• mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I didn’t consider this option, but it seems to be an easy fix to the whole gender thing. Everyone is female. period. *(no pun intended)

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      It’s a bad faith question that deserves a hillarious answer

      “What is a woman? Why it’s someone whom, family members aside, you’ve never seen naked.”

      “What is a woman? The kind of people at the bar who cover their drinks when you get too close.”

      “What is a woman? A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF SECRETS!”

      “What is a woman? Well these curvy people who smell nice and go by she/her pronouns and sometimes they have big meaty penises to suck, but only if you’re lucky.”

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      That’s always what I figured, that they’d fumble if you turned the question around and asked them to define woman or man. Buncha chumps.

      E: le spelling

      • invertedspear@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Nah, they have no issue with a tautological definition. “A woman is a female human that’s born a girl” makes perfect sense to anyone that’s asking anyone else to define what a woman is.

  • Nate Cox@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Listen I get that these people have never taken a science class, but I damn well know at least some of them watched Jurassic Park.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Silly Matthew, still believing that words written by Trump’s administration mean anything…
    Same mistake many opponents of the Nazis made in the beginning.
    Fascists don’t play by the rules, whatever they say or write only has meaning as long as it benefits them.
    When you point out inconsistencies in what they wrote yesterday, they laugh at you. And then they shoot you.

  • SuperIce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    161
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Technically no. They aren’t male or female, they’re undifferentiated. Since we’re neither male nor female at conception, this order means males and females don’t actually exist at all.

    • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      10 hours ago

      At conception the future sex is determined by the chromosomes that the sperm contributes. Once fertilized, there are either X and X or X and Y, which will be XX and XY once meiosis occurs for the first time.

      So technically once fertilization occurs(conception), sex has been determined.

      • kadup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 hours ago

        At conception the future sex is determined by the chromosomes that the sperm contributes.

        Explain that to XY individuals with a mutated SRY, meaning they never develop male traits at all, even though they’re XY.

      • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        No, it isn’t. Every Bio textbook I have that discusses it (more than a dozen), is very clear that sex is determined by gonad function/gamete production. Some XY individuals will never produce sperm. Some will produce ova. Some XX individuals will never produce ova. I would bet there is probably at least one case out there where an XX individual produced sperm through some kind of insanely unlikely nondisjunction. And none of this even begins to touch on the variability within the XXY and XO groups. Even if you want to not consider other species, chromosomes ain’t it.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          They don’t seem to understand that even if XX/XY differentiation is right 99.99% of the time, there are a fuck ton of humans in the world and even small improbabilities are likely to be represented. We obviously shouldn’t make laws that discriminate against minorities, and these people really exist all over the place.

          Republicans want to erase the idea of nonbinary people because their tiny minds can’t handle the scientific nuance.

          • Lemminary@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Yup. A huge amount of people grow up to adulthood not knowing they’re intersex until they get tested. Talking percentages ain’t shit when your population is an entire dominant species!

        • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          8 hours ago

          You don’t define the norm with characteristics of edge cases. The X and Y chromosome groups define biological sex be it male, female, or intersex.

          Some people are born with vestigial tails, does that mean that humans may or may not have tails? No, a few hundred people have been born with a vestigial tail in recorded history.

          Some people are born with a cleft pallette, does that mean humans can be born with or without a cleft pallette? No, 1 in 1,600 people are born with a cleft pallette.

          1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 people are born intersex. The other 1499 to 1999 people are XY or XX and 98.5% of those have a gender identity that conforms with their biological sex.

          You are daft if you take an XX that identifies as a woman and say she isn’t female because her ovaries don’t produce an ovum. That woman is a sterile female, not intersex.

          • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            You don’t define the norm with characteristics of edge cases.

            Exactly. So what are you made of, hydrogen or helium?

          • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            You don’t define the norm with characteristics of edge cases

            Good thing I didn’t do that.

            The X and Y chromosome groups define biological sex

            This is the whole point, no, they don’t. Biologists do not define sex in terms of chromosomes because there are multiple different chromosomal systems in use to achieve the function of sex cell differentiation.

            Some people are born with vestigial tails, does that mean that humans may or may not have tails? No, a few hundred people have been born with a vestigial tail in recorded history.

            Some people are born with a cleft pallette, does that mean humans can be born with or without a cleft pallette? No, 1 in 1,600 people are born with a cleft pallette.

            I just…fucking wow. Reread what you wrote here.

            • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Clearly people born with a cleft pallette aren’t human to them. Which is kind of a weird thing to say and believe.

          • Lemminary@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            7 hours ago

            If you ever get the chance, I recommend the book A Cabinet of Medical Curiosities: A Compendium of the Odd, the Bizarre, and the Unexpected by Jan Bondeson.

            The book talks at length about medical conditions, including the human tail, the cleft pallet and also intersex. It talks about XY females, SRY transposition/deletions, the Guevedoche males from Dominican Republic who are indistinguishable from females until about the age of 12 when their testes drop, and the prevalence of more subtle forms of intersex that go under-diagnosed. It also touches in fetal development and general genetics including the inversion of sexual chromosomes in birds and reptiles.

            It’s a great dive into the complexity of biology and particularly sexual development. I suspect you won’t be so sure of what you think is normal after exploring its barrage of edge cases that deeply contemplate the nature of genetic sex that creates these deviations: Nothing in biology is set and it’s all subject to change.

            98.5% of those have a gender identity that conforms with their biological sex.

            There are many more people today who have incorporated a hybrid gender precisely because they don’t fit into neat categories. People call them femboys and tomboys because everything about their gender expression is mixed. You can’t tell me with a straight face they’re just pretending. The whole category is called “gender non-conforming”.

          • Dontfearthereaper123@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            Some people being born with a vestigial tail and most being born without, does mean people are born with or without a vestigial tail. I don’t know how to respond to this, what part aren’t you understanding exactly?

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 hours ago

              what part aren’t you understanding exactly?

              I’m guessing it’s the parts about biological sex and humans. They’re clearly not very familiar with either.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        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.

        • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 hours ago

          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.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 hours ago

            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 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.

    • WrenFeathers@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Can you imagine, an entire nation- identifying as female? I’d imagine their reaction would be similar to how Christian’s felt when they saw the Bible being removed from schools….

      “Nooooo! Not like that!”

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    250
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Trump declares himself herself the first female President of the USA? 😳

    (Edit: Excuse me Mrs. President, I had misgendered you.)

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    143
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I think this is actually more gender abolitionist if you think about it. No one is producing reproductive cells/gametes at conception. They begin by producing undifferentiated stem cells that will later specialize into all of the other cell types.

    Male and female now officially retired. Rejoice!

    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      MAGA: “truth and science needs to bow to holy scripture!”

      The Bible: “For in Christ there is… neither male nor female…” (Galatians 3:28)

      MAGA: “wait, not like that!”

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 hours ago

      But what society-created roles and stereotypes will I conform my entire being to now? I don’t know how to be me and need to be told options.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Everyone is now assigned 5 random fandoms at birth or, in the case of people already born, starting right now.

        You are now a superfan of the Dallas Mavericks, Firefly, The Times of India, Fussball Club Basel 1893, and decorative felt. Have fun!