After his executive order on sex, is Grump really the first female president?

"Indeed, some critics noted that because the undifferentiated genitalia that males and females share very early in fetal development are “phenotypically female”, you could argue he just made everyone legally female.

There are lots of factors that contribute to how we think about sex, including physical characteristics, hormone levels, gamete size (larger gametes are eggs while smaller gametes are sperm), sex chromosomes, etc. Trump’s executive order seems to tie sex to just gamete size at conception. This is despite the fact that a lot of academics have moved away from a sex-classification system based primarily on gametes because some people will never produce a gamete." 

The Week in Patriarchy @ The Guardian 

Discussing Sonia Sotomayor's retirement is not sexist-- it's strategic, says Arwa Mahdawi in The Guardian

Okay, not necessarily sexist, but as strategy it is kind of doomy (it only matters if the Dems lose) and an irrelevant side issue, no? Why would 7-2 be much worse than 6-3? They're still winning every politically partisan decision either way. Yeah, hopefully Sotomayor is cognizant of what happened with RBG-- how could she possibly not be?!-- and is trying to be responsible about it.

Anyway, I like Arwa Mahdawi's column The Week in Patriarchy in The Guardian; smart, funny, likes to dish dirt, and is a hard-nosed commonsensical liberal left feminist, as far as I can tell. I try to read her column regularly. 

My alternative question: How is Thomas not being recused with Ginni's involvement in Jan 6 and MAGA's attempts to overthrow the government? 

SCOTUS is already gone, lost, being more lost is no welcome prospect, but reforming the Court and overturning Dobbs and reinstating basic women's rights with winning Democratic majorities is far more urgent than worrying about Sotomayor's retirement plans.