a while,” Smith said. “Attempting to sow confusion, that’s easier than actually passing policy.”

 

Based on a report by CNN  2025-02-21

 

 

[mikeymike100]

It's sad that they have to define what 'man', or 'woman', or 'sex' is, everyone used to actually know it!

[soalbundy]

While I consider trans-'women' and trans-'men' to be mentally ill and should be treated as such, being born as an intersex person is a problem that deserves great consideration, these are innocent people who have been thrust into dire circumstances beyond their control which can't just be solved with surgery.

[Bday Prang]

4 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

While I consider trans-'women' and trans-'men' to be mentally ill and should be treated as such, being born as an intersex person is a problem that deserves great consideration, these are innocent people who have been thrust into dire circumstances beyond their control which can't just be solved with surgery.

agreed, but how many of these "intersex|" people are there ?   Very few i would imagine

[soalbundy]

Just now, Bday Prang said:

agreed, but how many of these "intersex|" people are there ?   Very few i would imagine

2% of the American population is a big number.

[thaibeachlovers]

HHS Issues Narrower Definitions of Sex,

 

I came on expecting something along the lines of Clinton's denial of having sex, but I was disappointed to read that it's about gender.

 

Anyway, despite the woke hysteria from the usual suspects, there ARE only 2 genders or "sex" if you will.

Anyone can put on a dress and claim to be female, but it does not make anyone an actual real girl. Perhaps they should ask the Blue Fairy to make them a real girl, as that is their only hope.

 

To be clear, I have nothing against any guy pretending to be a girl, if that floats their boat, or a cat or a llama, but don't expect me to pretend that they are. I notice that the furore doesn't extend to f to m, but perhaps that is because so many already dress like men, and are as feminine as a navvy.

[Thingamabob]

There should be two categories, male and female. Additionally those born with unclear reproductive anatomy , traditionally known as hermaphrodites, more recently as intersex, should be allowed to choose in which if the two categories they wish to be referenced. Trans people are either male or female, whatever their sexual preference.

[Bday Prang]

4 hours ago, soalbundy said:

2% of the American population is a big number.

2%   really ?   I have difficulty believing that             0.02% is more likely

[LukKrueng]

4 hours ago, soalbundy said:

2% of the American population is a big number.

Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.

 

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/

[soalbundy]

57 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

2%   really ?   I have difficulty believing that             0.02% is more likely

I was just going on what the article stated, I have no knowledge on the subject. I did watch a YouTube Program about several families who had to deal with this in the UK, the families and the doctors were incredibly empathetic and the courage of the children/adults affected was heart warming and demanded respect.

[nomad22]

5 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

It's sad that they have to define what 'man', or 'woman', or 'sex' is, everyone used to actually know it!

 

I find it much more sad that the Health and Human Services secretary's top priority is writing a dictionary.

[mikeymike100]

11 hours ago, soalbundy said:

2% of the American population is a big number.

2% is a highly inflated figure..........A more moderate range often cited by medical and advocacy groups, based on noticeable genital ambiguity at birth requiring specialist input, is 1 in 1,500 to 1 in 2,000 births (0.05% to 0.07%). This would suggest between 172,500 and 241,500 intersex individuals in the U.S. today. The Intersex Society of North America (now succeeded by InterACT) supported this range for clinically significant cases, though it acknowledged subtler variations might push the number higher.

[mikeymike100]

5 hours ago, nomad22 said:

 

I find it much more sad that the Health and Human Services secretary's top priority is writing a dictionary.

Lexicographers write dictionaries,  this guy is just writing common sense and is sad, that he has to!

[Jingthing]

I'm angry that the fascists are kicking out all transgender people from the military. They are all volunteers who were willing to serve their country and the government spent a lot of money training them.  So now they're being erased for purely ideological reasons. Disgusting and unfair!

With maga, cruelty (and ignorance) is the point.

[mogandave]

In my life, as far as I know, I have nevee seen an actual  intersex individual. I have read about a few. 

 

In my life, I have seen two pair of “Siamese” twins.

 

I have seen quite a few albinos, and they are something like 1 in 15,000. 

 

So 2% seems a bit suspect.

 

[mogandave]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'm angry that the fascists are kicking out all transgender people from the military. They are all volunteers who were willing to serve their country and the government spent a lot of money training them.  So now they're being erased for purely ideological reasons. Disgusting and unfair!

With maga, cruelty (and ignorance) is the point.

If they have a medical situation that bars them from deploying, why should they be in the ranks?

 

Should a guy with no legs be allowed to enlist? 

 

And why should the military be on the hook for all their medications for life?

 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

If they have a medical situation that bars them from deploying, why should they be in the ranks?

 

Should a guy with no legs be allowed to enlist? 

 

And why should the military be on the hook for all their medications for life?

 

Who said they can't be deployed?

It's the policy of the maga fascist movement to ERASE transgender people. 

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Who said they can't be deployed?

It's the policy of the maga fascist movement to ERASE transgender people. 

The US military has said all along they can’t. They are dependent on their transition/maintenance drugs that cost, as I understand it, in excess of $100k a year. .

 

And they join and get  surgeries on the military’s budget. What sense does thst make?

 

Erase in what way? You assume that because you are full of hate for “MAGAs”, that they hate you. I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re a liar and a fool, but don’t hate you. 

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

The US military has said all along they can’t. They are dependent on their transition/maintenance drugs that cost, as I understand it, in excess of $100k a year. .

 

And they join and get  surgeries on the military’s budget. What sense does thst make?

 

Erase in what way? You assume that because you are full of hate for “MAGAs”, that they hate you. I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re a liar and a fool, but don’t hate you. 

LIES!

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

LIES!

You are nothing if not consistent.

[Jingthing]

58 minutes ago, mogandave said:

You are nothing if not consistent.

Maga is consistent.

 

https://apnews.com/article/discrimination-equal-employment-opportunity-trump-trans-samuels-00de2a3c8d5068e83f6ac1d9a073fc02

 

 

Dismissed EEOC commissioner warns that Trump plans to ‘erase the existence of trans people’