196

16809 readers

1631 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

690

Well, if thems the rules... (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Except XX male syndrome is a thing, where externally individuals present male but have female karyotype. So are those people female despite having functional male genitalia? And that's only one of a myriad of situations where an individual's chromosomes don't reflect what their phenotype is like nor their biological reproductive function. Chromosomes are NOT an infallible indicator of biological sex.

Also the text of the law says nothing about chromosomes. It indicates from conception the cells that produce the large gamete are considered female, and cells that produce the small gamete are considered male. No one is producing gametes at conception. It also completely disregards anyone who produces no gametes at all. At best this law has declared everyone to have no biological sex whatsoever.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago

I want to be clear that I disagree with the EO; it's not well written, has holes, and (most importantly) is ethically abhorrent. Your first paragraph gives many examples, good job.

But accurate understanding is crucial to effective resistance.

"Sex at time of conception" can ONLY be interpreted as chromosomal sex, as there is no other means of determining sex at that time of development.

The EO doesn't concern itself with which gametes a person ACTUALLY produces, only which ones they WOULD produce based on the zygote's (chromosomal) sex.