Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

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"

Claim:
In a January 2025 executive order, U.S. President Donald Trump inadvertently defined all humans as female.
Rating:False

Trump Executive Order Didn't Say All Humans Are Female, But Its Sex Definitions Lack Clarity

The executive order’s definitions of male and female left room for interpretation contrary to the spirit of the order.

www.snopes.com

Sure a lotta people who are unclear on the concept -- being charitable -- that "looking like a typical female" -- AKA "phenotypically female" -- is NOT the same thing as "actually being a female" -- AKA "currently producing large reproductive cells".

If they were at all consistent -- which is probably too much to expect ... -- then they would be obliged to accept that CAIS people were females, and many transwomen likewise, particularly if they've gotten themselves dolled up with neovaginas.

Which I gather, entirely from hearsay, that they at least look so much like the real meal deal that only their gynecologists can say for sure. Though I think one would have to be half blind or dead drunk -- or desperate -- to not pick up on other clues to the contrary.

 

[Steersman]

I think you know by now you are talking nonsense.

That's probably being charitable. Reminds me of the scene in Total Recall about "two weeks" -- a programing failure.

And of a book:

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

from the case study of one of his patients who has visual agnosia, a neurological condition that leaves him unable to recognize faces and objects.

People unable to recognize the difference between the superficial traits of an organism and the "essence" of them.

 

[Steersman]

Now you are just trolling for effect.

Just the facts man, just the facts. Which you don't seem to have a very solid grasp of.

 

[Steersman]

It says "phenotypically female". Do you deny it says that?

So Bruce Jenner is also "phenotypically female" -- apparently has a neovagina to prove it too. Though one would have to be half blind or dead drunk -- or desperate -- to take the next step.

But are you now going to say that "she" is a female? Why or why not? Show your work ...

 

[Norman Alexander]

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"

Except that the Project 2025 inspired EO says "Yes".

 

[d4m10n]

The EO under discussion (whether or not it was inspired by language from Project 2025, a claim which must yield to Hitchens' Razor for now) doesn't tell us anything about how to tell if a given zygote is male or female, but I think we can safely assume that the drafters did not mean to put everyone in the female bin. This is why I have to assume they are going entirely off genotype, with phenotype only useful for the sake of reasoning backwards to genotype.

 

[Matthew Best]

Except that the Project 2025 inspired EO says "Yes".

Take it up with the Guardian - they say it doesn't.

 

[Rolfe]

The EO under discussion (whether or not it was inspired by language from Project 2025, a claim which must yield to Hitchens' Razor for now) doesn't tell us anything about how to tell if a given zygote is male or female, but I think we can safely assume that the drafters did not mean to put everyone in the female bin. This is why I have to assume they are going entirely off genotype, with phenotype only useful for the sake of reasoning backwards to genotype.

I think that's probably a fair way of putting it. Of course they're not suggesting that every American fertilised embryo has to be examined at the moment of fertilisation to see whether it's male or female! What they are saying is that, in the event of any dispute, then it is the sex as determined by the developmental pathway which was encoded into that individual's DNA at conception that matters.

It's "in the event of any dispute" that has to be considered. This person with a prominent Adam's apple, facial hair and a baritone voice wants to use the female facilities. He's on a hiding to nothing. For the vast majority of Americans, who have no abnormalities of sex development, it sews the entire thing up very nicely. People will still try to transgress by stealth, but they better be damn sure they're not going to be spotted, that's all.

Is it really likely that disputes are going to be raised over people with a DSD who were either misclassified at birth (e.g. 5ARD), or whose condition doesn't fulfil the imaginary requirements people are reading into this EO. (It does not say that everyone with a Y chromosome is male and everyone who doesn't have one is female.) Are people of ill-will really going to seek out women with CAIS or Swyer's and insist that they be forced to use the gents, play on the boys' team and be banged up with men if they're sent to prison? It's easy to write the detail of the law to avoid this if necessary.

The genuine disputes I could see would be related to 5ARD males trying to play women's sports, and that's not something that happens in first world countries anyway.

