I mentioned this elsewhere, but the U.S. is already denying entry visas for transgender travellers, either as a follow-up to this E.O. or based on the same principles as it. This doesn't seem hysterical to me.
This is just misinformation. Requiring factually accurate sex information to be submitted is not the same as discriminating against some group. It’s just common sense.
EDIT - response to defrost’s comment below:
The Australian passport doesn’t require fatally accurate information per your own link:
> Customers who identify as a gender other than male or female (intersex, indeterminate, unspecified, non-binary) may request that the gender in their ATD appear as X.
Sex isn’t a matter of “identifying” as something. It’s a biological reality. Progressive gender ideology cannot alter these facts, and it is unfortunate it has found its way into the identification documents of some countries.
The biological reality being that at birth babies are clearly reproductively male or reproductively female in roughly 98% of cases.
It's less clear for roughly 2% and indeterminate by any single means (chromosones, gametes, external organs) in small percentage ( 0.02% ) of cases.
Because of that biological reality various countries allow for people that were born neither [F] nor [M] to have a third option to avoid them having to lie on their passport.
The Australian passport requires factually accurate information and therefore allows [M], [F], and [X].
How do US border accept this under the current administration in light of the recent note by the current POTUS?
> The Australian passport doesn’t require fatally accurate information per your own link:
>> Customers who identify as a gender other than male or female (intersex, indeterminate, unspecified, non-binary) may request that the gender in their ATD appear as X.
No fatalities are required.
Passport applicants are required to be factually accurate about their identity and how they identify.
Perhaps you might think on that a little.
There is also the very real cases of people that have applied for and hold Australian passports that were born neither [M] nor [F] by any clear apriori definition.
Hence the applications for change, the court cases and the Federal ruling.
There's no real wriggle room wrt the edges cases of 25 million births, not all births fall into the neat buckets of ideal preconceived notions. Empirical observation begs to differ.
