You're viewing a single thread.
I mean they’re obviously arguing chromosomal sex is the end all be all
while it is true the gonads and external genitalia of embryos appear the same regardless of chromosomal sex it is also true that generally that embryo will develop sex characteristics in weeks 7-12 based on chromosomal assignments that occurred at conception.
The xy embryos have the presence of the sry gene on the Y chromosome which triggers development of gonads into testes, testosterone, and amh. Wolffian ducts become early stages of a penis, amh causes Müllerian ducts to regress
Xx embryos lack sry gene obviously, which allow the gonads to become ovaries. The wolffian ducts regress without amh and the Müllerian ducts become early stages of a vagina
Then week 12+ is when uterus/prostate start
That said biological sex is obviously much more complex than this. Intersex people exist. And there’s a great deal of variation in that.
Gonadal dysgenesis can occur when the gonads do not fully develop into testes or ovaries, incomplete or ambiguous genitalia.
True hermaphroditism can occur where both ovary and testicular tissue is present, again usually leading to ambiguous genitalia (no futas)
Androgen insensitivity can lead to ambiguous genitalia or in some cases an xy person with female external genitalia
Alternatively excess androgen can cause masculinized genitalia in xx people
Kleinfelters (xxy) can give underdeveloped testes, infertility, and low testosterone
Turners (x) underdeveloped ovaries, infertility
And this just kind of hand waves all those people away. Do you feel like your identity is linked to the fact that you’re in this minority and maybe doesn’t match what people perceive you to be? Are you an xy person with female genitalia because of androgen insensitivity who feels that your genitalia don’t match who you are. Well technically you’re a guy now I guess by these rules although we all know they mean “if you look like a chick you’re a chick”
And this all is besides the scientific evidence on transgender neurology, which is large and growing.
The bed nucleus of stria terminals is associated with gender identity and is typically smaller in cis women and larger in cis men. In amab trans women it tends to be similar to that of cis women
Cortical thickness of trans individuals tends to align more closely with their preferred gender
Trans people tend to show brain connectivity patterns in regions associated with self perception and body image aligned with their identity
Etc. this is already a novel. And this doesn’t even touch upon the *many many * more things at play here like genetics and epigenetics, prenatal neural developments and hormonal factors, social structures around gender (though tbf they did somewhat touch on this if only to outright deny its validity without offering any real rationale other than “we think it’s dumb”)
But these people obviously don’t give a shit about any of this. They’ll negate it, attack the source, outright deny the claims with no counter evidence, etc. or they’ll just do what they’re currently doing, remain completely ignorant on the topic and seize authority and power to implement their will regardless of the scientific consensus.
Dark times but fuck them. You don’t need the governments approval to express yourself. although I do recognize this will probably be an absolute nightmare for anyone who has not gotten a name change, modified birth certificate, drivers license, etc. if you haven’t done that maybe do it asap, especially for federal documents like passports (especially if you plan to bail on this shithole)
Thank you!
I hate these "gotcha" responses like the "everyone is female" thing.
Of the many MANY ways that "biological sex" can be determined (phenotype, hormone, etc) the ONLY one that exists at the time of conception when we're not even talking embryo stage yet because there's only one fertilized cell (or two if you want until mitosis begins) is chromosomal sex.
"But we're all female at first" isn't going to hold up in court, and it's NOT going to save trans lives. We need to do better.
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.
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.
Thank you so much for writing all this! It is extremely educating and also very concise.