Latest news with #YouthRiskBehaviorSurveillanceSystem
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why it matters that Trump is deleting government data
What happens when one of the world's largest repositories of free information becomes unreliable? That dire situation came to pass in late January, when many federal websites took down entire datasets to avoid possibly violating a series of executive orders from President Donald Trump. At the same time, the Department of Government Efficiency, the Elon Musk-directed task force that is slashing government operations, has canceled contracts for the collection of data and cut workers who analyze and evaluate information about various facets of American life, such as education, housing and consumer protection. These developments led to widespread concern that some data that researchers have long relied on the government to collect would no longer be readily available, potentially hindering various initiatives meant to help Americans — both inside and outside of government. Although some information has come back online, the availability and transparency of government-collected data is suddenly no longer a given. This isn't a worry just for data journalists like us, either. Experts I spoke with laid out how the public and private sector, companies large and small, and even the average person use government data to make decisions about program effectiveness, business prospects and life choices. With this in mind, I delved into this recent interruption in data access, why this data has significant value and what challenges may lie ahead if government data becomes less accessible and reliable moving forward. Since taking office on Jan. 20, Trump has signed a record number of executive orders, which tell executive branch agencies how to interpret existing laws when implementing policies. Among other things, these orders directed the federal government to recognize only two genders, pause foreign aid efforts and end diversity, equity and inclusion programs. To ensure they weren't violating those orders, many departments and offices took down datasets, fact sheets and other resources dealing with issues of gender and race. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took down data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, which includes questions asking whether teens identify as transgender. Across the government, agencies removed thousands of websites and datasets, from guidelines for vaccinations and avoiding sexually transmitted infections to data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. Some have since come back online; others have not. Concerned about the potential loss of critical information, many organizations and individuals around the country worked to preserve what might otherwise be lost by archiving the remaining datasets and recovering missing info from older versions of websites using tools like the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. One way to assess the scope of the losses is to look at the total number of datasets that are available on an official government website that catalogs thousands of datasets, predominantly from federal agencies but also other sources, such as local governments. On Jan. 19, the day before Trump took office, there were nearly 308,000 datasets on but that figure had fallen to around 305,500 by Jan. 22. In early February, that number increased again, although it has not returned to the pre-Trump total. However, it's important to note that these topline numbers from represent only a back-of-the-envelope measure of data loss. Some datasets linked on the site aren't necessarily available when you click on them, such as many hosted by the United States Agency for International Development, which the Trump administration has all but shuttered. Plus, the site's count has changed for many reasons over the years, such as the removal of older datasets, shifts in technology or changes to which non-federal organizations are linked on the website. For instance, during the early days of former President Joe Biden's tenure in January 2021, the number of datasets available on remained largely static. But then the retooling of the site using an updated cataloging service led to a drop of around 25,000 in the raw count of downloadable files in early February of that year. It's not just academics, journalists and government officials who were impacted by this loss. In our information-driven age, large portions of the U.S. economy use government data to make business decisions. "In their development of plans, businesses have to benchmark how they compare to the rest of the industry or in markets that they're targeting," said Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, a senior visiting fellow at Third Way. "You can't do that without government data." Formerly the chief global economist at Ford Motor Co., Hughes-Cromwick knows firsthand the importance of government data to operating an automobile manufacturer. A paper she coauthored in 2019 presented a table of short-run and long-run indicators that a car company would rely on when making production decisions, which can involve data from at least nine different bureaus, departments or other entities within the federal government. This data can help a carmaker determine its hiring, investment and production goals. For instance, when setting monthly production targets, a firm will review data on auto sales from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, data from the Federal Reserve on the production levels of all types of vehicles across the automotive industry and consumer prices from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The company uses this data to set production levels at each plant, even the speed of the assembly line. More broadly, Hughes-Cromwick stressed that leading indicators in the data can affect long-term business plans. Companies across sectors considering whether to expand a product line may look at unemployment insurance claims from the Department of Labor