According to developmental biologist and noted atheist blogger PZ Myers, it's more accurate to say he's declaring everyone Trans. link And also, apparenlty we have this gender "at conception". Lol
According to developmental biologist and noted atheist blogger PZ Myers, it's more accurate to say he's declaring everyone Trans.
But the point was, we [generally] change from "undifferentiated" to a specifc gender. And if we change, then we're Trans. Put another way, we transition from undifferentiated to male/female.
But the point was, we [generally] change from "undifferentiated" to a specifc gender. And if we change, then we're Trans. Put another way, we transition from undifferentiated to male/female.
Just wait until the Trump admin finds out that "miscarriage" is just a nice word for a spontaneous abortion (my super-religious neighbor has been struggling with this for decades but still voted...
Just wait until the Trump admin finds out that "miscarriage" is just a nice word for a spontaneous abortion (my super-religious neighbor has been struggling with this for decades but still voted for him, baffling). And that "mono" is a nice way to explain to parents that their child or adolescent has herpes.
I don’t think that the virus that causes mono is the same as herpes simplex 1 but my medical knowledge is rusty Ive been out of healthcare for a decade now.
I don’t think that the virus that causes mono is the same as herpes simplex 1 but my medical knowledge is rusty Ive been out of healthcare for a decade now.
It's herpes 4 I think. But in the same way we don't call all colds rhinovirii and coronavirii etc, I'd need to see intention behind the naming of mono that way. But it's kind of neat to know...
It's herpes 4 I think. But in the same way we don't call all colds rhinovirii and coronavirii etc, I'd need to see intention behind the naming of mono that way.
But it's kind of neat to know because of some of the weird behaviors it demonstrates!
Yeah like I think the symptoms are different. Transmitted the same way and stays with you forever, but I believe theres no rash like there is with simplex 1
Yeah like I think the symptoms are different.
Transmitted the same way and stays with you forever, but I believe theres no rash like there is with simplex 1
Oh my god, I just imagined half a conversation where some parents are talking and one mentions “oh yeah, my five-year-old came home with herpes a few weeks ago, pretty sure he got it from one of...
Oh my god, I just imagined half a conversation where some parents are talking and one mentions “oh yeah, my five-year-old came home with herpes a few weeks ago, pretty sure he got it from one of the other kids at school, but none of the other parents are admitting if their kids had it earlier so we don’t know who started spreading it around”
Yeah I agree, words have meanings but also words can have such strong vibes, so I definitely wouldn’t try to defend that usage in colloquial conversation...
Unfortunately, elementary school teachers have to tell this to parents often and yes, the parents often want to find out who is culpable. The parents also ask "what is mono?" or "how did they get...
Unfortunately, elementary school teachers have to tell this to parents often and yes, the parents often want to find out who is culpable. The parents also ask "what is mono?" or "how did they get mono/chickenpox/these canker sores in their mouth?" which is not a discussion teachers ever want to have. And it's worse when they find out that their kid doesn't actually have canker sores from chicken pox, but actual herpes, and is a victim of CSA or child-on-child abuse. No teacher should have to be in the position to break that news to a parent.
Anyway, it wouldn't hurt to take common infections more seriously just to prevent their spread. At the same time, no one really wants to find out that their kids (teacher's kids or parents' kids) are exposed to things that parents could've helped to prevent. We should take both more seriously and don't.
On a related note, with the apparent number of adults with shingles these days, I think it's also pretty clear that pox parties were a bad idea.
The point was that mono is a nice way to say herpes, and yes but no. The previous comments made it clear I'd need to see intentionality behind "hiding" the herpes virus name. Chicken pox is...
The point was that mono is a nice way to say herpes, and yes but no. The previous comments made it clear I'd need to see intentionality behind "hiding" the herpes virus name.
Chicken pox is varicella-zoster but in the herpes family so it at least can play dumb
Not buying it because the whole point of this was the "at conception" part. You can't transition what you were at conception. He made it official (pending legal action) that you cannot be what I...
