Reporting indicates that the Trump admin is considering requiring gun applicants list their "biological sex at birth," which could put them in a bureaucratic catch-22 if it does not match their ID.
So you have to prove your sex in order to be entitled to your second amendment right now? Let's put aside trans people for a second, how is that not just discrimination by sex? So intersex people don't have second amendment rights?
So there's no federal licence requirement, or safety requirement, no requirement to know how to actually operate a gun at all, but "sex" at birth will be required?
Oooookay. Love to see how they try to spin this as somehow not being simple bigotry.
There is no federal requirement to be particularly skilled at deciding who to vote for, is there, to exercise that right? Why should there be for this right?
Because voting is materially different from owning and using a gun, in ways that are so obvious I do not believe I need to explain them to you.
And look, I'm pretty pro-second amendment. I think people should be entitled to own some hella dangerous firearms - but we must pair that with a culture of responsibility and safety. And the only way to effectively enforce such a culture is with legal regulations.
In the year of our lord 2026, there are some undeniable rules that anyone using a firearm should know in order to bear arms responsibly, including but not limited to always behaving as if the gun might be loaded, always aiming downrange and never at another person except in extreme circumstance, keeping the safety on, trigger discipline, etc. These are objective in a way that voting preferences are not, and I think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
I'm well aware of what the constitution says, and despite the opinion of the Roberts court, I don't buy that the second amendment is quite as absolute as you're characterizing it to be.
However, I also think you're being intentionally reductive to the point of obtuseness. The original constitution does not speak very much on the right of individual citizens to vote at all, yet we acknowledge today that the right is nearly-absolute (or ought to be) because of centuries of case law and federal statutes - and, most importantly, the Fifteenth Amendment. Behold, the document can (and perhaps should) be changed! There is no need to act like the constitution is a holy text beyond the reach of mortals to alter.
And regardless of your opinion of what the constitution says, that does not alter my point that owning a gun is materially different from voting, in ways that are so obvious that I don't think you need them explained to you - however, I would be happy to supply a quick summation if you are so in need.
Your hi-falutin reverence for a document crafted by very imperfect men is sorely misplaced here.
"I don't buy that the second amendment is quite as absolute as you're characterizing it to be."
Until and unless your views actually become a threat to me, why should I care how much or how you are a blithering idiot? It is as absolute as any, which means until it is misused to create an actual tort, it may not be interfered with.
" The original constitution does not speak very much on the right of individual citizens to vote"
Oh I know that. The right to be armed accruing to all members in good standing of the body politic was first in precedence. We improve this only by enlarging the body politic to be all adults not by due process adjudicated to be violently criminal or insane.
And no, the right to bear arms is not materially different in the only way which is material, which is it's legal recognition.
"And regardless of ... sorely misplaced here."
Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.
Your logical fallacy of special pleading is only that.
It’ll get shot down. It violates the full faith and credit clause. Federal government cannot force you to write something down that’s not on your ID card. Nor can it declare your state issued documents as invalid. I don’t make the rules. But neither do they! 💋
there are so many real problems in the world why does this administration work so hard on ferreting out ways to make trans life more difficult... whoever is behind this is a warped individual...
Do we know if there's a possibility this could potentially be used retroactively to identify and/or take firearms away from transgender individuals who already own them?
What about those of us that already own firearms? My documents are changed. The only concern that I have is that they may use AI to conduct an extensive search for transgender women. I don’t know what they would do with that info.
A Transwoman could still buy a firearm from a private individual if they wanted to. No form 4473 required.
As I understand it they are trying to trip people up when filling out the form for a new purchase without coming out any saying they are preventing trans people from buying guns, hoping the NRA will look the other way.
If that's all they do then I don't see how it would affect past purchases. To make it retroactive I don't think they could mask what they're doing (deciding unilaterally that a specific group of people can't own guns) and then they risk the backlash from gun rights groups.
One more reason to make it absolutely clear that gender identity is biological (even though it's observable only in psychology), and eliminate from public and legal usage the phrases "biological men resp. women." I know there are potential risks, but the likelihood of a transmisic government accepting, but also demanding, some physical diagnostic is extremely low. Acknowledging the *very* powerful evidence of biological basis doesn't detract from any trans person's self-identification.
"Biological sex" does not have an unambiguous meaning and could not withstand real legal scrutiny (the UK high court didn't engage in that). And if they said "AMAB" or "AFAB", then the illegal sex discrimination is overpowering. (Almost in passing: by saying "biological sex at birth" apparently they now believe sex can be changed, after screaming the opposite for so long? Wow.)
