According to the wording of the order, at conception you are female if you are “producing larger reproductive cells” or male if you are “producing smaller reproductive cells”. Since at conception no one is making either reproductive cells, then I agree with the stance that the order says no one is male or female now.
I think everyone involved with the orders are a bunch of jackasses, but that simply isn’t what it says. It doesn’t speculate at all about the timing of the production of the reproductive cells, merely that the individual belongs to a a sex that does produce them. It’s a fun joke, but going to the mat defending it just makes it look like you don’t read well.
Except that interpretation ends up being circular in a way. They don’t have the characteristic, but one day they will belong to a sex that is associated with producing them, even if they personally never do. The wording is very weird because they think they are sidestepping chromosomal and hormonal anomalies, but end up in either taking them literally at their word (no one is any gender) or applying some looser interpretation that becomes flexible since “belonging to a sex” is then not tethered to any objective fact since the timeframe is then up for grabs.
For example, they could have said “if the sperm contributed a y chromosome, then male, else female”. But they probably were thinking of things like Morris, Kleinfelter, and Swyer and wanted to have wording flexible enough to account for those. But it results in enough ambiguity to allow for things.
It doesn’t speculate at all about the timing of the production of the reproductive cells, merely that the individual belongs to a a sex that does produce them
It literally specifies “at the time of conception”. At which point nobody has developed any sexual characteristics.
Competent lawmakers write bills and executive orders VERY carefully in order to cause the least confusion and unintended conclusions possible.
Trump has once again proven to be the polar opposite of competence.
According to the wording of the order, at conception you are female if you are “producing larger reproductive cells” or male if you are “producing smaller reproductive cells”. Since at conception no one is making either reproductive cells, then I agree with the stance that the order says no one is male or female now.
We’re all non-binary
I think everyone involved with the orders are a bunch of jackasses, but that simply isn’t what it says. It doesn’t speculate at all about the timing of the production of the reproductive cells, merely that the individual belongs to a a sex that does produce them. It’s a fun joke, but going to the mat defending it just makes it look like you don’t read well.
Except that interpretation ends up being circular in a way. They don’t have the characteristic, but one day they will belong to a sex that is associated with producing them, even if they personally never do. The wording is very weird because they think they are sidestepping chromosomal and hormonal anomalies, but end up in either taking them literally at their word (no one is any gender) or applying some looser interpretation that becomes flexible since “belonging to a sex” is then not tethered to any objective fact since the timeframe is then up for grabs.
For example, they could have said “if the sperm contributed a y chromosome, then male, else female”. But they probably were thinking of things like Morris, Kleinfelter, and Swyer and wanted to have wording flexible enough to account for those. But it results in enough ambiguity to allow for things.
It literally specifies “at the time of conception”. At which point nobody has developed any sexual characteristics.
Competent lawmakers write bills and executive orders VERY carefully in order to cause the least confusion and unintended conclusions possible.
Trump has once again proven to be the polar opposite of competence.