to see if the overall market is weakening (claims rise) or improving (claims fall). They will look at whether retail spending is up (good) or down (bad) using sales data from the Census Bureau. Businesses also look to datasets that come from nongovernmental sources but that are partly informed by government data, such as the Purchasing Managers Index, a measure compiled by the Institute for Supply Management that firms, suppliers and investors use to get a sense of current and future market conditions. Sectors that are especially reliant on this data also affect huge parts of the economy and produce sizable output. Last year, the Department of Commerce estimated that industries that heavily rely on government data reached revenues of almost $800 billion in 2022, nearly twice as much as in 2012. In that time, government-data-intensive sectors grew faster than the economy as a whole, with a particular boost from internet-based publishing, broadcasting and search portals as well as management consulting services. Government data is particularly useful to the financial services industry. Naturally, firms such as commercial banks, asset management companies and equity brokerages use this information to decide where to direct their investments in the economy. But they also use this information to stress test whether their current portfolios could withstand a major economic or financial shock to the system. Regulations requiring this sort of testing came about in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis to make sure systematically important financial institutions maintained sounder footing in the face of future adverse conditions. Agencies in the federal government do more with data than collect and collate it. They use that information to identify public policy problems, develop programs to address those problems and then evaluate whether or not the programs are working using an evidence-based approach built on rigorous assessment of the data. "It's this whole cycle that's really important, and that is, I think, in jeopardy right now," said Molly Irwin, former chief evaluation officer at the U.S. Department of Labor and a board member at the Data Foundation. Irwin pointed to the labor market as an example of how this cycle works. The government collects jobs data, and the Department of Labor uses that information to identify gaps in the labor market where employer needs aren't being met. The department then funds grant programs to train workers to fill those holes. Once those programs are in place, the department evaluates their effectiveness using administrative data gathered by the programs. They also conduct studies, which can involve surveys and interviews with employers — in essence, collecting even more data that gauges whether a program is working. That evidence is used to determine how well a program is working and how it could be improved. A successful program could become an approach that others also use to fill future labor market needs. However, Irwin told me the means for federal evaluators to examine program effectiveness are now up in the air due to funding and staff cuts made by the Trump administration. For instance, DOGE canceled around $900 million in contracts at the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics, spending aimed at collecting information on the U.S. education system — data that will now be unavailable for researchers hoping to improve educational outcomes. Staff cuts at the Department of Housing and Urban Development have eliminated positions that compile data on the housing market and study solutions to homelessness and affordable housing. The Department of Labor, meanwhile, has taken down databases that contain information regarding effective training and employment programs, including the Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research. This seemingly runs against the goals of legislation that Trump signed into law in 2019, during his first term: the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act. The legislation essentially laid out a system for collecting and accessing data that federal agencies can use to develop evidence-based policies. It compels agencies to submit annual plans for determining and addressing policy challenges to the Office of Management and Budget as well as Congress. In 2024, a survey of federal evaluation officials conducted by the Data Foundation and American Evaluation Association found that 83 percent reported that the Evidence Act had helped them achieve their missions. "[The law] was really about building the capacity in the federal government to do research studies, to build and produce evidence and, importantly, to use that evidence to make evidence-based decisions," Irwin said. "Those are the tools that we are losing as the evidence capacity and the datasets and, in many cases, the reports of findings and all of that goes away." The prospect of government data becoming less accessible or lower-quality could have long-term consequences — both tangible, in terms of dollars and cents, and intangible, in terms of confidence in the data that helps run our world. Government data is, practically speaking, free for businesses to use. Open data is readily accessible and paid for by taxpayer dollars. A company like Zillow, for instance, leveraged governmental datasets and market analysis to become a leading provider of real estate information for consumers — all while having a market capitalization of almost $19 billion. Acquiring alternative forms of economic and demographic data, if it's even available, could become a cost for companies that currently doesn't affect their bottom line. Moreover, knowledge and confidence in economic data help drive investment choices. As Lizzie O'Leary at Slate recently observed, swings in the stock market and bond market affecting beaucoup dollars — not to mention the policies of the Federal Reserve — come in reaction to the monthly jobs reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But with the interruption in access to some government