"One more reason to make it absolutely clear that gender identity is biological (even though it's observable only in psychology)"
We don't get anywhere we rationally want to be, contesting the idea that we exist and are transgender as a result of biology -- as opposed to something psychiatric in nature.
Inasmuch as Politico is called leftwing about as often as it is rightwing, I'll use them as a apropos source. We aren't going much of anywhere, when the lawyers "on our side" refuse to restrict their arguments to biological reality. Testosterone above usual blood levels confers an athletic advantage -- this is not even colorably deniable. An adult MtF athlete whose blood testosterone history, when a material benefit is at issue in an athletic event like a scholarship or prize, could be legitimately required to lower their blood testosterone to cisgender female typical levels for up to 2 years prior to competing. This notably is a criteria applicable to cisgender female athletes who for other medical reasons also have atypically high T. It is a matter for further scientific investigation if youth whose bodies are changing rapidly, also require 2 years to come into accommodation to cisgender norms, and what is an acceptable norm is itself a question at issue. 1 standard deviation? 2? 3? What is the variability among uncontroversially cisgender athletes? Should those who train hard enough they prevent their own periods be counted differently? It gets into "the weeds" quick.
What should be clear, is that a MtF youth who underwent puberty blockade from first signs of Tanner 2 and then HRT, should be in girl's/women's sports -- they are biologically unable to have had any "masculine" advantage.
It is frustrating to me I see the ACLU unable to define "women", and the SoCons deriding this; when plainly the definition which works best is, whose gender has developed more than 50% in a feminine manner -- and -- no apparent interest on either side, in dealing with the actual biology relevant to MtF participation in women's sports.
If it cannot be admitted that testosterone matters, and for that matter is paramount . . . why are we objecting to anabolic doping in any contest?
I've written a half-dozen Substack posts on the athletic issue, to which I'd refer rather than repeating anything here; my point was limited to "Is gender identity biological?" I'm going to publish a series of more focused posts on that as soon as I can get time (unfortunately I do have another job!).
The key point to highlight here, perhaps, on athletics is that yes, of course testosterone is important, but not in the way many think. *Current* concentrations are much more important than long-term averages. Subject of a forthcoming book - another thing that takes time. Meanwhile the posts offer intros to the literature.
I have literally just read through your whole stack, and I have no idea from that where you believe you've referenced any source claiming an instantaneous, day one removal of net athletic advantage from a MtF athlete who is on T blockers/HRT, is even possible let alone measured real.
And yes, I clicked through to sources. A little bit of link rot (the CCES paper, but I already have that one) . . . it doesn't support your "current level" contention over the last several years time reduction period.
The most detailed description in my posts (along with references to the original literature, as always) is in
https://jaynasheats.substack.com/p/calcium-isnt-just-for-white-teeth. However, I was new to Substack then and didn't know how to insert references; I see now that I never went back to revise that one. For that I have to apologize; I'll get to it but not right now. The most important link is in the fourth paragraph of the subsection "Physiology" of
In brief, among the *many* things testosterone does is to control the storage and release of calcium ions in sacs inside each muscle cell (in fact many per cell). Ca*2 is needed for the hydrolysis of ATP (the energy molecule of the body) that causes the muscle contraction. After every contraction it has to be sequestered and then re-released for the next one, in a controlled manner, in order to have proper contractions. What the paper shows is that male-typical testosterone levels dramatically increase the amount of Ca+2 released. This sort of effect was fairly well known in the heart (smooth muscle), but not in striated muscle.
I will have to sign off on this discussion for now, because I have some beyond-urgent deadlines to meet at work. I will continue to post on these issues, and learn how to communicate with lay audiences more effectively.
I wish you ease with your work. Get back to this when you can.
I am not any "lay person", I 've studied the topic for over 45 years at this point, and you are doing the same thing 'phobes do when they hyperfocus on a detail that is not relevant compared to the whole picture -- like when they shriek about larger size or skeletal strength. It is only net athletic advantage that matters.
That declines with time. It takes up to two years.
"The key point to highlight here, perhaps, on athletics is that yes, of course testosterone is important, but not in the way many think. *Current* concentrations are much more important than long-term averages"
We will have to agree to disagree. The idea that only instantaneous T levels are relevant is fatuous. The same way that the body takes time to come into equilibrium with HRT and assume new fat distributions, and strength measures -- should to sane people make that perfectly clear. It is the level for the most recent contiguous time prior to competing which are relevant -- and for example 2 years seems to be the maximum required. Possibly for some sports or ages, 1 month or 6 months, etc, might be all that is needful.