Not buying it because the whole point of this was the "at conception" part. You can't transition what you were at conception. He made it official (pending legal action) that you cannot be what I will call "transsex" (as opposed to transsexual or transgender) because the official term used by the government is "sex" and it is no longer officially mutable, meaning that we all must be [UNDEFINED].
Yeah actually, everyone does it: at conception we are undifferentiated, then we transition to either male or female (the spectrum of intersex issues aside).
Not buying it because the whole point of this was the "at conception" part. You can't transition what you were at conception.
Yeah actually, everyone does it: at conception we are undifferentiated, then we transition to either male or female (the spectrum of intersex issues aside).
No, you can transition from what you were at birth, but you can't change the past. At conception, you were neither, which would officially make everyone [UNDEFINED]. You could only be trans in...
No, you can transition from what you were at birth, but you can't change the past. At conception, you were neither, which would officially make everyone [UNDEFINED]. You could only be trans in this scenario if you went back in time and added the large or small reproductive cells at the moment of conception.
What you are is mutable, what you were is immutable because it's in the past and the past is unreachable.
What do you think a developmental biologist means by "undifferentiated"? To be clear: the claim that developmental biologist PZ Myers (read: not me) is making is that at conception we have no...
UNDEFINED
What do you think a developmental biologist means by "undifferentiated"?
To be clear: the claim that developmental biologist PZ Myers (read: not me) is making is that at conception we have no gonads or reproductive cells (which is what Trump, et al are using to bucket people) and are merely are all masses of undifferentiated cells. At various points in the development of the fetus, transitions occur wherein we become one gender or the other (again, setting aside the spectrum of intersex complications). Hence, at the time of our birth, we are already "trans" in that we have transitioned from from an undifferentiated set of cells to a differentiated one.
Now, I grow weary of this tiresome converstion and bid you adieu.
I really don't care whatsoever what a biologist has to say because I am not talking about biology; I am talking about what Trump wrote, which exists solely in bizarro-cuckoo world. Trump claims...
I really don't care whatsoever what a biologist has to say because I am not talking about biology; I am talking about what Trump wrote, which exists solely in bizarro-cuckoo world. Trump claims sex is immutable and permanently set at conception, it is, therefore, impossible for it to make anyone trans-anything.
Given the way Trump defined this, the argument that ol' boy is making would be like saying that if someone who was assigned male at birth gets a reassignment surgery, they are no longer "assigned male at birth." Pure nonsense, right?
The way this executive order is written, your sex is not just set at conception, but it is rather (officially) set in stone at conception and cannot be changed. It does not matter if we do not have a biological sex at conception and then do have one later on; Trump's definition does not change with the passing of time.
Trump's definition is not tied to any biological reality; it is just words on a page. If your biological reality changes, that does not change the words on the page. Nothing you do can change your sex so far as Trump's executive order is concerned.
Trump's order does not say "at conception, sex is considered XYZ;" rather, it says that everyone's sex is determined by which reproductive cells they produced at conception. This is not only not how sex is expressed in reality, but it is not physically possible, as the moment of conception is the moment when you are not producing anything, as it is before production of anything has started. It would be like saying "all cars are divided into 'gas guzzler' and 'high-efficiency' categories based on the rate at which they consume gasoline at the moment the alternator turns over. No gasoline is being consumed at that moment, just as nothing is being produced inside of the zygote at the instant of conception.
In this same way, you cannot change which category you fit into because it is defined as what you were at that moment. There is no possibility of being trans-anything because the categories are defined by peering at a moment in the past. The past is unchangeable; it does not matter if you change species before (or after) birth; your (official, nonsensical) sex has been set for life.
It does not say "everyone is conceived as one sex or the other"; it declares "'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.'" It specifically states that it is immutable, therefore it is impossible for it to declare everyone trans.
