So they just denied the Judeo-Christian yhwh, because that being is androgyne.
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
362 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19509 readers
3431 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Imagine; all of this to prevent trans folks from using the women’s restroom… but now we can all use the women’s restroom by way of Executive Order. What a time to be alive!
I'm pretty sure now we all MUST use the women's restroom as we're all legally female.
As usual President Felon is talking out his ass, doing nothing for Americans, and being led by the nose by christian fascists. Someone please get that man 25 buckets of KFC. Cardiac event in 3-2...
Ah, yes.
Trump will surely change his mind after reading their sternly written letter, because as we all know, Trump truly cares about science.
And he can't read, at least not big words with more than 2 syllables.
Changing his mind isn't the goal. He constantly already does that for the highest bidder. The people who have to enforce this stuff and the courts that have to rule on it are the ones who need to be well aware of its nonsense, and the bigger of a mess that causes, the better.
He totally reads written reports too.
Executive order ‘ripped’, or maybe ‘blasted’ or whatever the latest word for ‘we made some tiny lil vid or headline saying maybe it wasn’t the best.’ I’m so sick of it. Sick of the way media portrays things. That’s it, the media has been SLAMMED by me, ripped, blasted, smoked! Whatever bullshit that basically means ‘we disagree, but have no teeth’ bleh
conflates sex and gender
I read the order. It explicitly avoids defining gender and says that only sex should be used everywhere (which it does define, but incorrectly).
It basically says that the government doesn't care about your gender, they just want to know what's in your pants (or used to be).
they just want to know what’s in your pants (or used to be).
At the moment of conception....
Of course that's the real poison pill of this. The real intention is to declare personhood at conception... and pave the way for the nation wide abortion ban. Making things worse for trans people, is just the decoy.
If they declare personhood at conception some pregnant women should demand to be allowed to purchase a life insurance policy, and immediately sue when denied.
The levels of chaos that can come from this are off the charts... Yeah someone can purchase life insurance on an unborn child... at the same time every miscarriage is on the board for manslaughter/homicide, basically leading mothers to prove that the miscariages were not intended or negligent. The ramifications and definitions of things are outright terrifying.
At the moment of conception...
Doesn’t everyone start out female and then become male or stay female?
Conception is literally the point when the sperm fertilizes the egg:
Conception (or fertilization) is when sperm and an egg join together.
At that point it's not anything, it's just a fertilized egg. Assigning a sex to it makes no sense at all.
So everyone should be no sex then?
At conception, yes, there is no sexual differentiation. In humans the SRY protein is responsible for a fetus developing male sexual characteristics. The effects of this gene are expressed after week 6 of development:
SRY gene effects normally take place 6–8 weeks after fetus formation which inhibits the female anatomical structural growth in males. It also works towards developing the secondary sexual characteristics of males.
That is, at least a month and a half after conception.
The EO doesn't depend on a zygote having completed sexual differentiation, but memes about it are dominating the conversation anyway because nobody under 30 was taught how to read in school and twitter-brained bad faith misinterpretations are the new standard for dialogue.
**TL;DR: The issue is that there is no "good faith" interpretation of the text for anybody who studied 11th grade biology or above. **
It essentially makes a bunch of statements and assumptions with very very concrete omissions:
1. The zygote (fertilized egg) is a "person". It's a philosophical question, but considering that in IVF studies, successful implantation rates are around 10-15% (implantation does not guarantee survival past the 3rd trimester). So it's actually very unlikely that the particular zygote will become a human being with agency. So good faith arguments would argue for special protections, but not personhood to it and that's how you spot that the endgame is to use this false argument to override the agency of the actual person carrying the pregnancy.
**2. There is no sex assigned at conception. ** A single-cell zygote only has 2 sex-specific parameters: sex chromosome sets (or the lack thereof), and DNA methylation patterns. Neither of those guarantee manifestation of a male or female phenotype. So based on that, we are all asexual. The default sex for humans is actually female, and the primary function of the Y chromosome is to inhibit the development of the female form signs of that initiate in everyone first. So by that default, we are all female. And then the best faith assumption is that they mean is chromosomally determined sex at conception, but chromosome variations like XXY and XYY aren't uncommon, and there are conditions where male chromosome sets yield female phenotype due to testosterone insensitivity (see testicular feminisation).
