This is a Rolling Stone Headline-It is paywalled so I couldn't read the article but the title shows that's the line they're going to use-my guess that the claim that all fetuses are female (except the EO can use the Y chromosome in it's definition) "Trump’s Trans Ban Defines Everyone as Female — But That’s Not the Problem Rolling Stone Elizabeth Yuko"
But I think the line "from conception" can be defended by the GC & EO to claim that it is chromosomal which is determined by whether the father contributed an X or Y chromosome.
I had this discussion with a bloke today. I explained how it takes the egg, which only has an X, and a sperm, which can be either X or Y, to achieve fertilization. At the moment of conception, the sex of the clump of cells that will form the fetus is already decided. We know that sex does not change from the moment of conception onwards so that instead of needing to check the clump of cells for the sex, we wait until the child is born to discover the sex, although we can check at only a few weeks gestation if we want. I brought up sex selection in IVF that is used to screen for certain problems, and that it wouldn't be possible to do this if all fetuses were female. I suggested it would probably be wise not to push such an ignorant argument if he didn't want to be grouped in with fools.
The left has become the science deniers they used to ridicule… it’s very pathetic and sad.
It's pretty telling that the line they went with is "tee-hee, everyone is female now". Not very considerate to dysphoric TiFs who insist that their vaginas don't make them women. It shows that this movement is by and for men who get off on larping as women.
You know what, I'm perfectly fine with male fetuses in women's spaces.
Chase Strangio will doubtless soon be arguing that evil radfems won’t allow women pregnant with male foetuses to enter single-sex spaces.
How do we know they're male though if they haven't been born yet? /s
Or that they don't identify as female?
What an embarrassing load of tripe. It still shocks me that the left has adopted this ridiculous anti-women and child damaging cult. It may go down in history as one of the most harmful and illogical things they have ever championed.
Whatever happened to "NO means NO"?
Why can't TRA's and TIM's hear women saying "NO" to their endless tirade of misogyny and colonization? NO! Males are NOT women, of any kind, they are men. NO! You are NOT welcome in female spaces.
"NO." Is a full sentence.
The fact that they don't understand that no means no just proves that they are very much male and always will be.
Can we please stop lying about basic biology? I’m literally begging the left to stop this shit.
It's a load of bollocks.
Some time in the 1980s—I do not remember exactly when— a couple of colleagues of mine and I started to look at the metabolism of human embryos in culture when they are completely invisible, at day 2. What we found was completely extraordinary: male embryos were more active in their metabolism of sugar substrates than female embryos. We were very puzzled about that. We were so concerned that the data was probably ridiculous and sloppy that we felt that we could not publish it, so we did not; we thought it would be ridiculed. Now, there is new data coming through with more sophisticated work showing that the thing we refused to publish initially was probably correct, and we might have had a world first. Again, that sensitivity about sex was there even in that decision about publication, and that is worth thinking about.
Dr Robert Winston, specialist in gynaecology and reproduction speaking in the House of Lords.
I don't get this. Why was he puzzled? Because of the differing behavior of the embryos along sex lines so early on?
Yeah, such distinct behaviour wasn't expected before the sexual differentiation genes kick in.
“It’s especially egregious that this order defines ‘sex’ as starting ‘at conception,’ which is impossible,” says Ash Lazarus Orr, press relations manager at Advocates for Trans Equality.
I love how this woman, who is so clearly a woman and not a magically sexless "they," is so fucking absolute about her fake science. She's a goddamn trans activist, not a doctor or scientist. Why are reputable magazines allowing her to spew this garbage?
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2024/12/11/west-virginia-transgender
It doesn't really matter what a morula, blast, embryo or foetus looks like or what genitals it does or doesn't have.
By the time it emerges from the uterus, except in the case of a few rare DSDs, it will be absolutely, undeniably clear what sex it is and what its chromosomes are.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy sharing a bathroom with a male morula if it wants to pop out for a visit. Just as most women are fine with young male children who are typically permitted in female facilities up to a certain age.
It's adult males that we prefer not to have in our intimate spaces.
I hate that women tolerate male children in female intimate spaces. It means little girls never really have any privacy or consideration for their dignity.
When they're tiny it's fine. They're barely aware of one another.
From primary school age it starts to get more problematic.
I remember being aware, long before kindergarten.
Of course, I do not have children, so I still identify more with daughters of all ages than with mothers of sons.
TIPs: TERFs ignore trans men! They're transphobic and think trans men are just confused and abused girls and women! We need to destroy those bigots!
Also TIPs: "So, according to this definition, all Americans are female."