Thus, as no one can possibly fit into the two immutable options, we must, therefore, be less than "no sex," as that is not an option—we are all of a totally undefined sex, as no definition fits.
Hey so I get this is what Trump and his administration actually thinks but this is a lot for a biologist's joke - in what is mostly people trying to cope - about this executive order. You're...
Hey so I get this is what Trump and his administration actually thinks but this is a lot for a biologist's joke - in what is mostly people trying to cope - about this executive order. You're spending a lot of energy, in several threads, arguing "what they're saying" and yes, we know you cannot transition if it's immutable by definition.
But what's the point worth making here, especially in response to a whistling in the dark joke? Are you just trying to ensure your point was understood? Or underlining the dumb wording in the document? Or highlighting how profoundly wrong this is?
Because this feels like yelling loudly about a joke to explain the thing we do all understand, I think. But I am not sure I'm following you here. /Gen
I get that, but the initial comment was the joke, and then your responses have started with "not buying it" for example. At some point it looks like you're actually arguing the point rather than...
I get that, but the initial comment was the joke, and then your responses have started with "not buying it" for example. At some point it looks like you're actually arguing the point rather than sharing the administration POV, or that you really think "Undefined" is more valid than "everyone is trans/non-binary/female."
If you could be clearer about the fact that you're speaking within the hypothetical fucked up scenario the administration is proposing that might clarify your point and reduce some of the arguing.
I think the response you're getting is from this sort of devil's advocate sort of angle you're taking and I know personally I'd rather people share their thoughts, not what they think Trump thinks, but more so it seems like it's being really frustrating and I don't perceive you as a typically hostile/frustrated person, especially around topics of sex/gender/etc. so I am figuring that this isn't working for you either. And if there's a dry humor happening it just doesn't seem to be landing!
Not the boss of you by any means, just noticing this and wanting to help nudge you as someone that appreciates your posts generally.
Well, I shared an article saying "Trump just did stupid thing x," someone came in saying "no, he did y," I said that it sounded like their "correction" was incorrect, they dug in, and I simply did...
Well, I shared an article saying "Trump just did stupid thing x," someone came in saying "no, he did y," I said that it sounded like their "correction" was incorrect, they dug in, and I simply did not cede my point.
This is a demonstration of problems with interpersonal communication writ large—if someone comes along and attacks what you say, it does not matter who is right or wrong; you get labeled as hostile or as someone who "always needs to be right" just because you didn't immediately roll over and give up, even though it was your interlocutor who needlessly came in to correct you.
Now, if this were in a different, Trump-free context, and they had just made the funny observation that technically everyone is trans because our sexual markers change during gestation, sure, that's a fun point, and even if it doesn't fully match the accepted definition of "trans," fun observations and shower thoughts don't have to be totally accurate. They're just supposed to be fun.
But when you apply that as a correction to what someone else says, you don't get to be upset when you get pushback. And my pushback was just a simple "Sounds like he made us all intersex and not trans or female." Nothing escalatory about it at all, just you correct me and I'll correct you.
But God forbid someone point out errors in the logic of a biologist and atheist with a blog 😱
To be clear I didn't think that person said "no he did Y" I thought they said "a biologist said that it he did Y" in a similar "ha this is in fact all stupid, what a world we live in sense." As...
To be clear I didn't think that person said "no he did Y" I thought they said "a biologist said that it he did Y" in a similar "ha this is in fact all stupid, what a world we live in sense." As in, agreeing with your post and adding another angle to the "dumb" of it all.
I didn't interpret any response to you as an attack or a correction and I thought it was obvious you felt that way which is why I spoke up. It doesn't look like you're defending a point or criticizing a biologist's logic so much as dying on a very unnecessary hill. We've got much better hills for you to die on in this fucked up world. /J
Just offering a different perspective and hoping if nothing else you'll talk out the intent of the original comment(s) that upset you with that person rather than presuming an attack or correction.