No, there is not any data showing that for example a T blockers administered in the morning after a usual masculine puberty, accomplishes that afternoon what the same does over the course of 2 years. You haven't cited any either, and still will not.
Once again trump the asshole is doing something to hurt the transgender community - this change is nothing more than another attempt to create damage and pain for the transgender community. What they expect to accomplish with this change is nothing mote than continued harassment of a community that just wants to love their lives as anyone else would.
For years, the CDC did the same thing: If you wanted an appointment for a COVID shot, you had to give your "sex assigned at birth" (mandatory question with only two choices - male or female). This was the policy during the Biden Administration. The policy under the dump administration seems to be to sabotage the CDC website so that you can't even use it to get a vaccination appointment, no matter who you are.
I was shocked to hear (perhaps 2 or 3 years ago) from a cisgender friend in Ohio that the motor vehicles department demands to know your "sex assigned at birth" when you have your driver's license renewed.
But yeah, this gun thing is much more disturbing. I think even if everything goes through when an honest answer is given, owning a gun could be a factor that gets a trans person labeled as a danger to society and a national security threat - a so-called "domestic terrorist," if you will.
I totally get how some trans people with few good options feel the need to arm themselves. I would urge them to bypass this entire process. There are ways around background checks, and we should use them.
It's going to get even "wilder" when they start forcible reverting the identifications of trans people who fully changed all of their legal paperwork...then claim some kind of fraud when there are mismatches...
So you have to prove your sex in order to be entitled to your second amendment right now? Let's put aside trans people for a second, how is that not just discrimination by sex? So intersex people don't have second amendment rights?
Well, according to them, we don’t exist. So I suppose androgynous born don’t have any constitutionally protected rights… according to the GOP anyway.
For a cis person making a mistake on the form would be a slap on the wrist. For us they’ll throw the book at us.
After they get done re-institutionalizing sexism, re-institutionalizing racism will be next.
So there's no federal licence requirement, or safety requirement, no requirement to know how to actually operate a gun at all, but "sex" at birth will be required?
Oooookay. Love to see how they try to spin this as somehow not being simple bigotry.
There is no federal requirement to be particularly skilled at deciding who to vote for, is there, to exercise that right? Why should there be for this right?
Because voting is materially different from owning and using a gun, in ways that are so obvious I do not believe I need to explain them to you.
And look, I'm pretty pro-second amendment. I think people should be entitled to own some hella dangerous firearms - but we must pair that with a culture of responsibility and safety. And the only way to effectively enforce such a culture is with legal regulations.
In the year of our lord 2026, there are some undeniable rules that anyone using a firearm should know in order to bear arms responsibly, including but not limited to always behaving as if the gun might be loaded, always aiming downrange and never at another person except in extreme circumstance, keeping the safety on, trigger discipline, etc. These are objective in a way that voting preferences are not, and I think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
"Because voting is materially different from owning and using a gun"
That is your duplicitously to the point of being silly pretension. They are not constitutionally different.
"And the only way to effectively enforce such a culture is with legal regulations."
No, only with laws dealing with tortuous, consequential, misuse -- and no a priori restrictions are to be tolerated.
"These are objective in a way that voting preferences are not, and I think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise."
What is intellectually dishonest is to pretend what you are obsessed with justifying, itself changes the constitution.
We'll need to agree to disagree.
I'm well aware of what the constitution says, and despite the opinion of the Roberts court, I don't buy that the second amendment is quite as absolute as you're characterizing it to be.
However, I also think you're being intentionally reductive to the point of obtuseness. The original constitution does not speak very much on the right of individual citizens to vote at all, yet we acknowledge today that the right is nearly-absolute (or ought to be) because of centuries of case law and federal statutes - and, most importantly, the Fifteenth Amendment. Behold, the document can (and perhaps should) be changed! There is no need to act like the constitution is a holy text beyond the reach of mortals to alter.
And regardless of your opinion of what the constitution says, that does not alter my point that owning a gun is materially different from voting, in ways that are so obvious that I don't think you need them explained to you - however, I would be happy to supply a quick summation if you are so in need.
Your hi-falutin reverence for a document crafted by very imperfect men is sorely misplaced here.
"I don't buy that the second amendment is quite as absolute as you're characterizing it to be."
Until and unless your views actually become a threat to me, why should I care how much or how you are a blithering idiot? It is as absolute as any, which means until it is misused to create an actual tort, it may not be interfered with.
