Let's be specific:

In the "Gender" executive order, Sec 2(a) and Sec 3(d), the administration has set it up so that the passport, global entry, social security, or other identity document of any transgender American citizen can be scrutinized, denied in the future, or in an expansive reading, retroactively revoked.

Since all such changes require documentation, there is almost certainly a list of all such people, unless the previous administration was clever enough to destroy it.

For example, a valid document for this man https://www.uri.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/news/sites/16/20... (picked at random, a picture of an openly trans man who has stated as such on a website), can no longer list an M. A document with an M on it is subject to government scrutiny, for example at any border crossing or other location where identity may be verified. The government may now argue that such a document is not valid. If he has no documents with such an M marker, he can no longer obtain them. Additionally, he must use the women's room, per sec (4).

"We're all gonna be okay!" The federal government is simply subjecting trans people to increased scrutiny, limiting their freedom of speech and expression and their freedom of movement. "Nobody's gonna lose their rights."

But hey, enjoy your brisket, right? How's the price of milk doing?

There's no laws in America about how one dresses and presents themselves as long as its not a false identity.

Anyways, weren't you just arguing that IDs shouldn't even be required for trivial inconsequential stuff like voting?

I mean, descriptive information on an ID isn't used for like tying someones appearance to their name or anything, right?

So it makes sense for the news to say something like "the police are searching for a female suspect 5'9" " despite them looking similar to the person in rpearl's example.

That description will really help the public identify or be on the look out for that female, right?