/Gen
I started feeling annoyed with the response to my "Not buying it" comment because that's where it became clear that they were not reading the words I wrote.
I started feeling annoyed with the response to my "Not buying it" comment because that's where it became clear that they were not reading the words I wrote.
I think they were sharing something else amusing and you were feeling corrected and in arguing took on the administration's position which you don't hold but the only way to confirm that is for...
I think they were sharing something else amusing and you were feeling corrected and in arguing took on the administration's position which you don't hold but the only way to confirm that is for you to talk with them. I'm just sharing that from the outside you seemed heated for zero reason, and then you felt you were being attacked by me for that.
I can only share what I thought from my perspective, and it seemed out of character for you. If that's not accurate that's fine, I was just checking in.
I've been talking about your exchange upthread. Zipf_slaw was who you were having that with. We're clearly not communicating anymore so I'll step back out.
I've been talking about your exchange upthread. Zipf_slaw was who you were having that with. We're clearly not communicating anymore so I'll step back out.
I mean, nobody produces reproductive cells at conception. So I guess we all have the gender of an empty set?
"'Female' means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell. 'Male' means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell."
I mean, nobody produces reproductive cells at conception. So I guess we all have the gender of an empty set?
My friend and I were talking about this the other day and the conversation got around to how difficult it is to identify the sex of spotted hyena due to their naturally high exposure to hormones...
My friend and I were talking about this the other day and the conversation got around to how difficult it is to identify the sex of spotted hyena due to their naturally high exposure to hormones and how the particularly high male-associated hormones result in some ... distinct visual similarities between sexes. It also makes all the cubs pretty aggressive from the moment of birth. It's some real Frank Miller-esque Spartan shit.
From what I understand, that same visual similarity exists among human fetuses for a brief time before the androgen kicks in and that makes defining sexes anything but easy. The evangelicals and their comrades want everything biblically simple and it just isn't that way.
I can't wait for their mental gymnastics to take them to the point where they start measuring masculinity by androgen levels and they find out that balding MMA pedophiles in exile are in fact masquerading as men and were never men at all.
Edit: Ironically I had "them" in there where it shouldn't have been and it needed a "they" elsewhere.
This sounds very specific but I can't find anything that explains what you're referencing. Also, they rarely care about FTM people; it's all about fears that MTFs will rape our women and *gulp*...
balding MMA pedophiles in exile
This sounds very specific but I can't find anything that explains what you're referencing. Also, they rarely care about FTM people; it's all about fears that MTFs will rape our women and *gulp* trick us into having sex with a man!
I'm going to take the risk of just sounding like a contrarian: this seems like people are intentionally interpreting the slightly unclear statement in the worst possible way and ignoring both...
I'm going to take the risk of just sounding like a contrarian: this seems like people are intentionally interpreting the slightly unclear statement in the worst possible way and ignoring both realistic other options and some scientific terminology in order to make Trump sound stupid (well, more than he is). Instead of focusing on the parts that are actually important - "banning" trans people and intersex people. I don't think this is the way to go.
This is why I think that:
"'Female' means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell. 'Male' means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell."
Imo this can very clearly be interpreted as "belongs, at conception, to the sex that [eventually] produces the xxxx reproductive cell" and I don't even think it's in any way improbable. I think they just arrived at this unclear formulation because of their need to emphasize "sex is decided at conception and cannot be changed", so they added a time quantifier that makes it seem like they're also saying that we produce reproductive cells at conception.
And to explain the scientific terminology part of my argument, saying that everyone starts developing female organs and therefore we are all female at first is imo inaccurate. As far as I know we develop parts of male reproductive organs as well and it is more precise to say that we seem to be mostly sexless than that we are female. In any case, outside of chromozome disorders, our sex is decided at that point. Again, not defending the overall message, I think it's stupid and wrong, but I also think that people are deliberatly trying to make it seem dumber than it is.