data, the people who use that data — firms, brokers, analysts, economists — could become less certain about its availability and reliability, which in turn could affect their investment choices, which in turn could affect the wider market. "For any economist, we need a time series to do statistical and regression analysis for a lot of microeconomic data and industries that we might be examining," said Hughes-Cromwick, speaking about the possibility of data from government agencies becoming less accessible. "They're running the risk of causing some discontinuous time series where we won't have measurements — let's say for March 2025 industrial production, or April 2025 employment statistics. That would be a significant breach in the quality and accuracy of our data." And while cutting evaluation teams from government departments could save money at first, it could prove expensive in the long run. If government programs remain in place — and despite the Trump administration's intention to cut parts of the federal budget, many will survive — they won't necessarily be evaluated as rigorously moving forward. That might make it more challenging to improve the functioning of a program, or allow a costly but ineffective program to remain in place. Additionally, Irwin noted that the Trump administration's cuts have halted ongoing studies that in some cases were nearly complete. As a result, those findings may never see the light of day, losing any gain from that investment. Now, this is not to say that improvements couldn't be made. "Certainly there are some more modern approaches to developing statistics that would help improve the quality and timeliness of the data," Hughes-Cromwick said. But she pointed out entities like the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis have worked to expand access to real-time data from the private sector as well as administrative data. The broader danger to the reliability and availability of government data could make it even easier to distrust information in a societal environment in which conspiracy theories can catch like wildfire on social media and the internet. Faith in government data may already be flagging given that public trust in government is quite low: In 2024, only about 1 in 5 Americans told pollsters that they trust the government to do what is right always or most of the time, according to data collected by the Pew Research Center. Lastly, the removal of government information could be felt by all Americans. For instance, states, localities and parents use information from the National Center for Education Statistics to understand the strengths and weaknesses of school systems. "The Nation's Report Card is something that parents use when they're thinking about, 'Where do I move?'" said Irwin. "'What are the statistics in different school districts so that I can move to a place to put my child into a school that is doing well?'" "All of us use data and information to make all kinds of decisions every day," Irwin told me. "It's the same kind of information that we need at every level. How am I going to invest my personal budget?" It's the same with the government, she added; it should have those choices to invest its much bigger budget that comes from taxpayer dollars. "We want the government to have that information so that they can invest dollars in the right things." Why it matters that Trump is deleting government data originally appeared on
Boston Globe
19-02-2025
- Health
- Boston Globe
Citing ‘biological truth,' RFK Jr. issues guidance recognizing only two sexes
Advertisement The guidance offers detailed definitions for the words 'male' — 'a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing sperm' — and 'female' — 'a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggs (ova).' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The announcement came in response to an executive order Trump issued Jan. 20 that gave the health department 30 days to issue 'clear guidance' to the public on how to interpret sex-based definitions. 'These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality,' the order declared. On Tuesday, Kennedy delivered a welcome address to department employees in which he said his agency would work toward helping Americans 'to discover our own paths to living our fullest lives, unleashing the potential in every one of us to make good personal choices that allow us to nourish, to heal and to develop ourselves.' There are roughly 1.6 million youths and adults in the United States who identify as transgender, according to an estimate by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, made protecting transgender people a cornerstone of federal policy. Biden's assistant secretary for health, Dr. Rachel Levine, a pediatrician, made history by becoming the first transgender person to be confirmed by the Senate to a federal position. Advertisement Trump has rapidly reversed Biden administration policies. He has followed up his Jan. 20 executive order with a string of others aimed at stripping away the rights of transgender people in almost every corner of American life — including schools, hospitals, prisons, the military and housing. Critics have objected not only to the substance of the orders, but to their harsh language. The order barring taxpayer dollars from financing medical interventions for transgender children is headlined 'Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.' Government agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is under the health department, were ordered to delete any language mentioning 'gender ideology' from their websites. A judge has since ordered the CDC's page restored. Some are still down. Other sites — including the CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System — now carry a disclaimer. 'This page does not reflect biological reality and therefore the Administration and this Department rejects it,' the disclaimer says, adding that the information presented is 'extremely inaccurate.' This article originally appeared in .
