Sarah McBride laughs off Trump’s anti-trans executive order
www.independent.co.uk
The first openly transgender member of Congress mocked Trump’s executive order

Summary

Representative Sarah McBride, the first out trans congresswoman, criticized Donald Trump’s executive order defining gender as strictly male or female.

McBride points out that biologically all embryos develop as female until the SRY gene activates weeks after conception.

The order, which ties gender to reproductive cells at conception, unintentionally categorizes all humans as female from conception based on biological facts.

McBride’s remarks highlight scientific flaws in the policy.

  • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    3 hours ago

    It defines every human as belonging to neither of the 2 sexes. There is pretty much no other way to read it.

    Read it carefully, and then read it like a Republican.

    “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

    This does NOT mean “a female is a person who can produce the large reproductive cell.”

    The BELONG is the key word here. They’ll argue that anyone with XX chromosomes belongs to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell. An embryo may not produce large or small reproductive cells, but they still belong to the sex that produces the large or small reproductive cell. Even if an adult is infertile, they still belong to the sex that produces the large or small reproductive cell. It’s not like per-pubescent children or post-menopausal women don’t have a sex marker on their passports.

    That is how this is meant to be read, and that is how it will be interpreted by conservative courts.

    In truth the definition is a bit circular, as it defines “sex” as:

    “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”

    And then in turn it defines male and female in terms of “belonging to the sex that produces…”

    But I don’t think the courts will really quibble with that. It’s clear what the intent of the order is. And that is how it will be interpreted.

    You do not have to actually be capable of producing the large reproductive cell to be a member of the sex that produces the large reproductive cell. Is this definition all-encompassing and without issues? No. But legal definitions rarely are perfect, and courts have to find ways to still apply laws that reflect the intent of their drafters. And while the wording of the order is clumsy, the intent is quite clear.

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      1·
      15 minutes ago

      I mean sure, everyone knows what they meant and courts tend to go with that. Still funny to poke fun at their poor writing.

      The BELONG is the key word here. They’ll argue that anyone with XX chromosomes belongs to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell. An embryo may not produce large or small reproductive cells, but they still belong to the sex that produces the large or small reproductive cell. Even if an adult is infertile, they still belong to the sex that produces the large or small reproductive cell.

      So you are saying that a persons sex is male if they belong to the male sex? That’s just cyclical statement that tells you nothing :D