People are going to be accepted on their own recognsance, unless there is reason to believe they're trying to transgress. Then the EO steps in and sorts it out. Approximately 99.9999999999% of the time this will be genetically normal individuals with special feelz who want to over-ride decency and modesty and invade the spaces of the opposite sex. Not women with CAIS.

 

[smartcooky]

I think that's probably a fair way of putting it. Of course they're not suggesting that every American fertilised embryo has to be examined at the moment of fertilisation to see whether it's male or female! What they are saying is that, in the event of any dispute, then it is the sex as determined by the developmental pathway which was encoded into that individual's DNA at conception that matters.

That's a very poor way of expressing it (them,not you Rolfe) but that is a fair assessment according to the way I understand it

It's "in the event of any dispute" that has to be considered. This person with a prominent Adam's apple, facial hair and a baritone voice wants to use the female facilities. He's on a hiding to nothing. For the vast majority of Americans, who have no abnormalities of sex development, it sews the entire thing up very nicely. People will still try to transgress by stealth, but they better be damn sure they're not going to be spotted, that's all.

And that's a good thing IMO.

Is it really likely that disputes are going to be raised over people with a DSD who were either misclassified at birth (e.g. 5ARD), or whose condition doesn't fulfil the imaginary requirements people are reading into this EO. (It does not say that everyone with a Y chromosome is male and everyone who doesn't have one is female.) Are people of ill-will really going to seek out women with CAIS or Swyer's and insist that they be forced to use the gents, play on the boys' team and be banged up with men if they're sent to prison? It's easy to write the detail of the law to avoid this if necessary.

The genuine disputes I could see would be related to 5ARD males trying to play women's sports, and that's not something that happens in first world countries anyway.

Agree

People are going to be accepted on their own recognsance, unless there is reason to believe they're trying to transgress. Then the EO steps in and sorts it out. Approximately 99.9999999999% of the time this will be genetically normal individuals with special feelz who want to over-ride decency and modesty and invade the spaces of the opposite sex. Not women with CAIS.

An end to the cheating by people like William "Lia" Thomas et al... and a return to integrity and fairness in women's sport. Also, immediately start kicking biological males out of women's prisons

 

[Norman Alexander]

The EO under discussion (whether or not it was inspired by language from Project 2025, a claim which must yield to Hitchens' Razor for now) doesn't tell us anything about how to tell if a given zygote is male or female, but I think we can safely assume that the drafters did not mean to put everyone in the female bin. This is why I have to assume they are going entirely off genotype, with phenotype only useful for the sake of reasoning backwards to genotype.

That was my point. They didn't mean to do that. But their crap legal writing sure opens them up for public ridicule by demonstrating their profound ignorance of the subject the EO was about. That Guardian article is global, and is not the only one. It will resonate for quite some time. And if Trump's goons screwed that one up, what else is bolloxed?

Meanwhile, I am happy to refer to Trump as Queen Felonious, the first of that name.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Take it up with the Guardian - they say it doesn't.

Nope, the Guardian agrees with you, and me, on the technicalities. They are saying the EO is wrong.

 

[d4m10n]

It's "in the event of any dispute" that has to be considered.

I don't even remotely get the sense that the EO is limiting itself in this way.

Approximately 99.9999999999% of the time this will be genetically normal individuals with special feelz who want to over-ride decency and modesty and invade the spaces of the opposite sex.

Who are 100% not on topic here; posts about them will end up in AAH.

Not women with CAIS.

The guidance repeals this document thereby implicating intersex individuals.

 

[Elaedith]

Do you understand that I understand what the words mean?

No, based on your posts I don't think you 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

After his executive order on sex, is Trump legally the first female president? | Arwa Mahdawi

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

www.theguardian.com

You don't agree with all I said. I said humans are not all female at conception, the NIH does not say they are, and the EO does not declare everyone female. I don't believe you agree with me on any of these points. Your pretending to agree is just a way to deflect from the fact that you are posting nonsense.