Yahoo
17-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The Vast Dangers of Trump's War On Information
Since reentering the Oval Office last month, President Donald Trump has undertaken several actions to restrict access to public health and education research. The ostensible goals may be to remove certain content related to issues that the administration considers ideologically objectionable—such as references to racial, sexual, and gender identity and information regarding climate change—as well as a nod to cost-cutting. But the end result of this knowledge purge may be the loss of critical data that physicians, researchers, and educators use to inform their work on matters as wide ranging as public health, schooling, and the national economy. In January, agencies scrambled to scrub websites that made references to transgender individuals or 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' efforts, with the goal of being in alignment with Trump's executive orders. The Office of Personnel Management ordered agency heads to remove 'gender ideology' from websites; this resulted in actions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removing information on contraception, facts about HIV-positive and transgender individuals, and research showing that transgender youth face higher rates of bullying, depression, and other issues. Data from the CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, which tracks health issues for young people, was removed entirely. A judge later ordered the CDC, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Food and Drug Administration to restore the web pages that had been removed, citing doctors' declarations filed in the case, led by Public Citizen and physicians in the organization Doctors for America. District Judge John Bates wrote that if these doctors 'cannot provide these individuals the care they need (and deserve) within the scheduled and often limited time frame, there is a chance that some individuals will not receive treatment, including for severe, life-threatening conditions.' Zach Shelley, an attorney for the Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead counsel on the case to restore those health agencies' web pages, said that most of the web pages are back up and that 'we're still working with our clients to identify additional websites' on which they may rely. 'That doctors and public health officials and researchers have access to those pages right now means that … patients are being treated correctly and scientific progress is moving forward,' said Shelley. Losing that access permanently would be 'incredibly costly,' Shelley continued, in part because much of that information relates to monitoring and responding to outbreaks of disease. 'When you deny public health officials access to that information, it means you're increasing the risk of disease outbreaks. You're slowing responses to them,' Shelley said. 'That means more people sick, more people suffering, more people dying.' The removal of data reflects Trump's larger goal of strong-arming the government to be in alignment with his values, an objective also reflected by his administration's legally challenged efforts to gut certain departments, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as measures taken to cut thousands of people from the federal workforce. This includes the mass firing of more than one thousand employees from the CDC this week; even with CDC web pages back up, there will be fewer people to conduct the crucial research needed to keep them current. Indeed, the shrinking of the federal workforce could have significant effects on the future of data access more broadly, said Amy O'Hara, executive director of the Federal Statistical Research Data Center at the McCourt School for Public Policy. These range from the potential loss of experts collating information in an apolitical manner to no longer having the resources to conduct research thoroughly, to demand for information decreasing because of the reduction in numbers of government employees. 'Right now, there are reliable data sources coming out because of the transparency and rigor of the practices for the people producing it,' said O'Hara, who is also president of the Association of Public Data Users. These 'checks and balances' ensure that, for example, economic indicators are not leaked early, or there is transparency in how the consumer price index is calculated. 'Politicization could occur if there weren't those employees holding the line, or there was a reduction in staff, and you just don't have enough personnel to do the normal [quality control] on a data release,' O'Hara continued. There is also a risk of information becoming outdated. Even if researchers and educators download older reports now—a plan that's currently being undertaken by individuals and organizations such as the Data Rescue Project—that data could lose its relevance, and future reports may not have that same integrity. 'Those data are in demand by people who need them for the programs that they run, or grant applications, or for research projects that are going to result in people getting their degrees,' said O'Hara. 'It's the pipeline of people that build knowledge in the country, and they need access to timely, accurate data and data that have not been manipulated in any way.' Scientists who receive grants from the National Science Foundation are scanning their research projects for activities that do not comply with executive orders, based on terms flagged by the Trump administration, such as 'women,' 'institutional,' 'historically,' and 'barriers.' The administration also moved to slash funding for the National Institutes of Health, a move that received criticism from some red-state institutions and Republican lawmakers and was put on hold by a federal judge. The Trump administration has also targeted the Education Department, with the functional dismantling of the Institute of Education Sciences, an independent research organization within the agency. This week, Trump said he would like the Education Department to be 'closed immediately,' calling it a 'con job.' (In her Senate confirmation hearing this week, Trump's nominee for education secretary, Linda McMahon, said that 'it is not the president's goal to defund the programs, only to have it operate more efficiently.') Under the aegis of the Elon Musk–led Department of Government Efficiency, the administration has cut $900 million in contracts, including for research that tracks students' long-term education progress and strategies for teaching elementary-level reading—mere weeks after the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that American children's reading levels are at a nadir. The actions also may affect access to the 'What Works Clearinghouse,' which provides schools with guidance on effective teaching practices. (The cuts to the IES will not affect the NAEP or the College Scorecard.) 