" The original constitution does not speak very much on the right of individual citizens to vote"
Oh I know that. The right to be armed accruing to all members in good standing of the body politic was first in precedence. We improve this only by enlarging the body politic to be all adults not by due process adjudicated to be violently criminal or insane.
And no, the right to bear arms is not materially different in the only way which is material, which is it's legal recognition.
"And regardless of ... sorely misplaced here."
Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.
Your logical fallacy of special pleading is only that.
... and with that, I think you've managed to reveal more about your own character and intelligence than you've said about mine.
White guys do the vast majority of the shootings but we get the blame. Got it, we are expendable.
if we had the power they seem to think we do what a wonderful world it would be!
It’ll get shot down. It violates the full faith and credit clause. Federal government cannot force you to write something down that’s not on your ID card. Nor can it declare your state issued documents as invalid. I don’t make the rules. But neither do they! 💋
Hello daughter! Love you. Will call you soon. Have some new stuff to show you.
there are so many real problems in the world why does this administration work so hard on ferreting out ways to make trans life more difficult... whoever is behind this is a warped individual...
Do we know if there's a possibility this could potentially be used retroactively to identify and/or take firearms away from transgender individuals who already own them?
sure, why not... this administration doesn't need any excuse to tromp over us...
What about those of us that already own firearms? My documents are changed. The only concern that I have is that they may use AI to conduct an extensive search for transgender women. I don’t know what they would do with that info.
A Transwoman could still buy a firearm from a private individual if they wanted to. No form 4473 required.
As I understand it they are trying to trip people up when filling out the form for a new purchase without coming out any saying they are preventing trans people from buying guns, hoping the NRA will look the other way.
If that's all they do then I don't see how it would affect past purchases. To make it retroactive I don't think they could mask what they're doing (deciding unilaterally that a specific group of people can't own guns) and then they risk the backlash from gun rights groups.
Under no pretext.
One more reason to make it absolutely clear that gender identity is biological (even though it's observable only in psychology), and eliminate from public and legal usage the phrases "biological men resp. women." I know there are potential risks, but the likelihood of a transmisic government accepting, but also demanding, some physical diagnostic is extremely low. Acknowledging the *very* powerful evidence of biological basis doesn't detract from any trans person's self-identification.
"Biological sex" does not have an unambiguous meaning and could not withstand real legal scrutiny (the UK high court didn't engage in that). And if they said "AMAB" or "AFAB", then the illegal sex discrimination is overpowering. (Almost in passing: by saying "biological sex at birth" apparently they now believe sex can be changed, after screaming the opposite for so long? Wow.)
https://jaynasheats.substack.com/p/language-is-important-even-in-the
"One more reason to make it absolutely clear that gender identity is biological (even though it's observable only in psychology)"
We don't get anywhere we rationally want to be, contesting the idea that we exist and are transgender as a result of biology -- as opposed to something psychiatric in nature.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/13/five-takeaways-from-the-supreme-courts-showdown-over-transgender-athletes-00726646
Inasmuch as Politico is called leftwing about as often as it is rightwing, I'll use them as a apropos source. We aren't going much of anywhere, when the lawyers "on our side" refuse to restrict their arguments to biological reality. Testosterone above usual blood levels confers an athletic advantage -- this is not even colorably deniable. An adult MtF athlete whose blood testosterone history, when a material benefit is at issue in an athletic event like a scholarship or prize, could be legitimately required to lower their blood testosterone to cisgender female typical levels for up to 2 years prior to competing. This notably is a criteria applicable to cisgender female athletes who for other medical reasons also have atypically high T. It is a matter for further scientific investigation if youth whose bodies are changing rapidly, also require 2 years to come into accommodation to cisgender norms, and what is an acceptable norm is itself a question at issue. 1 standard deviation? 2? 3? What is the variability among uncontroversially cisgender athletes? Should those who train hard enough they prevent their own periods be counted differently? It gets into "the weeds" quick.
What should be clear, is that a MtF youth who underwent puberty blockade from first signs of Tanner 2 and then HRT, should be in girl's/women's sports -- they are biologically unable to have had any "masculine" advantage.
It is frustrating to me I see the ACLU unable to define "women", and the SoCons deriding this; when plainly the definition which works best is, whose gender has developed more than 50% in a feminine manner -- and -- no apparent interest on either side, in dealing with the actual biology relevant to MtF participation in women's sports.
If it cannot be admitted that testosterone matters, and for that matter is paramount . . . why are we objecting to anabolic doping in any contest?
I've written a half-dozen Substack posts on the athletic issue, to which I'd refer rather than repeating anything here; my point was limited to "Is gender identity biological?" I'm going to publish a series of more focused posts on that as soon as I can get time (unfortunately I do have another job!).
