Text of Catastrophic Dehumanization:

Participants in violent conflict often dehumanize their opponents. Indeed, some form of dehumanization is arguably a near ubiquitous feature of the most brutal acts of human violence, such as saturation bombardment of civilian populations, terrorist attacks on urban centers, intense battlefield combat, and genocide.

People who dehumanize members of another group generally undergo three cognitive shifts, not necessarily in the following order. First, they de-individuate the members of the other group. Whereas previously they might have perceived the other group’s members as individuals each with distinct and complex characteristics, histories, personalities, and goals—thus “according them identity”—once dehumanized, these members of the other group are perceived as undifferentiated within their group. Second, they usually apply to these undifferentiated members a simplified and highly pejorative caricature or stereotype, often equating them with an unattractive species of animal.

Third, and most importantly, they deny the moral legitimacy of the other group’s way of life, interests, actions, and even existence, and in the process deny its members the protection afforded by general principles of morality. Esses et al. write: “To the extent that a group is seen as . . . immoral, the group is likely to be seen as less than human and thus as less deserving of humane treatment. That is, because they do not share our humanity, the fate of members of such a group is less relevant to our own, and their interests may be ignored.”

Together, these three cognitive shifts render the group’s members as “unlike us” and, critically, put them beyond the boundary of the perceivers’ community and thus beyond the range of the perceivers’ responsibility and care. Kelman further writes:

Or, as David Berreby notes: “Killing someone who doesn’t feel to us like a part of the human community does not, in fact, seem like killing a person.”

When people undergo these three cognitive shifts, and especially when they deny the moral legitimacy of another group’s way of life, interests, and actions, they no longer identify with members of that group.

It is difficult to have compassion for those who lack identity and who are excluded from our community; their death does not move us in a personal way. Thus when a group of people is defined entirely in terms of a category to which they belong, and when this category is excluded from the human family, then the moral restraints against killing them are more readily overcome.

The fact that empathy can be sustained in the absence of identification explains an oft-noted but nonetheless peculiar feature of some of the most vicious human conflicts. Participants sometimes treat members of the dehumanized group far more brutally than they would ever treat truly non-human beings, such as higher animals. They will sometimes go out of their way to inflict the most horrible suffering imaginable, for instance by forcing parents to watch their children be tortured and killed. Such acts only make sense if empathy is sustained, because empathy allows conflict participants to know exactly how to inflict the greatest mental suffering on their opponents. Empathy allows them to access their opponents’ minds, but loss of identification, which is the essence of dehumanization, ensures that these opponents no longer have the moral protection afforded by membership in a shared community, so they can be harmed at will.

…

As the individual’s psychological state approaches the line, he or she faces an increasingly clear choice about how to act towards the newly distinguished outgroup: he or she must choose between identifying with or not identifying with this group. The decision process producing this choice is likely largely unconscious and heavily influenced by emotions like anger and fear, but it represents a real choice nonetheless.

Despite the fact that the individual’s level of distrust of the newly defined outgroup—that is, his or her estimate of the probability that the outgroup is untrustworthy—is rising, a choice to identify with the outgroup is a choice to act towards the outgroup as if it were trustworthy. By identifying with the outgroup, {the individual willfully leaves himself or herself potentially vulnerable to the outgroup’s actions, which implies trust. Conversely, a choice to not identify with the outgroup is a choice to act towards the outgroup as if it were untrustworthy; it psychologically legitimizes defensive preparations to reduce vulnerability, implying distrust. Whichever way the individual decides, he or she faces a risk of being wrong. Identifying with the outgroup, by leaving the individual vulnerable, might bring substantial costs in the form of harm, should the outgroup turn out to be untrustworthy. On the other hand, not identifying with the outgroup could also bring substantial costs in the form of unnecessary defensive preparations and lost community, should the outgroup turn out to be trustworthy.}

Text of Gender Identity Fraud, Texas bill:

An act relating to creating the criminal offense of gender identity fraud.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas:

Sec. 32.515. Gender Identity Fraud.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly makes a false or misleading verbal or written statement to a governmental entity or the person's employer by identifying the person's biological sex as the opposite of the biological sex assigned to the person at birth.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

Text of Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness EO:

Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service. Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.

Text of Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government EO:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Across the country, ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women’s domestic abuse shelters to women’s workplace showers.  This is wrong.  Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being.  The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system.  Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.

This unhealthy road is paved by an ongoing and purposeful attack against the ordinary and longstanding use and understanding of biological and scientific terms, replacing the immutable biological reality of sex with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts.  Invalidating the true and biological category of “woman” improperly transforms laws and policies designed to protect sex-based opportunities into laws and policies that undermine them, replacing longstanding, cherished legal rights and values with an identity-based, inchoate social concept.

Accordingly, my Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male. 

Sec. 2.  Policy and Definitions.  It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.  These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.  Under my direction, the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality, and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:

(a)  “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.  “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”

(f)  “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true.  Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex.  Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.

(g)  “Gender identity” reflects a fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum, that does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.

Text of Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports EO:

The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall review and adjust, as needed, policies permitting admission to the United States of males seeking to participate in women’s sports, and shall issue guidance with an objective of preventing such entry to the {extent permitted by law, including pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)).}

Text not included - section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)):

(C) Misrepresentation

(i) In general

Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or entry into the United States or other benefit provided under this chapter is excludable.