So no, the EO reads like someone trying to make biological definitions who has a <11th grade understanding of biology.
I have a biology degree. I took developmental. The textbook is right here on the shelf next to my desk. I am perfectly well aware of how embryonic development of the sexual system in mammals works. Incidentally, you've managed to get it wrong, but I'm not going to get into it here because it has nothing to with the point in my post which was about reading comprehension and what the text actually says. The definitions contained in the text of the EO read:
(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.
The structure of the sentences clearly indicates the 'belonging' occurs 'at conception', not the production of disparately sized cells. When the production occurs is not specified at all and nothing in the definition depends upon when it occurs, merely that it does at some point. This creates it own set of problems, but not the ones everyone is pointing and laughing at.
s clearly indicates the ‘belonging’ occurs ‘at conception’, not the production of disparately sized cells. When the production occurs is not specified at all and nothing in the definition depends upon when it occurs, merely that it does at some point. This creates it own set of problems, but not the ones everyone is pointing and laughing
Firstly, I have an MD and would have never commented on this without reading the specific text from the WH. Med school curricula cover this in molecular biology, embryology, medical genetics, pediatrics and obstetrics, and endocrinology.
Secondly, the definition implies that zygotes can be classified as male/female at conception, which they obviously cannot be without further clarification. Your "good faith" reasoning is that you can retrospectively make that assignment, but there are no criteria to determine how that assignment ultimately happens, which therefore requires additional layers of "good faith" reasoning. Which takes us back to, yeah, the WH definition is hot garbage.
The text provides some clarification for how they want the classification at conception to work which, definitely yes, is hot garbage and creates more problems than it "solves", but that doesn't make it not say what it says.
Can you point me to the part of the text where they provide clarification from a biological standpoint? This language sets up the interpretation: "the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female [...] grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality". So if this is an "incontrovertible reality" then why do people have such an easy time refuting it?
Which gives me flashbacks about having to learn the specific adrenal enzyme dysfunctions that lead to erroneous sex-assignments at birth. But again, I don't think people need biology degrees to have an understanding of this and I'd like society to stop trying to give "good faith" interpretations to texts that are explicitly written in bad faith.
Doesn't it have a complete set of sex chromosomes at that point?
As far as I an aware, yes. But the degree did not mention chromosomes, but rather
the sex that produces the large reproductive cell And the sex that produces the small reproductive cell
What about intersex people?
Everyone who does not fit into their categories, and everyone who cares about people who don't fit into their categories, needs to understand that you don't and can't fight Nazis by proving them wrong in an argument. You have to fight Nazis by fighting them. Also understand that you will be on their list of targeted "misfits" soon enough, so fight in solidarity with everyone who already is.
Cured. Thank you Mrs. Trump for clearing that up so easily.
If you want to see how history is going to play out on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10450
It's such a fucking stupid argument everyone is a human just get rid of male and female and sex all together.
Get rid of sex altogether? I'm already ahead of the curve
I am hypersexual, and I need sex.
Fuck you! I am a helicopter.
How..uh..how does a helicopter type stuff on the internet?
One doesn't need fingers to send text.
You'll have to complete in sports regardless, no more weight classes, no woman league, no special handicaps for helicopters. Your either good enough to compete or not. Also shame on you for what your people did to Kobe.
Fair. Get on my level. Eat shit. I'm ....... a helicopter. Get hellfired. Peace.