'Before the institute, educational research was fragmented, ideologically driven and inaccessible to parents and teachers. Findings were buried in books or locked behind paywalls. The institute broke that cycle,' argued University of Notre Dame psychology professor Nicole M. McNeil and Columbia University psychology professor Robert Stuart Siegler in an article in The Conversation. Musk and his allies have also gained access to the Labor Department, a move that worries former members of the Bureau of Labor Statistics about that agency's constantly updated collection of critical information about the American workforce, relied upon by government agencies and businesses alike to set policy and long-term agendas. 'If they access data, it would be very problematic,' William Beach, who served as commissioner of the BLS during Trump's first term, told Politico this week. DOGE obtained access to transfer data out of the Labor Department's systems; separately, a judge blocked the agency from accessing sensitive information in the Treasury Department. Beyond lawsuits, it's unclear how the reshaping of data collection by the executive can be halted. Democratic lawmakers have raised the alarm over the loss of research and the access provided to DOGE, but they are in the minority in Congress and have little sway. Some Republicans have expressed concerns over cuts to NIH. Nonetheless, the vast majority of GOP senators voted to approve Trump's nominee for HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; Senator Susan Collins told reporters that Kennedy had pledged to 'reexamine' the cuts. Ultimately, data is a 'public good,' said O'Hara, and losing access would have far-reaching effects. A weather app would not be as reliable without data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and private-sector companies could not obtain critical information on demographics without data collection from the federal government. 'We have these expectations for data coming out in the future. We just assume it's going to be there, and it's now in jeopardy,' O'Hara said.
CNN
15-02-2025
- Health
- CNN
Trump administration gives warning about ‘gender ideology' on some government health websites
Some of the public health websites that the US government was ordered to restore involving gender and gender identity now carry a warning denying the existence of transgender people. The warnings use some of the same language as an Executive Order that President Donald Trump signed January 20 on 'Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.' The order states that it is the policy of the United States to 'recognize two sexes, male and female' and instructs agencies to remove all statements that say otherwise. On Tuesday, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore certain government public health webpages and datasets, which agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had taken down, to their versions as of January 30. It's not clear whether the warning now posted on the government sites would be considered a violation of the order. The warning tells the public that the information they're looking at had to be restored due to a court order but that 'any information on this page promoting gender ideology is extremely inaccurate and disconnected from the immutable biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female.' The warning, set off in a blue box, on an FDA page concerning the study of sex differences in the clinical evaluation of medical products goes on to say, 'The Trump Administration rejects gender ideology and condemns the harms it causes to children, by promoting their chemical and surgical mutilation, and to women, by depriving them of their dignity, safety, well-being and opportunities. This page does not reflect biological reality and therefore the Administration and this Department reject it.' The warning also appeared on a page headlined 'Diversity Action Plans to Improve Enrollment of Participants from Underrepresented Populations in Clinical Studies,' on popular CDC databases called the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System and on a database called the Social Vulnerability Index. Although the administration says there are only two sexes, most scientists say it's more complicated. Research shows that there is a difference between 'sex' and 'gender,' and for decades, public health websites have reflected that nuance. Sex refers to biological differences including chromosomes, reproductive organs and hormones, according to the American Medical Association definition. Typically, a clinician will assign a person 'male' or 'female' at birth, usually based on anatomy. There are also intersex people, whose sexual and reproductive anatomy doesn't fit the male/female binary. Intersex people are not acknowledged by the president's instructions. Gender refers to a person's sense of being a man, woman, another gender or no gender at all. A person's gender may or may not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth. Government health websites have also long included information for transgender individuals, but the Trump administration has removed references to people who identify as transgender in multiple government websites, including the page about the Stonewall Uprising national monument. The monument marks the site of the New York City inn where LGBTQ rioters – including several well-known transgender activists – became catalysts for the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement. Judge John Bates' temporary restraining order came after Doctors for America sued the government, saying irreparable harm was caused by the loss of dozens of public health websites that the doctors used regularly to treat patients and conduct research. The websites that were removed were those that mentioned what a memo from the Office of Personnel Management called 'gender ideology.' The memo ordered the removal of such language by January 31. Removed were several CDC pages related to HIV, treatment guidelines for sexually transmitted infections, and LGBTQ youth, including sites about LGBT children's risk of suicide and a page on health disparities among LGBTQ youth. Even a page about 'Safer Food Choices for Pregnant People' was taken down. Not all pages that relate to transgender individuals carry the new warning; some have been reworked to remove gendered terms. The CDC's food page for pregnancy is now called 'Safer Food Choices for Pregnant Women.' The transgender youth mention on the CDC's health disparities in suicide page has disappeared. A page on LGBTQ+ people and smoking still contains the 'T' in its headline, but a fact about how cigarette smoking is higher among transgender adults has been removed. Yet other pages have not been restored. The Office of Personnel Management told CNN that it had issued no further instructions to agencies about the websites. Instead, the office said in an email that it believed the issue was being handled 'at the agency level.' The US Department of Health and Human Services, the White House, the CDC and the FDA did not respond to CNN's requests for comment Friday.
