The rule broadly targets ‘gender ideology’ in all entities that receive federal funds, including in academia, education, healthcare, governance, advocacy, discrimination protections, and more.
OMG wow you know a logical fallacy term. See the things is I know I was attacking you and not the argument! That was the point of my comment! You suck for copy paste ai slop.
You didn't even address why anyone should respond with your ai drivel with anything more than other ai drivel.
Tell me. Why do you even know who this sub stack person is? What brought you here? Why bother commenting? Why didn't you just read Grok output and then ask Grok "now respond to what you just wrote as if you're defending the article instead" that's as about as much effort as anyone should put into responding to Grok's "logic".
The article is a partisan opinion piece framed as news, from a explicitly pro-trans advocacy Substack ("Transitics"). It accurately reports the existence and broad contours of the proposed OMB rule "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (published May 29, 2026), but it is heavily slanted in language, selective in emphasis, and contains interpretive overreach, alarmism, and some factual simplifications or unproven assumptions.
Accurate Elements:
Rule basics: It builds on early Trump EOs (e.g., 14168 on "gender ideology," plus others on DEI and youth transitions). It prohibits federal awards from funding, promoting, encouraging, subsidizing, or facilitating DEI/DEIA practices (esp. those violating anti-discrimination law), "gender ideology," and "the so-called ‘transition’ of a child under 19." It applies broadly to entities receiving federal financial assistance (grants, cooperative agreements, etc., covering states, universities, schools, hospitals, nonprofits, etc.). Effective date targeted for Oct. 1, with public comment period.
"Gender ideology" definition: It draws directly from EO 14168, which defines it as replacing biological sex with self-identified gender identity, denying the sex binary, etc. The article quotes this accurately.
Scope: Federal financial assistance is extremely broad under 2 CFR 200 and related statutes. It reaches many public and private entities. Repealing Biden-era protections against discrimination on sexual orientation/gender identity (where tied to federal funding) and adding religious nondiscrimination protections are consistent with the administration's stated goals.
Russell Vought/OMB/Project 2025 links: Vought (OMB Director, Project 2025 figure) is central to such efforts. The rule aligns with conservative priorities to defund certain ideological programs.
Critiques and Corrections:
Loaded, alarmist language ("erase Trans People," "tortured trans prisoners," "destructive," etc.): This is advocacy rhetoric, not neutral analysis. The rule conditions funding on not using it to promote specific ideologies or practices. It does not ban private expression, existence, or most medical care with non-federal funds. Framing policy disagreement over sex-based rights, youth medicalization, and taxpayer funding as "erasure" assumes the contested view that gender identity must be affirmed in all contexts. Biological sex is real, binary in humans for reproduction (with rare DSDs as disorders, not a spectrum undermining the binary), and immutable—core claims the EO and rule defend as scientific, not ideological.
Overstating vagueness and effects: "Gender ideology" is defined with reference to biology denial and mandatory affirmation. Past enforcement (bathrooms, sports, pronouns, passports, federal forms, employee insurance) shows clarity in application: prioritize biological sex where relevant (safety, fairness, privacy). Entities may self-censor to protect funding—this is how conditions work (see Title IX, Title VI precedents). But "erasure from many areas" exaggerates; it targets promotion with federal dollars, not neutral mention or research into comorbidities/detransition/desistance (areas critics argue were suppressed). Pride displays or flags on federally supported buildings could be scrutinized if seen as promotion.
Medicaid/CHIP and youth transitions: The rule reinforces existing pushes against using federal funds for chemical/surgical interventions on minors. Evidence on youth gender medicine is contested (Cass Review in UK, European restrictions, rising detransition reports, weak long-term evidence for benefits vs. risks like infertility/bone density). Many view this as protecting children from hasty medicalization, not "erasure." States can still fund with their own money; federal conditions are common (e.g., on abortion, education).
Religious liberty and nondiscrimination: The article frames protecting religious organizations from discrimination as "legaliz[ing] anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination." This inverts the issue for many: prior rules pressured religious entities (e.g., adoption agencies, schools) to affirm gender ideology against their beliefs. Bostock (sex = gender identity in employment) is narrow; administrations differ on its extension. Restoring sex-based protections aligns with women's rights concerns (sports, shelters, prisons).
Context missing: Rapid rise in youth referrals, especially natal females; social contagion evidence (littman, etc.).
European countries (Sweden, Finland, UK, Norway) restricting youth transitions.
Women's rights pushback (e.g., Lia Thomas, prison cases).
Federal spending limits: Taxpayers shouldn't subsidize contested medical procedures or ideological programs.