 

[Steersman]

I think that's probably a fair way of putting it. Of course they're not suggesting that every American fertilised embryo has to be examined at the moment of fertilisation to see whether it's male or female! What they are saying is that, in the event of any dispute, then it is the sex as determined by the developmental pathway which was encoded into that individual's DNA at conception that matters.

That's some impressive reading between the lines as I certainly didn't see anything of the sort. Perchance I still missed it?

What is the "developmental pathway encoded in the DNA" of CAIS people?

The problem is that too many people want to make the sexes into social categories granting social status and rights when a strict definition for them -- kind of essential to biology -- means that some third of us, at any one time, are, in fact, sex-less. "Oh, the horror! Muh humanity!"

We might be wise to define "woman", in particular, as "adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality". Captures, directly or indirectly, the essential biological difference between "female" and "male", and most, if not all, of the phenotypical differences between "female" and "male" that are socially relevant while not restricting the term to those that generally are not relevant -- like fertility.

 

[Norman Alexander]

No, based on your posts I don't think you understand what the words mean.

You don't agree with all I said.

With the technicalities, yes I do.

I said humans are not all female at conception, the NIH does not say they are,

Again, I agree.

and the EO does not declare everyone female.

Not what I said. I said that the EO as written has chosen the wrong criteria when it comes to gender assignment by using the words "at conception". Given their simplistic and frankly biblical legislation, they are the ones looking foolish. It's even a punchline for late night comedians now. You are trying to chastise the wrong target.

I don't believe you agree with me on any of these points. Your pretending to agree is just a way to deflect from the fact that you are posting nonsense.

You just want to be contrariness, go ahead. No skin off my nose.

 

[Louden Wilde]

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.

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?

Would you please make the argument, rather than implying it with questions (e.g. I feel the executive order is flawed in its definition of sex, which has potential impact on people with specific genetic disorders...)? FWIW, I think HIPAA will help somewhat here. Also, diagnosis is trending earlier - I know the case (PAIS, with subsequent testes removal) we got presented with here recently was found shortly after birth >12 yrs ago - it was just being presented now due to some follow-up findings and counseling of the kid - (who was just finding out, and had to agree to hormone therapy). Moreover, there is a trend towards early genetic screening as sequencing costs have come down so much.

For sure, there will be some tricky cases - I think I posted in another thread about a case I worked involving an adopted Chinese boy who had been kicked around in orphanages for years over there, and came to the US at about age 7, ~5 years ago. He was born with a messed up urogenital tract, including bladder exstrophy, some penile defect (not clear, and no pictures - he'd been referred by another hospital, so I would have to dig a bit), and an incompletely formed scrotum such that his testes could not descend (without surgery to fix it). After a few years, he decided he wanted to be a girl and was about to start hormone treatment when I worked on the case (looking for a relevant genetic defect). I suspect he'll pass fairly well. If he commits a crime, should he go to a male prison? He's male, and will have greater exposure to androgens than most females in his life, but not full male puberty.

 

[Louden Wilde]

With the technicalities, yes I do.

Again, I agree.

Not what I said. I said that the EO as written has chosen the wrong criteria when it comes to gender assignment by using the words "at conception". Given their simplistic and frankly biblical legislation, they are the ones looking foolish. It's even a punchline for late night comedians now. You are trying to chastise the wrong target.

You just want to be contrariness, go ahead. No skin off my nose.

Let's not forget that the excesses of some of the trans-activists led to/fostered this confusion about sex (including that we're all conceived as female, that some can change sex, that sex is assigned at birth, that folks with DSDs are between the sexes, that the brain can be a different sex than the body, etc.). Yes, on the right there are bible-thumpers, and/or those would use these issues against LGB folks as well, but we on the left have handed them this - either by endorsing it or not speaking up against it. Similar question as to put to d4m10n above - how would you word/alter the EO?

ETA - also note that we're talking about sex, not gender

 

[Steersman]

You just want to be contrariness, go ahead. No skin off my nose.

Methinks you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Being charitable. To a fault.

Did you or did you not say: "And at conception, we humans are all female."?

