• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

AGAIN!!!
IT'S NOT ME MAKING THESE CLAIMS! IT'S THE US NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH! IF THEY ARE WRONG, PLEASE WRITE TO THEM, NOT ME!!

AND STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!
TELL THAT TO THE AUTHORS OF THE E.O. BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT IS EXACTLY THE CASE!!

Keep in mind who you are dealing with. Mischaracterization and comprehensions fails are par for the course. This is a person who insists that any person not actually producing gametes at the precise moment he observes them is sexless
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind who you are dealing with. Mischaracterization and comprehensions fails are par for the course. This is a person who insists that any person not actually producing gametes at the precise moment he observes them is sexless
🙄 You too seem to be unclear on the difference between "phenotypically female" and "reproductively female". Par for the course ... 🙄
 
It says "phenotypically female". Do you deny it says that? phenotypically female genitalia (meaning genitals initially have a female appearance).
It says phenotypically female genitalia (meaning the genitals initially appear female). It also says the gonads (which determine gamete type) are undifferentiated. The genotype which will trigger a male or female pathway of sexual differentiation is present at conception. Being male or female is not defined by the appearance of genitalia at any stage of development.
.
 
It says phenotypically female genitalia (meaning the genitals initially appear female). It also says the gonads (which determine gamete type) are undifferentiated. The genotype which will trigger a male or female pathway of sexual differentiation is present at conception. Being male or female is not defined by the appearance of genitalia at any stage of development.
.
Don't tell me, tell the author of the EO. They don't know phenotype and genotype from Linotype.
 
No. If you had been paying attention, I was quoting the NIH. Got a beef? Take it up with them.
The quote from the NIH does not say or imply that we are all female at conception.
You are the one claiming or implying that a fetus with XY chromosomes, undifferentiated gonads, and female-appearing genitalia is female. Aside from that, you are also claiming a zygote with XY chromosomes, no gonads, and no genitalia is female at conception.
I think you know by now you are talking nonsense.
 
Last edited:
PAIS is probably one of the most controversial ones.

CAIS is SRY positive, but the receptors don't work. So during fetal development, the signal to do down the wolffian pathway is *sent*, but it's never *received*. In the absence of that reception, the reproductive anatomy develops to be phenotypically female. CAIS results in the fetus developing a uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix, and vagina, with the urethral opening separated from the vaginal opening. They do NOT develop a penis, vas deferens, prostate, or scrotal sac. All of the elements of a female reproductive system are present, but the tissue in their gonads is testicular and sterile.

PAIS, on the other hand, ends up with the signal being *sent* and *partially received*. Most PAIS will end up with a definitive male reproductive phenotype, although it's often not fully developed, and sometimes they end up with vestigial bits left over from the early fetal stage.

It can be controversial because depending on how garbled the signal, you end up with more or less development of the male phenotype. But they will end up with at least SOME male development.

It's the insensitivity during early fetal development that is critical - as that's what prompts the mullerian or the wolffian pathway. It's not spectrumy, because there's no "in between" pathway.


So when we get to mosaics and chimeras, things get weird - and I don't understand the distinction between them well enough to explain it. One has to do with the genes being mixed up within the same egg, and I think the other has to do with two separated eggs merging and the genetic material ending up mixed after that. But it's very confusing to me.

It's hypothetically possible for someone with whichever comes from the merging to end up with one ovary and one testis... but the likelihood of both of those being functional is vanishingly small. IIRC, there's been one single documented case of a person with ovotesticular disorder having been autopsied and finding that there was some suggesting that they may have ovulated at some point during their life - but they lacked a uterus or fallopian tubes or anything else that is related to a female reproductive phenotype, and the individual had fathered children with their active sperm - which definitively makes them male.

At this point, however, we're way into the realm of hypotheticals... like, it's hypothetically possible for conjoined twins to share a brain and have two predominantly separate and independent bodies. Sure, it could maybe happen given extraordinarily unlikely circumstances, but I'm not taking bets on it, and I'm definitely not going to support policies that define humans as having a spectrum of torsos because of that vanishingly small possibility.

Turner is female because... there is no SRY gene present at all. There's not even a second X chromosome! Turner females develop entirely female reproductive systems.

As a general note... there are many conditions that fall under the grouping of Disorders of Sexual Development. That grouping really just means "something went wonky in the development of your reproductive system". But the overwhelming majority of people with DSDs are unambiguously male or female - every bit of their reproductive anatomy phenotypical for their sex. Within humans, something like 0.2% have a DSD... and within those with DSDs, it's like 0.1% that have anatomies that are ambiguous enough to even need more than a cursory glance at birth. 5-ARD is one of those, ovotesticular disorder is another, and I forget which others. The reality is that less than 0.002% of humans need any kind of testing to determine if they're male or female. Most DSDs end up presenting at puberty or later. Some get caught at puberty, because the person's body doesn't develop as expected - females don't menstruate or develop breasts, males don't see elongation of the penis or begin ejaculating. In a lot of cases, however, it doesn't get caught until they're entirely adult and find that they're sterile.

