JonathanReez

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting

But nope, just a complete, disgusting, harmful lie that will affect the lives of tens of thousands transgender tourists to the U.S. And of course if you call them out and ask for proof you’ll be marked as a trans phobic MAGA fascists. How dare you?

Wow. Just wow. It’s amazing to what degree people are willing to lie to achieve fame and make a political statement. Screen shot a fake email at least. Quote the attorney with some cursive! ANYTHING

@littleadv great news. Zero examples of any refusals to trans individuals at any consulates or border crossings, at least zero where that person actually uploaded any paperwork whatsoever proving that the incident actually happened. The only person I could find is a musician who didn’t as much quote the alleged email from an attorney instagram.com/p/DIT-0OuuvOA/?igsh=ZGpqdmVmamxvcXFt

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@NoDataDumpNoContribution several decades with zero examples of the approach yielding better results than in the U.S. and… somehow that’s still not enough? Would 100 years be enough? 200? It’s just absurd to claim that something of this sort can be “scientific” when no benchmarks are set for reconsideration of the approach and no cost benefit analyses have ever been run or even seriously proposed. The right answer is “because voters are illiterate”, just like with nuclear energy - but alas that’s somehow controversial to admit?..

I’m voting to close this question because it was intentionally misinterpreted by the downvoters due to their inability to provide a valid answer.

@NoDataDumpNoContribution there’s been a claim that this theory is wrong and the precautionary principle is in fact a science backed approach? So I wanted to hear what that mistake was exactly. Is it a scientific approach? If so examples should be a plenty. Is it not? Then I don’t see why anyone would say I’m wrong?

@quarague that's a good answer right there!

@NoDataDumpNoContribution even EU's own scientists have long agreed that there's no GMO risks...

@NoDataDumpNoContribution not really? If the precautionary principle never once proven correct in many decades (compared to the US system) then its clearly not based on any real 'dangers'...

@ItalianPhilosopher oh yeah - thalidomide is a great example of how an initial success turned into a tragedy as the increased drug approval timelines since then probably cost tens of millions of QALYs lost due to people dying or becoming disabled due to delays and vastly increased costs of drug trials. Thalidomide and Tuskegee are both magic incantations that are supposed to shutdown all debate. Things are slowly improving but it will probably take decades more to get into a reasonable equilibrium…

@Lag could you please expand on that? My interest is in confirming whether the EU’s persistent squabbles over U.S. exports being dangerous are actually grounded in reality, a protectionist boogeyman, or a mix of both.

@StuartF there’s this pervasive claim that allowing chlorinated chicken or GMO crops into the EU will be the end of the world, hand waved as “it’s the precautionary principle, you see”. I want to know if it’s just a clever propaganda tool or if there’s at least one example of these precautions doing anything useful. It’s undeniably clever given how many people parrot it, I’ll give it that, but as for actual effects?.. Let’s see! :-)

@StuartF Slovenia and Belgium have a higher car accident fatality rate per mile traveled - and the data is missing for several EU nations. The per-inhabitant metric is useless as it lumps together places with vastly differing urbanization levels. The most urbanized states have comparable per-inhabitant death rates to European countries of similar density.

I was genuinely surprised to see that claim repeated here though and thought maybe - just maybe - I’m wrong and the European approach has vindicated itself. Alas… no.

Overall this is a thorny subject for many Europeans, especially Germans. The ban on nuclear has been explained away by “nuclear waste! Not solved! Huge deal! Go away!”. But the ban on GMO rice or on chicken that’s been washed with a bit of chlorine is… so absurd that far more convoluted mental tricks have to be invented to avoid the cognitive dissonance.

Not a single example of Americans being burned by their carelessness? Not one?

The truth is highly unpleasant to many Europeans but it is the truth nonetheless. Unless of course you provide one simple example and boom - I’ll be immediately convinced!

You can’t… hence the weaseling and calling me names

@NoDataDumpNoContribution you’re welcome to show at least one example of the EU approach “paying off” in the last 50 years

@NoDataDumpNoContribution several decades with zero examples of the approach yielding better results than in the U.S. and… somehow that’s still not enough? Would 100 years be enough? 200? It’s just absurd to claim that something of this sort can be “scientific” when no benchmarks are set for reconsideration of the approach and no cost benefit analyses have ever been run or even seriously proposed. The right answer is “because voters are illiterate”, just like with nuclear energy - but alas that’s somehow controversial to admit?..

I’m voting to close this question because it was intentionally misinterpreted by the downvoters due to their inability to provide a valid answer.