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Trump administration gives warning about ‘gender ideology' on some government health websites
Some of the public health websites that the US government was ordered to restore involving gender and gender identity now carry a warning denying the existence of transgender people. The warnings use some of the same language as an Executive Order that President Donald Trump signed January 20 on 'Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.' The order states that it is the policy of the United States to 'recognize two sexes, male and female' and instructs agencies to remove all statements that say otherwise. On Tuesday, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore certain government public health webpages and datasets, which agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had taken down, to their versions as of January 30. It's not clear whether the warning now posted on the government sites would be considered a violation of the order. The warning tells the public that the information they're looking at had to be restored due to a court order but that 'any information on this page promoting gender ideology is extremely inaccurate and disconnected from the immutable biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female.' The warning, set off in a blue box, on an FDA page concerning the study of sex differences in the clinical evaluation of medical products goes on to say, 'The Trump Administration rejects gender ideology and condemns the harms it causes to children, by promoting their chemical and surgical mutilation, and to women, by depriving them of their dignity, safety, well-being and opportunities. This page does not reflect biological reality and therefore the Administration and this Department reject it.' The warning also appeared on a page headlined 'Diversity Action Plans to Improve Enrollment of Participants from Underrepresented Populations in Clinical Studies,' on popular CDC databases called the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System and on a database called the Social Vulnerability Index. Although the administration says there are only two sexes, most scientists say it's more complicated. Research shows that there is a difference between 'sex' and 'gender,' and for decades, public health websites have reflected that nuance. Sex refers to biological differences including chromosomes, reproductive organs and hormones, according to the American Medical Association definition. Typically, a clinician will assign a person 'male' or 'female' at birth, usually based on anatomy. There are also intersex people, whose sexual and reproductive anatomy doesn't fit the male/female binary. Intersex people are not acknowledged by the president's instructions. Gender refers to a person's sense of being a man, woman, another gender or no gender at all. A person's gender may or may not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth. Government health websites have also long included information for transgender individuals, but the Trump administration has removed references to people who identify as transgender in multiple government websites, including the page about the Stonewall Uprising national monument. The monument marks the site of the New York City inn where LGBTQ rioters – including several well-known transgender activists – became catalysts for the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement. Judge John Bates' temporary restraining order came after Doctors for America sued the government, saying irreparable harm was caused by the loss of dozens of public health websites that the doctors used regularly to treat patients and conduct research. The websites that were removed were those that mentioned what a memo from the Office of Personnel Management called 'gender ideology.' The memo ordered the removal of such language by January 31. Removed were several CDC pages related to HIV, treatment guidelines for sexually transmitted infections, and LGBTQ youth, including sites about LGBT children's risk of suicide and a page on health disparities among LGBTQ youth. Even a page about 'Safer Food Choices for Pregnant People' was taken down. Not all pages that relate to transgender individuals carry the new warning; some have been reworked to remove gendered terms. The CDC's food page for pregnancy is now called 'Safer Food Choices for Pregnant Women.' The transgender youth mention on the CDC's health disparities in suicide page has disappeared. A page on LGBTQ+ people and smoking still contains the 'T' in its headline, but a fact about how cigarette smoking is higher among transgender adults has been removed. Yet other pages have not been restored. The Office of Personnel Management told CNN that it had issued no further instructions to agencies about the websites. Instead, the office said in an email that it believed the issue was being handled 'at the agency level.' The US Department of Health and Human Services, the White House, the CDC and the FDA did not respond to CNN's requests for comment Friday.