DEI critiques: Often led to racial preferences, lowered standards, or compelled speech—ruled problematic under equal protection.
Irony/closing: Claims of "corroded trust" and "stifled research" ignore how prior policies (affirmation-only, suppression of debate) damaged trust among parents, clinicians, and feminists. "Trans people can never really be erased" concedes the hyperbolic premise.
Overall Assessment
The piece correctly identifies a significant policy shift defunding certain trans-related and DEI activities with federal money. This is intentional "deconstruction" of Biden-era priorities, consistent with the election mandate and biological reality as policy baseline. However, it presents one side's maximalist interpretation as fact, uses emotive framing, and downplays tradeoffs (women's rights, child safeguarding, fiscal neutrality, scientific integrity). Readers should review the Federal Register notice directly and consider evidence on sex, youth transitions (e.g., systematic reviews), and federalism. Public comments are open until July 13, 2026. Policy here prioritizes observable biology over self-ID in funded contexts—not "erasure."
I have a vested interest in the topic and write these articles for a primarily trans audience. That absolutely means assuming a few things about my readers' opinions in the language I use. Maybe that's partisan. But Grok is too, and it's controlled by Elon Musk, who is pretty far-right. Not only that, but your prompt was specifically for it to "correct and critique" me—not to break down the article neutrally. Ask other AIs to critique it and see what they tell you, or, better yet, actually read the article yourself rather than relying on AI to do it for you.
"Grok is too, and it's controlled by Elon Musk, who is pretty far-right. Not only that, but your prompt was specifically for it to "correct and critique" me—not to break down the article neutrally."
That does not refute or even address Grok's argument. It is an ad hominem fallacy.
Musk is not far-anything. He is just not a leftist.
Grok's literal FIRST sentence is to say "The article is a partisan opinion piece framed as news, from a explicitly pro-trans advocacy Substack ("Transitics")." That is as ad hominem as my comment was.
If its critique is that my article was partisan and divisive, then critiquing the validity of that assessment is absolutely valid.
Also, Elon is far-right: he's supported Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) and Restore Britain, two political parties that are agreed to be far-right. He also did a nazi salute at Trump's inauguration in case you forgot.
"[Musk] also did a nazi salute at Trump's inauguration in case you forgot."
Delusions do not win arguments. Dismissed.
Edited to add:
You say: "Grok's literal FIRST sentence is to say 'The article is a partisan opinion piece framed as news, from a explicitly pro-trans advocacy Substack ('Transitics').' That is as ad hominem as my comment was."
But Grok continues on to engage with your claims, whereas you only evade Grok's claims.
Wow, I didn't know that was a legitimate debate tactic! Apparently you can just call whatever your opponent says a 'delusion' and immediately dismiss it without any substance? Who knew!
Let me get this straight: you're calling me disingenuous because I refuse to substantially engage with Grok's critique, when you—not Grok, YOU—are refusing to engage with my article at all and critique it yourself. Grok is an AI who can critique my work in seconds. I am a woman with limited time because I actually do my own research and analysis instead of having AI do it for me.
If you want to put the work into critiquing my writing, I will address your grievances. But I will not sink my valuable time into what is essentially debating with an AI.
That is a straw man fallacy. You are tripping. Get a grip.
“I am a woman”
The words “man” and “woman” conventionally refer to sex, not gender or identity (feelings): https://biard.substack.com/p/the-words-man-and-woman-conventionally. Your sex is male, not female, so you are a man, not a woman. I am not judging, erasing, or committing genocide or any other offense; I am just being honest, which is virtuous, kind, and respectful.
“I will not sink my valuable time into what is essentially debating with an AI.”
Suit yourself. I never demanded you refute Grok’s argument. I just pointed out that you failed to refute it. No pressure, if you do not mind effectively conceding to Grok.
You believe everyone who rejects transvestite-confusion—i.e., everyone in touch with reality—is "far right", but meanwhile, a large segment of Democrats including Gavin Newsom see your confusion as a liability.
That does not debunk or even address the facts and logic presented by Grok. It is an ad hominem fallacy with a tantrum. Your inability to use AI is not the argument-winner you believe it is. 😭
Absolutely it's not an argument-winner. But using AI is not argument-winner for you, either. The AI may win and your position may win, but that certainly is not a victory for you.
AI has its time and place. Its place is not in a debate. Its place is not a substitute for meaningful conversation. Your link claims that intellectual deficiency prevents people from using AI. Except I don't use AI to debate because I know that I can do better than it. That's not intellectual deficiency—if anything, it's intellectual deficiency to cede control over your argument over to a machine.