@NoDataDumpNoContribution there’s been a claim that this theory is wrong and the precautionary principle is in fact a science backed approach? So I wanted to hear what that mistake was exactly. Is it a scientific approach? If so examples should be a plenty. Is it not? Then I don’t see why anyone would say I’m wrong?

@quarague that's a good answer right there!

@NoDataDumpNoContribution even EU's own scientists have long agreed that there's no GMO risks...

@NoDataDumpNoContribution not really? If the precautionary principle never once proven correct in many decades (compared to the US system) then its clearly not based on any real 'dangers'...

@ItalianPhilosopher oh yeah - thalidomide is a great example of how an initial success turned into a tragedy as the increased drug approval timelines since then probably cost tens of millions of QALYs lost due to people dying or becoming disabled due to delays and vastly increased costs of drug trials. Thalidomide and Tuskegee are both magic incantations that are supposed to shutdown all debate. Things are slowly improving but it will probably take decades more to get into a reasonable equilibrium…

@Lag could you please expand on that? My interest is in confirming whether the EU’s persistent squabbles over U.S. exports being dangerous are actually grounded in reality, a protectionist boogeyman, or a mix of both.

@StuartF there’s this pervasive claim that allowing chlorinated chicken or GMO crops into the EU will be the end of the world, hand waved as “it’s the precautionary principle, you see”. I want to know if it’s just a clever propaganda tool or if there’s at least one example of these precautions doing anything useful. It’s undeniably clever given how many people parrot it, I’ll give it that, but as for actual effects?.. Let’s see! :-)

@StuartF Slovenia and Belgium have a higher car accident fatality rate per mile traveled - and the data is missing for several EU nations. The per-inhabitant metric is useless as it lumps together places with vastly differing urbanization levels. The most urbanized states have comparable per-inhabitant death rates to European countries of similar density.

@jay613 no, none of the options listed are illegal in any shape or form whatsoever.

@jcaron the ETA form won't let you declare yourself a UK citizen, so that doesn't seem to be a concern.

@AleksG the passport office page says it takes 2 days to get an appointment though? Or can you just walk in instead and get it same day?

@ohwilleke I certainly hope Joe Biden's career opportunities aren't hurt too much :-)

like I said, 1 in 1000 chance any of it will matter - if it does, you shrug, wait for the next administration - and yes, suffer a bit more hassle when traveling, that's it

@ave Sure - and for others its also not a big deal

The amount of misinformation about this topic is tragic, there are real consequences to scaring a vulnerable group that is the transgender community. They have enough concerns in life and shouldn't be forced to worry about non-existent risks on top of this.

@ave I don't know what the full list of reasons is, main point is that there's no trans-male athletes this could possibly affect, because no such athletes actually compete in international competitions as of 2025, with the exception of a few US-citizen athletes. This was in response to how this EO affects trans-male athletes.

@ave sure - even more reason to ignore the Germany/Finland/Denmark travel notices

I would guess a 1 in 1000 or less chance of one ending up banned from the US due to this EO's effects

But like I said - We have no reason to suspect that such refusals would in fact happen for someone due to the mere fact that they're transgender

People overstate how big of a disaster that is in practice

@ave for a German citizen (OP stated this) this is pretty much never a concern, as they don't really apply for visas in practice. Even if they do, a refusal is not that big of a deal, just takes a consular employee to take a look and that's it.

OK re-read all the EOs/guidances, fixed one mistake, added the note at the end suggesting to see a consulate if all else fails

There's this perception that being denied entry is a disaster of epic proportions, but in practice it's just a boring bureaucratic procedure followed by a flight back home. If you really want to play it safe, you can fly in via the preclearance airports in Dublin or Shannon in Ireland where they have preclearance facilities: then worst case scenario you turn around and fly back home, as US authorities cannot detain you in Ireland

Better grab a chance to go now at a tiny risk of refusal than to wait for 4-8-16 years until the government changes. Note that I'm playing devil's advocate here and I'm highly confident there's nothing to be done about this, because this doesn't say what the LGTBQ+ activists say it does. A ban on entry is not a big deal, let alone one for the most stupid reason imaginable.

@Laurel I mean... if you're a German citizen, you apply for ESTA, you fly in, 99.9% of the time gender doesn't even come up - everything is fine. 0.1% of the time it does, and again - the majority of refusals are 'withdrawals of application', not resulting in a ban. Then absolute worst case scenario... you're banned for a few years... So what? If the alternative is to not go at all, who cares?

@Laurel It's a hypothetical, not something that requires any immediate action