My godchild has a condition that doesn't usually get talked about in this context, but is considered a DSD. They have Kallman syndrome. Their karyotype and phenotype are completely normal for a female - but their pituitary gland is malformed. The pituitary plays a critical role in puberty and in hormone production post-puberty. In their case, their pituitary just completely failed to send any signal to start hormone production. Their adrenal worked just fine, so their long bones grew rapidly, and they grew fine leg, armpit, and pubic hair... but that was it. Their endocrinologist put them on standard issue birth control pills, and that provides enough hormones to allow for reproductive maturation as well as bone density accretion... but they're unlikely to ever have children. Interestingly - their condition was discovered because they had congenital anosmia - complete inability to smell anything. And it turns out that during early fetal development, the lump of goo that turns into the pituitary makes a pit stop on its way to the brain to drop off nasal bulbs - and theirs skipped that stop. It's one of the only indicators for Kallman that can show up prior to puberty.
Thanks. That is a highly informative post. I appreciate how much effort you put into it. I’ll likewise try and look into this further to get my head round some of the more difficult areas.
 
The quote from the NIH does not say or imply that we are all female at conception.
"During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female." Forgive me, but what does this read in English to you? "Early development", like as in "at conception"?
You are the one claiming or implying that a fetus with XY chromosomes, undifferentiated gonads, and female-appearing genitalia is female. Aside from that, you are also claiming a zygote with XY chromosomes, no gonads, and no genitalia is female at conception.
I think you know by now you are talking nonsense.
No, this is you putting words in my mouth. I know you cannot show where I have said any of this. To do so is lying.

The problem is that, regardless of all the stuff you go on about that happens later, it is entirely and utterly irrelevant to the EO. The EO specifically says "AT CONCEPTION". It specifically does NOT say "later when differentiation occurs". The EO is a legal document, so it should not really be vague (this one is, but what did anyone expect from Trump's doofuses). So you need to be limiting your discussion to ONLY at conception. I'm sure that's not beyond you.

My point is that your own screeds show beyond all doubt this EO is a stupid document because it is so scientifically wrong. As I said, you need to take your screeds to the authors of this EO (hint: Project 2025) and bash them about the head. I'm not your target.
 
Last edited:
That's where I'm coming from here, although it may not be quite as many as 99.99999%. Nevertheless the fact remains, that for something like 99.98% of births, sex is correctly observed from neonatal anatomy. These people are never going to trouble the scorer here. Another group of people who will not trouble the scorer in later life are infants who are suspected of having a DSD and investigated at the time. The question will have been asked and answered before any ambiguity has arisen.

The ones who may trouble the scorer are DSDs whose existence isn't suspected until (usually) puberty. You get a girl who has not started to menstruate by, say, fifteen, and some questions start to be asked. Some of these may be 5ARD boys who weren't picked up at birth, but frankly that's going to be pretty damn rare in the USA. Others may be girls with CAIS or Swyer's. What happens when they're investigated as teenagers? Remember, this isn't an academic exercise, this is about people's lives. The actual definition of what constitutes male or female "at conception" has to be settled on. It the EO doesn't say anything about the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, or about the presence or absence of an SRY gene. It doesn't go into any detail.

I don't imagine for one second that the drafters of this order want or intend to tell CAIS or Swyer's girls that they're really male and have to start using the male bathrooms and playing on the boys' teams. I think 5ARD has the potential to be awkward, but they were probably thinking mainly about preventing the sort of abuses we've seen in athletics where these men are allowed to compete as women because of this stupid "assigned at birth" thing. It might be hard on some unrecognised 5ARD boys, but I don't know. Most of them seem to be figuring it our as they go through puberty if they're not being pressurised by an athletics authority to live a lie.

It's entirely possible to define "male at conception" as an embryo (or a zygote) which has received a functional SRY gene and the genes coding for functioning androgen receptors, and "female at conception" as one that (normally) has no functional SRY gene, or (exceptionally) lacks the genes coding for androgen receptors. Or something like that. It might not catch everyone, but you're talking penny numbers.

I think 5ARD is the awkward one, and legislation like this would help ensure these boys aren't missed as infants - if indeed they ever are in the USA. It's not good to have to take that on board as a young teenager, and the way to ensure that doesn't happen is to be vigilant and diagnose them in infancy.
Please note that an executive order is not legislation. It has no legal value. It is a guideline issued by the chief executive to the agencies under his authority, as to how they are to carry out their lawful duties. The chief effect this will have is on federal staff who want men to be allowed in the women's restrooms.

The debate about trans rights in public policy would be very different, if it were actually about Title IX regulators trying to figure out whether to sanction a school for letting a 5ARD individual compete in women's collegiate sports.
 
"During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female." Forgive me, but what does this read in English to you? "Early development", like as in "at conception"
Obviously 'during early development' does not mean 'at conception'. Nor does 'having phenotypically female genitalia' mean 'female'.