All AI does is substitute honest and creative work with a formulaic and bland reponse. Your reliance on it and insistence that it be respected as an equal worth anyone's time is reflective of the stain that AI overuse is on our society.
I am intersex. I was born with a DSD. I am not a "disorder." The fact that I am being erased by this executive order, which I am, is true, regardless of what Grok says.
No one is being erased! That is delusions and histrionics. 😭
Regarding the part you edited out:
“The fact that you're using Grok automatically says everything that you need to say.”
It says that the year is 2026, and the world is not slowing down for mental defectives like you. 😭
“You have no arguments yourself, no thoughts yourself, no actual opinions. All you do, and people like you, is repeat whatever is told to you and spoonfed to you through the most Nazi AI on the market.”
That does not debunk or even address the facts and logic presented by Grok. It is an ad hominem fallacy. Get your GED, and learn about logical fallacies. Try being rational. 😭
It is true—I am being erased by people like you who ignore the existence of people like me.
The thing is, I have no need to reply to you with actual facts when you can just type a prompt into Grok and post nonsense in reply with your Stanford school board rankings from a decade ago.
Calling someone a mental defect for pointing out that they exist is a tell that you're wasting everyone's time posting links and crying emojis.
I am intersex. I am not a "disorder." I am a naturally occurring variation in sexual dimorphism.
Horrible. I’m curious if this would possibly include EBT/food stamps as well.
Good Goddess, DON'T give them ideas!!!
What would this do for trans people who work in education…?
Wonder what impacts it'll have on trans people who work in Public Service such as federal agencies, and offices in addition to everything else
I say we take away the rights of all men who wear glasses have a pathetic excuse for a beard are balding and wear red ties. Sounds like a plan to me!
OMG wow you know a logical fallacy term. See the things is I know I was attacking you and not the argument! That was the point of my comment! You suck for copy paste ai slop.
You didn't even address why anyone should respond with your ai drivel with anything more than other ai drivel.
Tell me. Why do you even know who this sub stack person is? What brought you here? Why bother commenting? Why didn't you just read Grok output and then ask Grok "now respond to what you just wrote as if you're defending the article instead" that's as about as much effort as anyone should put into responding to Grok's "logic".
I hate this guy.
From Grok: https://x.com/i/grok/share/5bd6f7b4989047379ff4ec5cd98528bf
The article is a partisan opinion piece framed as news, from a explicitly pro-trans advocacy Substack ("Transitics"). It accurately reports the existence and broad contours of the proposed OMB rule "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (published May 29, 2026), but it is heavily slanted in language, selective in emphasis, and contains interpretive overreach, alarmism, and some factual simplifications or unproven assumptions.
Accurate Elements:
Rule basics: It builds on early Trump EOs (e.g., 14168 on "gender ideology," plus others on DEI and youth transitions). It prohibits federal awards from funding, promoting, encouraging, subsidizing, or facilitating DEI/DEIA practices (esp. those violating anti-discrimination law), "gender ideology," and "the so-called ‘transition’ of a child under 19." It applies broadly to entities receiving federal financial assistance (grants, cooperative agreements, etc., covering states, universities, schools, hospitals, nonprofits, etc.). Effective date targeted for Oct. 1, with public comment period.
"Gender ideology" definition: It draws directly from EO 14168, which defines it as replacing biological sex with self-identified gender identity, denying the sex binary, etc. The article quotes this accurately.
Scope: Federal financial assistance is extremely broad under 2 CFR 200 and related statutes. It reaches many public and private entities. Repealing Biden-era protections against discrimination on sexual orientation/gender identity (where tied to federal funding) and adding religious nondiscrimination protections are consistent with the administration's stated goals.
Russell Vought/OMB/Project 2025 links: Vought (OMB Director, Project 2025 figure) is central to such efforts. The rule aligns with conservative priorities to defund certain ideological programs.
Critiques and Corrections:
Loaded, alarmist language ("erase Trans People," "tortured trans prisoners," "destructive," etc.): This is advocacy rhetoric, not neutral analysis. The rule conditions funding on not using it to promote specific ideologies or practices. It does not ban private expression, existence, or most medical care with non-federal funds. Framing policy disagreement over sex-based rights, youth medicalization, and taxpayer funding as "erasure" assumes the contested view that gender identity must be affirmed in all contexts. Biological sex is real, binary in humans for reproduction (with rare DSDs as disorders, not a spectrum undermining the binary), and immutable—core claims the EO and rule defend as scientific, not ideological.