Yeah you're a Robinson R-22
It is possible to give someone a concussion with only words. The key is, saying something so ghastly against what they believe and backing it up with as much fact as possible they literally concuss themselves with the fight they produce in their own mind against the encroaching reality they simply don't want to believe exists. That girl that's being mean to you when you haven't even talked to her. Tell her when she turns 30 the only men interested in her will be college guys that want to run a train. At 40 she'll need a friend to come along or they won't join. This crushes her self image of an "alpha sexual being" and forces the reality she is actually an aging mortal with a ticking clock on her ovaries. You should play with your own variation because if everyone says what I said, it loses potency. Kinda how calling them future cat ladies doesn't bite as much as it did in the 80's because everyone did it. Or calling everyone a Nazi loses potency when you do it all the time. Think along the lines of actually plausible. "When you turn 40 you better have a good education you'll need it to pay for sex", or, "you're so stupid you're definitely walking in a snow storm for groceries for you and your senior cat when you're no longer pretty enough to get guys to do it for you." Give them a chance to process, and don't even try to talk to them after, let them retreat to their friends and adapt to their new existence. They might do baby talk. Its hilarious. I hope someone verbally concusses trump. He has earned it. Idk with his age and past covid exposure if he would be fit to do more than drool... Probably work if someone had hunter biden level evidence against one of trumps kids. Messes up his dynasty.
But it's true there are only two ~~genders~~sexes. We are a dimorphic species with one side carrying large gametes and the other side carrying small gametes. There is nothing else. No other ~~gender~~sex. Everything else is just made up or neuter.
“This reads to me as coming from people who desperately want the world to be simple — for sex to be a simple binary and for us to return to some imagined time when this was more broadly accepted,” [Dr. Josh Snodgrass] said. “The problem is that it’s not only science that shows us that human biological variation is more complicated, but other cultures do and have also appreciated this for thousands of years.”
Snodgrass added that there is one more thing missing from the executive order that belongs in all conversations about sex and gender: empathy.
“The authors of this executive order seem like they are trying to twist science to fit their worldview, but that this worldview is painfully out of step with reality,” he said.
If you read through an article with multiple doctors saying something, and then your conclusion is to be confused and wonder how they could be wrong like that, I have news for you.
Also, you contradicted yourself pretty quickly. First you said there's only two sexes, then you said there's male, female and "neuter". That's three. Do you think that infertile people should be prevented from listing a sex on their drivers license? Should they get to pick one? What bathroom do you want them to use? What if they're infertile and they have genitalia you didn't expect? What if they're infertile and they modified their genitals, which bathroom should they use?
Neuter is not a sex. It is a lack of sex.
Biological sex is commonly used to reference reproductive function. You have listed three reproductive functions. Ergo, three sexes by your reckoning because there are three states. "Male/female/null" is still three things.
C'mon. At least make your trolling fun. Pretending that three things is two is boring. Share some weird ideas about where people you would put in the third category should go to the bathroom.
I am not trolling I am trying to explain to you that no sex at all is not a sex. It is the lack of it. It is not a third sex. Say I have a full glass of water, then I have an empty glass of water. Not having a glass is not an empty glass and could be anything. It could be not having an apple and exactly the same thing. It is not a function of a glass.
Say you have a boolean. It can be true or false. If it doesn't exist it is no longer a value of any kind. That is the null. The thing which doesn't exist. It doesn't mean the boolean has three options.
Your middle school biology courses were written so you'd have the foundation to be curious enough to learn more; and yet here you are, no more educated than a child that still statistically wets the bed during a nightmare.
I sincerely hope you continue educating yourself, you have sipped from a spring and declared you have drank all the oceans.
Throughout the entire animal Kingdom, there is only two sexes. We are not fungus.
Again showing you didn't even make it to high school biology. Even in dimorphic species (which is so incredibly far from the only type in animalia) sex is never just binary. Chemistry is weird, chemistry in a highly chaotic system is even more weird. Dying on a hill made for children to stare at mountains is just pathetic.
Sperm and egg. What else is there. It's not a spectrum of speg and erm or anything else but egg and sperm. Sex is about the ability to reproduce.
Even if we accepted that definition (again, biology is more complex than what you learned in grade school), menopause or orchiectomies would make people neuter, meaning we're back to three sexes at least.
No. That's just two sexes and a null.