Here it is in black and white. And in YOUR bolding:

Merged Post in thread 'Strict biological definitions of male/female'

Jan 24, 2025

"phenotypically female" is NOT the same thing as "reproductively female", although the "reproductively" is redundant since that is what "female" MEANS.

See:

phenotypically

1. in a way that relates to the physical characteristics of something living…

dictionary.cambridge.org

The "physical characteristics" -- i.e., those that can be seen -- of CAIS people are those of a typical female -- genitalia in particular. What can NOT be seen are the gonads, the actual reproductive machinery -- at least without specialized equipment -- much less that they're operational and cranking out ova on a regular basis.

You might actually...

• Norman Alexander

En passant and on the "two birds with one stone" principle, I note that what you've been peddling for the last while is generally verbatim to what transwoman Sarah McBride said some four or five days ago. From The Independent article linked to in the Guardian post you've been betting the farm on:

Delaware Rep. Sarah McBride, the first openly transgender person elected to Congress, brushed off President Donald Trump’s anti-transgender executive order Tuesday evening. ....

But critics pointed out that genitalia at conception are “phenotypically female,” according to the National Library of Medicine. [ There's no genitalia present at conception -- there's only a single cell.]

McBride laughed off the distinction between “reproductive cells” during Tuesday evening votes in the House of Representatives. ...

“Well, it appears that he just declared everyone a woman from conception based on the language of the executive order,” she told The Independent.

Sarah McBride laughs off Trump’s anti-trans executive order

The first openly transgender member of Congress mocked Trump’s executive order

www.independent.co.uk

Generally a bad idea to let others do your thinking for you. Particularly those with so disordered thinking as to claim to have changed sex. ...

 

[theprestige]

TIL smol pp = lady

 

[Steersman]

Yes, on the right there are bible-thumpers, and/or those would use these issues against LGB folks as well, but we on the left have handed them this - either by endorsing it or not speaking up against it.

Exactly. Largely why it's important to draw a line in the sand. And the only one that's really defensible is the standard set of biological definitions for the sexes.

Similar question as to put to d4m10n above - how would you word/alter the EO?

Good question. You might have some interest in how Jerry Coyne answers it, even if he outs himself as something of a spectrumist ...

Trump’s new sex and gender policy

If you want to see a compilation of all of Trump’s executive orders, you can find links here that will take you to the contents of the official orders. I’ve talked about the new rules o…

whyevolutionistrue.com

Coyne: While most of this seems okay to me, I’d make two changes. First, sex is not recognizable, at least via the apparatus to produce gametes, at conception, when we have only a single cell. With high probability you could identify its sex via DNA testing, but the reproductive apparatus develops only later. Ergo I would substitute “at birth” for “at conception”.

That's not a bad idea. Particularly if one was to further modify the EO to emphasize that it is not current sex but probable eventual sex:

EO (modified): (d) “Female” means a person eventually and probably belonging, at birth, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

Babies don't produce gametes so can't reasonably be said to belong to the sex that is, by definition, doing so.

Coye: Second, it makes no provision for true intersex people, who cannot be identified as either male or female (hermaphrodites are one example). Though such people are vanishingly rare, so that sex is about as close to binary as you can get, they are not nonexistent, and constitute somewhere between 1 person in 5600 to 1 in 20,000. There has to be some provision for identifying the sex of these people, perhaps with an “I” for intersex.

Still rather clueless that "sex" is, by definition, a binary based on the production of either of two types of gametes as necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership. He's making the intersex into a sex which makes sex a spectrum of three nominal categories. Despite previously accepting that most of the intersex are sexless, i.e., neither male nor female:

SF Chronicle gets biological sex badly wrong

If ever there were a headline designed to get my dander up, it’s this one from a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed (click screenshot below to read, or see it archived here). The author’s se…

whyevolutionistrue.com

Talking out of both sides of his mouth; doesn't know whether he's on foot or horse back. At least on that "field of battle".

ETA - also note that we're talking about sex, not gender

Some people are slow learners -- have to repeat the point several times to get it through their rather thick skulls.