Looooooool
I knew they would cling to this myth even though it throws TIFs under the bus lmao
Let's say it's true that all fetuses start out female. What on earth is their point? The fetus would then develop into male and female by the time they're born. It's like when TRAs bring up intersex. How does it change anything if some people are born with birth defects on their reproductive systems?
Yes and the thing that determines whether this "female" fetus develops into a male or female is determined at the point either a y or x chromosome sperm fertilizes the egg, in other words, at the point of conception. People are so fucking stupid.
It never does change anything. This is the problem with a flawed premise -- they have to spend all their time and energy developing and curating what-abouts and other fallacies because their basic arguments cannot hold.
They have a history of twisting biology to fit their ideology, so this is just the latest twist. However, I doubt they will successfully argue their way into anywhere the EO bans them from by the strength of their standing at the door and arguing over the "meaning" of the text of the EO.
From a Buzzfeed article
https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashajokic1/donald-trump-executive-order-trans
"Female' means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell." They think this is a gotcha, they really are playing word games. Even comments have the tired "well since I went through menopause & not producing eggs I guess I'm not a woman"
The definition indicates that at conception, the person belongs to the SEX that produces the large gamete. Which by implication indicates chromosomal presence or absence of the Y chromosome. It should have explicitly stated that genetic sex occurs at conception, to be clearer & forestall some of the TRA challenges. But it still does NOT state that that person produces the gametes at conception. Or even that they ever, or continuously, individually produce the large gametes. Since with age, disease, surgery such as removal of ovaries, or even a disorder or mutation, as an individual, they may not have ovaries. Just as people individually may be born or even in utero, or after birth, may not have other organs or limbs usually present in humans. That doesn't blur the lines or put them on a "spectrum" of humanness. But the chromosomes indicate that they belong to the sex class that produces either large or small gametes.
The article also is pushing "Technically, the language used in the executive order makes it so that everyone is legally a woman as all embryos initially follow a female developmental path. "
No, it doesn't. 1) Embryos start out from few to many cells. Development may look similar very early, just as it takes a few weeks to differentiate into livers & kidneys,etc..& use some of the same building blocks, but there are genetic codes that undergird the differentiation. 2) It is not early embryonic development that the definition uses to define an individual's sex but the sex class that they are separated into at fertilization by receiving either the Y chromosome or a second X chromosome from the father. The sex class with a Y chromosome will be the one that produces the small gametes. The individual may not for various reasons, but their Y chromosome would put them in that group as that leads to the differentiation of cells that produces that.
"Kellan explained, "This seeks to define women, in particular, by their reproductive capacity. This is something that many people in the United States have fought against."
It seeks to define sex through reproductive function. Which is why there are 2 sexes. The EO also defines men by their reproductive function as well, it isn't women "in particular". An attempt by the TRA to pretend they are fighting sexism against women is an attempt to co-opt women. What this EO does is use the terms women & girls as synonymous with female humans & men & boys for male humans. It doesn't limit women or men by their reproductive capacity. It points out the reproductive role & result of being either sex.
People can dislike the fact that sex is literally defined by reproductive roles all they want but it's still true.
They certainly seem to know who has the reproductive burden when it comes to legislation involving blocking access to contraception, termination, prenatal care, maternity leave etc.
You don't need to fight against the definition you just need to fight the fuckwits who are ensuring that being a woman is often dangerous, burdensome, or expensive.
The definition indicates that at conception, the person belongs to the SEX that produces the large gamete. Which by implication indicates chromosomal presence or absence of the Y chromosome. It should have explicitly stated that genetic sex occurs at conception
I'd have liked to see that too. I realize there's a lot of concern over the EO wording and abortion rights, but sex begins at conception is a stone-cold primary biological fact. The term conception needs to be part of the root definition of girl/woman/female and boy/man/male.
If we can't have science, we can't have an empirical consensus on reality. Sex-at-conception is as basic as it gets.
A huffpost article from Feb. 2024 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-push-biological-sex-bills-that-erase-transgender-identity_n_65c13010e4b069b665dc5aba
Says "Under Barack Obama, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education issued guidance to public schools around Title IX and Title VII, protecting transgender students’ rights to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity and prohibiting sex discrimination based on transgender status.
Trump rolled back those protections, including those against sexual harassment, and tried to establish a narrow legal definition of gender as a biological and immutable condition from birth. During his current presidential campaign, he has signaled he would only expand his anti-LGBTQ agenda if elected to a second term."
"A narrow legal definition of gender as a biological and immutable condition from birth."