No, this is you putting words in my mouth. I know you cannot show where I have said any of this. To do so is lying.
You are repeatedly stating things and denying you sated them. This is what you said:
'.......legislation refers to "at conception". And at conception, we humans are all female. So if your legally assigned US gender is what you are at conception, you are therefore all women. Congratulations, madam!"

At conception, a zygote has XX or XY chromosomes (except in rare cases of DSDs), and no gonads. As quoted above, you stated that all humans are female at conception. At conception just over half of zygotes will have XY chromosomes. Therefore you are claiming that a zygote with XY chromosomes, no gonads, and no genitalia is female.

During early development, the fetus has either XX or XY chromosomes (except in rare cases of DSDs), and undifferentiated gonads with female appearance. If you are claiming that during early development they are all female, then you are claiming that a fetus with XY chromosomes and undifferentiated gonads is female.

If you are not claiming that a zygote with XY chromosomes, no gonads, and no genitalia is female then you need to withdraw your claim that all humans are female at conception. Make up your mind.
The problem is that, regardless of all the stuff you go on about that happens later, it is entirely and utterly irrelevant to the EO. The EO specifically says "AT CONCEPTION". It specifically does NOT say "later when differentiation occurs". The EO is a legal document, so it should not really be vague (this one is, but what did anyone expect from Trump's doofuses). So you need to be limiting your discussion to ONLY at conception. I'm sure that's not beyond you.

My point is that your own screeds show beyond all doubt this EO is a stupid document because it is so scientifically wrong. As I said, you need to take your screeds to the authors of this EO (hint: Project 2025) and bash them about the head. I'm not your target.
If you want to criticize the EO you need to think of valid criticisms and not parrot ones from social media that make you look ridiculous.
 
In the extraordinarily rare event that a CAIS person ends up in prison, I doubt anyone is going to be doing genetic testing to determine whether the entirely female looking person with no fake parts is actually for realsies a genetic female or whether they have testicles where there ovaries are along with their home-grown fallopian tubes, cervix, etc.
Are you being serious right now? The genetic testing would have happened with the initial diagnosis of AIS, typically around when menarche would have happened. It would be part of their medical records upon admission.
We're once again at a point where female rights, safety, and dignity are being happily hand-waved away in preference of rules-lawyering the every loving ◊◊◊◊ out of exceptionally rare cases and what if scenarios that might hypothetically some day happen.
Any law covering millions of people is going to have to deal with "exceptionally rare cases" at least some of the time.

Would "female rights, safety, and dignity" be impacted by placing CAIS prisoners in female prisons?

If so, how so? If not, why forbid it via EO?
 
Last edited:
Obviously 'during early development' does not mean 'at conception'. Nor does 'having phenotypically female genitalia' mean 'female'.


You are repeatedly stating things and denying you sated them. This is what you said:
'.......legislation refers to "at conception". And at conception, we humans are all female. So if your legally assigned US gender is what you are at conception, you are therefore all women. Congratulations, madam!"

At conception, a zygote has XX or XY chromosomes (except in rare cases of DSDs), and no gonads. As quoted above, you stated that all humans are female at conception. At conception just over half of zygotes will have XY chromosomes. Therefore you are claiming that a zygote with XY chromosomes, no gonads, and no genitalia is female.

During early development, the fetus has either XX or XY chromosomes (except in rare cases of DSDs), and undifferentiated gonads with female appearance. If you are claiming that during early development they are all female, then you are claiming that a fetus with XY chromosomes and undifferentiated gonads is female.

If you are not claiming that a zygote with XY chromosomes, no gonads, and no genitalia is female then you need to withdraw your claim that all humans are female at conception. Make up your mind.

If you want to criticize the EO you need to think of valid criticisms and not parrot ones from social media that make you look ridiculous.
Do you understand that I understand what the words mean? Do you understand that I have already said that I agree with all YOU have said? The problem is that the wording of the EO is NOT based on this shared understanding we have?

But this is where we get to with such people.

After his executive order on sex, is Trump legally the first female president?​

The confusing and vague executive order underscores how complex sex is and why it’s hard to reduce it into a neat binary

 
Please note that an executive order is not legislation. It has no legal value. It is a guideline issued by the chief executive to the agencies under his authority, as to how they are to carry out their lawful duties. The chief effect this will have is on federal staff who want men to be allowed in the women's restrooms.

The debate about trans rights in public policy would be very different, if it were actually about Title IX regulators trying to figure out whether to sanction a school for letting a 5ARD individual compete in women's collegiate sports.

Yes. Although I note they have closed the loophole for 5ARD nevertheless.

If a man wants to use women's facilities he's going to have to prove he was female at conception. This nonsense about all early embryos being female aside, good luck with that.
 
After his executive order on sex, is Trump legally the first female president?
The confusing and vague executive order underscores how complex sex is and why it’s hard to reduce it into a neat binary

Thanks for that link:

"So, is that a correct assessment? Did Trump accidentally declare himself the first female president?

It would be extremely satisfying if the answer to that question was an unequivocal yes. But the more accurate answer is: No"
 

Back
Top Bottom