this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
1332 points (98.0% liked)
Political Memes
5739 readers
4185 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but donβt intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Donβt post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
According to the wording of the order, at conception you are female if you are "producing larger reproductive cells" or male if you are "producing smaller reproductive cells". Since at conception no one is making either reproductive cells, then I agree with the stance that the order says no one is male or female now.
Weβre all non-binary
I think everyone involved with the orders are a bunch of jackasses, but that simply isn't what it says. It doesn't speculate at all about the timing of the production of the reproductive cells, merely that the individual belongs to a a sex that does produce them. It's a fun joke, but going to the mat defending it just makes it look like you don't read well.
Except that interpretation ends up being circular in a way. They don't have the characteristic, but one day they will belong to a sex that is associated with producing them, even if they personally never do. The wording is very weird because they think they are sidestepping chromosomal and hormonal anomalies, but end up in either taking them literally at their word (no one is any gender) or applying some looser interpretation that becomes flexible since "belonging to a sex" is then not tethered to any objective fact since the timeframe is then up for grabs.
For example, they could have said "if the sperm contributed a y chromosome, then male, else female". But they probably were thinking of things like Morris, Kleinfelter, and Swyer and wanted to have wording flexible enough to account for those. But it results in enough ambiguity to allow for things.
So first and foremost, I am not defending these idiots at all, just looking at what they have actually written. I don't believe that they are behaving sanely, let alone reasonably.
It's not circular, but is in a practical sense retrograde, since it involves making a determination at birth based on criteria that cannot be accurately assessed until some point in the future. Therefore, obviously, the way the sex is actually determined at birth isn't going to align 100% with the definitions they've outlined here and is going to cause some massive problems for subset of humans who don't deserve any of this. As a result, they're not sidestepping issues with chromosomal variability so much as walking head first into them, like a steel post.
I completely disagree that this definition is "not tethered to any objective fact", because whether or not you produce sperm/ovum at some point over your lifespan definitely reflects an underlying reality and is how sex is determined the rest of the time when we aren't talking about humans and social issues.
It literally specifies "at the time of conception". At which point nobody has developed any sexual characteristics.
Competent lawmakers write bills and executive orders VERY carefully in order to cause the least confusion and unintended conclusions possible.
Trump has once again proven to be the polar opposite of competence.