The key point to highlight here, perhaps, on athletics is that yes, of course testosterone is important, but not in the way many think. *Current* concentrations are much more important than long-term averages. Subject of a forthcoming book - another thing that takes time. Meanwhile the posts offer intros to the literature.
I have literally just read through your whole stack, and I have no idea from that where you believe you've referenced any source claiming an instantaneous, day one removal of net athletic advantage from a MtF athlete who is on T blockers/HRT, is even possible let alone measured real.
And yes, I clicked through to sources. A little bit of link rot (the CCES paper, but I already have that one) . . . it doesn't support your "current level" contention over the last several years time reduction period.
The most detailed description in my posts (along with references to the original literature, as always) is in
https://jaynasheats.substack.com/p/calcium-isnt-just-for-white-teeth. However, I was new to Substack then and didn't know how to insert references; I see now that I never went back to revise that one. For that I have to apologize; I'll get to it but not right now. The most important link is in the fourth paragraph of the subsection "Physiology" of
https://jaynasheats.substack.com/p/chapter-3-the-real-science-of-transgender
and it works fine. (https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2002-0164)(It's even open access!)
In brief, among the *many* things testosterone does is to control the storage and release of calcium ions in sacs inside each muscle cell (in fact many per cell). Ca*2 is needed for the hydrolysis of ATP (the energy molecule of the body) that causes the muscle contraction. After every contraction it has to be sequestered and then re-released for the next one, in a controlled manner, in order to have proper contractions. What the paper shows is that male-typical testosterone levels dramatically increase the amount of Ca+2 released. This sort of effect was fairly well known in the heart (smooth muscle), but not in striated muscle.
I will have to sign off on this discussion for now, because I have some beyond-urgent deadlines to meet at work. I will continue to post on these issues, and learn how to communicate with lay audiences more effectively.
I wish you ease with your work. Get back to this when you can.
I am not any "lay person", I 've studied the topic for over 45 years at this point, and you are doing the same thing 'phobes do when they hyperfocus on a detail that is not relevant compared to the whole picture -- like when they shriek about larger size or skeletal strength. It is only net athletic advantage that matters.
That declines with time. It takes up to two years.
"The key point to highlight here, perhaps, on athletics is that yes, of course testosterone is important, but not in the way many think. *Current* concentrations are much more important than long-term averages"
We will have to agree to disagree. The idea that only instantaneous T levels are relevant is fatuous. The same way that the body takes time to come into equilibrium with HRT and assume new fat distributions, and strength measures -- should to sane people make that perfectly clear. It is the level for the most recent contiguous time prior to competing which are relevant -- and for example 2 years seems to be the maximum required. Possibly for some sports or ages, 1 month or 6 months, etc, might be all that is needful.
I guarantee I will not make any statements about science that are fatuous 😏. The data is in the references.
No, there is not any data showing that for example a T blockers administered in the morning after a usual masculine puberty, accomplishes that afternoon what the same does over the course of 2 years. You haven't cited any either, and still will not.
Once again trump the asshole is doing something to hurt the transgender community - this change is nothing more than another attempt to create damage and pain for the transgender community. What they expect to accomplish with this change is nothing mote than continued harassment of a community that just wants to love their lives as anyone else would.
You know, I lost all of my guns last week in a tragic canoeing accident down on the Pecos River. Yes, officer, they are all lost.
Yeah . . . the old bit about how if it's time to bury them it's also time to dig them up.
Right!
For years, the CDC did the same thing: If you wanted an appointment for a COVID shot, you had to give your "sex assigned at birth" (mandatory question with only two choices - male or female). This was the policy during the Biden Administration. The policy under the dump administration seems to be to sabotage the CDC website so that you can't even use it to get a vaccination appointment, no matter who you are.
I was shocked to hear (perhaps 2 or 3 years ago) from a cisgender friend in Ohio that the motor vehicles department demands to know your "sex assigned at birth" when you have your driver's license renewed.
But yeah, this gun thing is much more disturbing. I think even if everything goes through when an honest answer is given, owning a gun could be a factor that gets a trans person labeled as a danger to society and a national security threat - a so-called "domestic terrorist," if you will.
I totally get how some trans people with few good options feel the need to arm themselves. I would urge them to bypass this entire process. There are ways around background checks, and we should use them.
Well this is a page right out of the Nazi playbook.
It's going to get even "wilder" when they start forcible reverting the identifications of trans people who fully changed all of their legal paperwork...then claim some kind of fraud when there are mismatches...