Overstating vagueness and effects: "Gender ideology" is defined with reference to biology denial and mandatory affirmation. Past enforcement (bathrooms, sports, pronouns, passports, federal forms, employee insurance) shows clarity in application: prioritize biological sex where relevant (safety, fairness, privacy). Entities may self-censor to protect funding—this is how conditions work (see Title IX, Title VI precedents). But "erasure from many areas" exaggerates; it targets promotion with federal dollars, not neutral mention or research into comorbidities/detransition/desistance (areas critics argue were suppressed). Pride displays or flags on federally supported buildings could be scrutinized if seen as promotion.
Medicaid/CHIP and youth transitions: The rule reinforces existing pushes against using federal funds for chemical/surgical interventions on minors. Evidence on youth gender medicine is contested (Cass Review in UK, European restrictions, rising detransition reports, weak long-term evidence for benefits vs. risks like infertility/bone density). Many view this as protecting children from hasty medicalization, not "erasure." States can still fund with their own money; federal conditions are common (e.g., on abortion, education).
Religious liberty and nondiscrimination: The article frames protecting religious organizations from discrimination as "legaliz[ing] anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination." This inverts the issue for many: prior rules pressured religious entities (e.g., adoption agencies, schools) to affirm gender ideology against their beliefs. Bostock (sex = gender identity in employment) is narrow; administrations differ on its extension. Restoring sex-based protections aligns with women's rights concerns (sports, shelters, prisons).
Context missing: Rapid rise in youth referrals, especially natal females; social contagion evidence (littman, etc.).
European countries (Sweden, Finland, UK, Norway) restricting youth transitions.
Women's rights pushback (e.g., Lia Thomas, prison cases).
Federal spending limits: Taxpayers shouldn't subsidize contested medical procedures or ideological programs.
DEI critiques: Often led to racial preferences, lowered standards, or compelled speech—ruled problematic under equal protection.
Irony/closing: Claims of "corroded trust" and "stifled research" ignore how prior policies (affirmation-only, suppression of debate) damaged trust among parents, clinicians, and feminists. "Trans people can never really be erased" concedes the hyperbolic premise.
Overall Assessment
The piece correctly identifies a significant policy shift defunding certain trans-related and DEI activities with federal money. This is intentional "deconstruction" of Biden-era priorities, consistent with the election mandate and biological reality as policy baseline. However, it presents one side's maximalist interpretation as fact, uses emotive framing, and downplays tradeoffs (women's rights, child safeguarding, fiscal neutrality, scientific integrity). Readers should review the Federal Register notice directly and consider evidence on sex, youth transitions (e.g., systematic reviews), and federalism. Public comments are open until July 13, 2026. Policy here prioritizes observable biology over self-ID in funded contexts—not "erasure."
I have a vested interest in the topic and write these articles for a primarily trans audience. That absolutely means assuming a few things about my readers' opinions in the language I use. Maybe that's partisan. But Grok is too, and it's controlled by Elon Musk, who is pretty far-right. Not only that, but your prompt was specifically for it to "correct and critique" me—not to break down the article neutrally. Ask other AIs to critique it and see what they tell you, or, better yet, actually read the article yourself rather than relying on AI to do it for you.
"Grok is too, and it's controlled by Elon Musk, who is pretty far-right. Not only that, but your prompt was specifically for it to "correct and critique" me—not to break down the article neutrally."
That does not refute or even address Grok's argument. It is an ad hominem fallacy.
Musk is not far-anything. He is just not a leftist.
Grok's literal FIRST sentence is to say "The article is a partisan opinion piece framed as news, from a explicitly pro-trans advocacy Substack ("Transitics")." That is as ad hominem as my comment was.
If its critique is that my article was partisan and divisive, then critiquing the validity of that assessment is absolutely valid.
Also, Elon is far-right: he's supported Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) and Restore Britain, two political parties that are agreed to be far-right. He also did a nazi salute at Trump's inauguration in case you forgot.
"[Musk] also did a nazi salute at Trump's inauguration in case you forgot."
Delusions do not win arguments. Dismissed.
Edited to add:
You say: "Grok's literal FIRST sentence is to say 'The article is a partisan opinion piece framed as news, from a explicitly pro-trans advocacy Substack ('Transitics').' That is as ad hominem as my comment was."
But Grok continues on to engage with your claims, whereas you only evade Grok's claims.
Wow, I didn't know that was a legitimate debate tactic! Apparently you can just call whatever your opponent says a 'delusion' and immediately dismiss it without any substance? Who knew!
To your edit:
Let me get this straight: you're calling me disingenuous because I refuse to substantially engage with Grok's critique, when you—not Grok, YOU—are refusing to engage with my article at all and critique it yourself. Grok is an AI who can critique my work in seconds. I am a woman with limited time because I actually do my own research and analysis instead of having AI do it for me.