As if this understanding of biology was something new. Also, confusing or conflating gender-a word they have a very different, vague & changing definition for-with sex. This extension of sex covering gender identity in Title IX is only 16 years old. Starting with Obama. Biden's order saying sex includes gender identity is only 4 years old. Yet TRA & the media are pushing the narrative that defining sex as the Trump EO does is the unproven/unscientific/new definition.
Genuinely, I didn't know this shit started with Obama. I mean, I knew the cultural shift started back then, but I didn't realize Obama messed with women's rights in federal law. I'm dismayed to hear that. I thought it started with Biden.
The Obama-Biden admin introduced many new federal regulations that have embedded gender identity ideology across all branches of the federal government and the programs and facilities that the federal government funds.
In 2012-2016, the Obama-Biden admin overhauled the regulations for HUD programs so that placement in all sex-segregated federally-funded homeless and emergency shelters - and participation other kinds of housing programs under HUD's purview that have special provisions based on sex - must be based on the claimed gender identity of people who say they are trans or "gender nonconforming," not their actual sex.
Through this final rule, HUD ensures equal access for individuals in accordance with their gender identity in programs and shelter funded under programs administered by HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD). This rule builds upon HUD's February 2012 final rule entitled “Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity” (2012 Equal Access Rule), which aimed to ensure that HUD's housing programs would be open to all eligible individuals and families regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. The 2012 Equal Access Rule, however, did not address how transgender and gender non-conforming individuals should be accommodated in temporary, emergency shelters, and other buildings and facilities used for shelter, that have physical limitations or configurations that require and that are permitted to have shared sleeping quarters or shared bathing facilities. This final rule follows HUD's November 2015 proposed rule, which addressed this issue and solicited public comment on measures to ensure that recipients and subrecipients of CPD funding—as well as owners, operators, and managers of shelters and other buildings and facilities and providers of services funded by CPD—grant equal access to such facilities and services to individuals in accordance with an individual's gender identity.
[With this new rule] HUD makes several changes... the purpose of the rule is equal access in accordance with an individual's gender identity in CPD programs generally. Equal access ensures that, when consideration of sex is prohibited or not relevant, individuals will not be discriminated against based on actual or perceived gender identity, and where legitimate consideration of sex or gender is appropriate, such as in a facility providing temporary, short term shelter that is not covered by the Fair Housing Act and which is legally permitted to operate as a single-sex facility, the individual's own self-identified gender identity will govern.
[With this new rule] HUD also revises paragraph (b) to add a provision that policies and procedures must ensure that individuals are not subjected to intrusive questioning or asked to provide anatomical information or documentary, physical, or medical evidence of the individual's gender identity. HUD agrees... it is important that transgender or gender nonconforming persons can self-identify their gender identity orally and not be asked intrusive questions or asked to provide documentary, physical, or medical evidence to prove their gender identity.
In § 5.106(c), which addresses placement and accommodation in temporary, emergency shelters and other buildings and facilities with physical limitations or configurations that require and are permitted to have shared sleeping quarters or shared bathing facilities, HUD removes the proposed rule language that under narrow circumstances, a written case-by-case determination could be made on whether an alternative accommodation for a transgender individual would be necessary to ensure health and safety....
This final rule thus revises paragraph (c) of § 5.106 to provide that placement and accommodation of individuals shall be made in accordance with an individual's gender identity, and it removes language that permits an exception to this rule where a provider makes a written case-by-case determination on whether an alternative accommodation for a transgender individual would be necessary to ensure health and safety.
Even with antidiscrimination policies clearly articulated, occupants may express concerns or engage in other behavior toward transgender or gender nonconforming persons. If some occupants initially present concerns about transgender or gender nonconforming occupants to project staff and managers, staff should treat those concerns as opportunities to educate and refocus the occupants.
HUD recognizes that, even then, conflicts may persist and complaints may escalate to verbal or physical harassment [of transgender and gender nonconforming occupants]. In these situations, providers should have policies and procedures in place to support residents and staff in addressing and resolving conflicts that escalate to harassment. These policies should include specific behaviors that violate standards of respectful behavior, escalate corrective actions if an individual repeats the same violation of standards after educational opportunities are offered, and focus corrective actions on aggressors who violate project rules, not on the [transgender] person targeted by the harassment.
If an occupant continues to harass a transgender individual, the provider should consider requiring that the harassing occupant stay away from the transgender individual, making changes in sleeping arrangements without limiting the freedom of the transgender individual, or pursuing other interventions. When appropriate, providers may consider expelling harassing residents, or any staff or volunteer members who perpetuate discrimination. In no instance, however, should any steps taken to address harassment or discrimination involve expulsion of [transgender] harassed occupants.
That'll be that old one-party information dominance and algorithmically-driven (or comfort-driven) media stovepipes for you.
FWIW this is me trying to make sense of the timeline from Kara Dansky's account of it: https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/650167/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to/e623420b-d585-4ec3-a0ff-8144eb68467d
Thanks for the archive.
How do they get away with spouting lies about biology?
"It’s especially egregious that this order defines ‘sex’ as starting ‘at conception,’ which is impossible,” says Ash Lazarus Orr, press relations manager at Advocates for Trans Equality. “While it’s possible to know chromosomal information, human embryos don’t show sexual differentiation at that stage — and all embryos initially develop along ‘female’ lines until later in development.”
The absence or presence of a Y chromosome determines the sex & sexual development. Chromosomal sex determines sexual differentiation.
We develop from a few cells to many. All organs initially develop at the start the same as far as sight until differentiation. It doesn't mean all cells are heart cells or skin cells, etc..
"During the third week after fertilization, the embryo begins to undergo cellular differentiation. Differentiation is the process by which unspecialized cells become specialized. As illustrated in Figure below, differentiation occurs as certain genes are expressed ("switched on") while other genes are switched off. Because of this process, cells develop unique structures and abilities that suit them for their specialized functions."
So a lot of organs don't differentiate at conception. But chromosomes at conception determine which sex they will differentiate into.
While it’s possible to know chromosomal information . . . [from the article]
Self-own.
So a lot of organs don't differentiate at conception. But chromosomes at conception determine which sex they will differentiate into.
Absolutely.
Do you have a link you can share to source the passage in second-to-last paragraph is from from? Thanks.
I just googled when do cells differentiate in an embryo. It brings up many links.
The mistaken idea that all embryos are female because they have morphologically undifferentiated gonads and genitals that make them look outwardly similar to the eye is so incredibly outdated and stupid that it would be laughable if it weren't so offensive.
It's based on the misogynistic view held and promoted by phallocentric male supremacists that absence of visible testicles and penis = female.
At that stage, you can hardly tell the difference between a human and a chicken and we also have gills and tails at that stage.
We're all fish at conception
When you were a tadpole and I was a fish... 🎶
I was an octopus
Exactly. So according to them human embryos are not from the human species because most tetrapod fetuses look the similar in early stages.
But the grooves and folds in the neck of human embryos known known as pharyngeal ridges and folds are not actually gills. They just look like they could be gills.
Ancestral characters are often, but not always, preserved in an organism’s development. For example, both chick and human embryos go through a stage where they have slits and arches in their necks like the gill slits and gill arches of fish. These structures are not gills and do not develop into gills in chicks and humans, but the fact that they are so similar to gill structures in fish at this point in development supports the idea that chicks and humans share a common ancestor with fish. Thus, developmental characters, along with other lines of evidence, can be used for constructing
I thought the theory which says that similar-looking features resembling fish gills observed in chick and human embryos indicate common ancestry was highly contested, and rejected and critized by leading evolutionary biologists as well as Christian scientists promoting "intelligent design." Coz the the theory came from Darwin and 19th century German scientist Ernst Haeckel and was backed and popularized largely because of Haeckel's widely-reproduced drawings of embryos - many of which were fraudulent, or at least highly fanciful and exaggerated.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Haeckel_drawings.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel#/media/File:Haeckel_Anthropogenie_1874.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel#/media/File:Haeckel-embryos-weeks4-6.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
I have no idea what's the case either way. I've just followed the controversy over the decades. The story of Haeckel's drawings and the power and influence they achieved because they were so widely reproduced is a study in myth-making in the era of modern technoligies of imagery that allow for images to be mass-produced and mass- disseminated for little cost.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v38/n09/steven-shapin/what-do-you-mean-by-a-lie
https://geneticsunzipped.com/transcripts/2020/1/30/back-to-the-womb
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530041-200-how-fudged-embryo-illustrations-led-to-drawn-out-lies/
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/haeckels-embryos-the-images-that-would-not-go-away
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo18785800.html
https://textbookhistory.org/haeckels-embryos-in-high-school-and-college/
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo18785800.html
I remember my HS teacher showing a pic of what a fetus looked like at that stage and said a human and chicken were indistinguishable. I just googled it and the info about the gills came up. I never heard that before either. I copied what it said. I don't know I could be very wrong but that is the info I got So maybe Google is wrong..
But the PR manager said it so it must be scientifically true /s