If you want to put the work into critiquing my writing, I will address your grievances. But I will not sink my valuable time into what is essentially debating with an AI.
“you're calling me disingenuous”
That is a straw man fallacy. You are tripping. Get a grip.
“I am a woman”
The words “man” and “woman” conventionally refer to sex, not gender or identity (feelings): https://biard.substack.com/p/the-words-man-and-woman-conventionally. Your sex is male, not female, so you are a man, not a woman. I am not judging, erasing, or committing genocide or any other offense; I am just being honest, which is virtuous, kind, and respectful.
“I will not sink my valuable time into what is essentially debating with an AI.”
Suit yourself. I never demanded you refute Grok’s argument. I just pointed out that you failed to refute it. No pressure, if you do not mind effectively conceding to Grok.
Tell his trans daughter that
"Tell his trans daughter that"
*Son.
You believe everyone who rejects transvestite-confusion—i.e., everyone in touch with reality—is "far right", but meanwhile, a large segment of Democrats including Gavin Newsom see your confusion as a liability.
Where do you find these trans obsessed freaks?
I can't believe the world is creating insane brainless twits who just copy paste ai output as if that's some useful addition to the world.
You put two seconds into confirming your bias and then expect others to respond to it's large driven as if it was worth anyone's time.
Go chew rocks.
That does not debunk or even address the facts and logic presented by Grok. It is an ad hominem fallacy with a tantrum. Your inability to use AI is not the argument-winner you believe it is. 😭
—How Intellectual Deficiency Prevents People from Using AI: https://biard.substack.com/p/how-do-intellectual-deficits-prevent.
—Debunking the Anti-AI Cult: https://biard.substack.com/p/debunking-the-anti-ai-cult.
—See this: https://www.tumblr.com/mynameforthiswebsite/817825936158392320/see-debunking-anti-ai-dysfunction.
Absolutely it's not an argument-winner. But using AI is not argument-winner for you, either. The AI may win and your position may win, but that certainly is not a victory for you.
AI has its time and place. Its place is not in a debate. Its place is not a substitute for meaningful conversation. Your link claims that intellectual deficiency prevents people from using AI. Except I don't use AI to debate because I know that I can do better than it. That's not intellectual deficiency—if anything, it's intellectual deficiency to cede control over your argument over to a machine.
All AI does is substitute honest and creative work with a formulaic and bland reponse. Your reliance on it and insistence that it be respected as an equal worth anyone's time is reflective of the stain that AI overuse is on our society.
I am intersex. I was born with a DSD. I am not a "disorder." The fact that I am being erased by this executive order, which I am, is true, regardless of what Grok says.
I'll pray for you. God bless.
“I am being erased....”
No one is being erased! That is delusions and histrionics. 😭
Regarding the part you edited out:
“The fact that you're using Grok automatically says everything that you need to say.”
It says that the year is 2026, and the world is not slowing down for mental defectives like you. 😭
“You have no arguments yourself, no thoughts yourself, no actual opinions. All you do, and people like you, is repeat whatever is told to you and spoonfed to you through the most Nazi AI on the market.”
That does not debunk or even address the facts and logic presented by Grok. It is an ad hominem fallacy. Get your GED, and learn about logical fallacies. Try being rational. 😭
I achieved academic honors at “the smartest boarding school in America” (https://www.businessinsider.com/st-albans-school-is-the-smartest-boarding-school-in-america-2015-2) and Stanford (in science) (proof: tinyurl.com/57533nnv). Worry about your own mind, and pray for yourself, monkey-brain. 😭
Your inability to use AI is not the argument-winner you believe it is. 😭
—How Intellectual Deficiency Prevents People from Using AI: https://biard.substack.com/p/how-do-intellectual-deficits-prevent.
—Debunking the Anti-AI Cult: https://biard.substack.com/p/debunking-the-anti-ai-cult.
—See this: https://www.tumblr.com/mynameforthiswebsite/817825936158392320/see-debunking-anti-ai-dysfunction.
It is true—I am being erased by people like you who ignore the existence of people like me.
The thing is, I have no need to reply to you with actual facts when you can just type a prompt into Grok and post nonsense in reply with your Stanford school board rankings from a decade ago.
Calling someone a mental defect for pointing out that they exist is a tell that you're wasting everyone's time posting links and crying emojis.
I am intersex. I am not a "disorder." I am a naturally occurring variation in sexual dimorphism.
“This is a blatant effort to exclude trans people from the public sphere and reduce us to second class citizens *at best*.”
You mean honesty about sex, but honesty is a virtue. (Sorry.)