As I said in another comment, this is mostly whistling in the dark. This is bad and we know it's bad and we discussed it in another thread as well. But right now all we have is an executive order...
As I said in another comment, this is mostly whistling in the dark. This is bad and we know it's bad and we discussed it in another thread as well. But right now all we have is an executive order and not regulation or legislation to back it up and it's not really clear what any of it ultimately means.
I'm not binary and demi gender. I'm also 100% able to fall back on binary pronouns and not want to kill myself. I am lucky.
But sometimes to survive through the dark you make some jokes
Also, there are other reasons besides chromosomal disorders that sex is more complicated, And their inability to write this executive order in such a way that no one is excluded from the categories listed that they claim are universal and immutable is proof of that.
I don't think we are in disagreement over the consequences of this and stupidity/maliciousness of its intention. The thing I disagree with is this interpretation of "Trump is so dumb he just made...
I don't think we are in disagreement over the consequences of this and stupidity/maliciousness of its intention.
The thing I disagree with is this interpretation of "Trump is so dumb he just made the whole US legally female". I don't think it's true and I believe that people's capacity to follow issues (or to form outrage) is a zero sum game: focusing on this (and that is not necessarily a problem on Tildes, but I saw it all over reddit and instagram) takes away energy to care about the actual problem or plenty other issues. Plus it gives ammunition to anyone who disagrees because it seems like a disingenuous interpretation, which shifts the arguments from the actual problem to the problem of whether the interpretation is made in bad faith or not. I've seen both happen plenty of times.
I understand that, though I think it is in fact written poorly and that your generous read doesn't necessarily hold up legally speaking. But I'm not a lawyer and this EO itself is more...
I understand that, though I think it is in fact written poorly and that your generous read doesn't necessarily hold up legally speaking. But I'm not a lawyer and this EO itself is more performative than not.
But I'm of the opinion that the jokes aren't bad even if they're not productive. They're releasing steam. And nothing we say will change their minds. We did have more discussion about this in another thread that was more serious but personally I'm waiting for the further action before I figure out what to do about it.
ETA: The goal is to overwhelm us with chaos and laughing off the dumb, making fun of the Sacaramuccis as it were, is how we survive with our souls intact, IMO.
I don't want to take away laughing at dumb shit from anyone, but specifically with regards to Trump et al I think there has been a trend of flooding the press and social media with every little...
I don't want to take away laughing at dumb shit from anyone, but specifically with regards to Trump et al I think there has been a trend of flooding the press and social media with every little dumb thing he does or says interpreted in the worst possible way, and it made many normal people (not political opponents) mentally check out and not care about the big things either.
Similar to JD Vance couch fucking, which was worse because it was completely made up. I'd say that 90% of mentions of JD Vance I've seen on reddit involved couch fucking and almost none involved things that are actually interesting - discussing his positions, what to expect of him or how he shifted from being somewhat reasonable in the time of Hilbilly Elegy to what he is now. I don't think people are so dumb that couch fucking is the best they are able to talk about, I think part of it is the culture of encouraging it.
I would disagree. If interpreting the executive order differently requires rewriting the text, then I would not consider that a preferred interpretation of the text, especially when a valid...
Imo this can very clearly be interpreted as "belongs, at conception, to the sex that [eventually] produces the xxxx reproductive cell" and I don't even think it's in any way improbable.
I would disagree. If interpreting the executive order differently requires rewriting the text, then I would not consider that a preferred interpretation of the text, especially when a valid interpretation already exists (even if it contradicts Trump's intentions). And I think this point actually does matter -- an executive order is a legal document; if the terminology is incorrect (or nonsensical), then that will be a possible avenue for challenging its legality.
But I would note that your interpretation also isn't decisive. Boys generally won't begin to produce reproductive cells until puberty, which would make them effectively sexless until they reached that age and underwent a physical exam. Moreover, such an interpretation lacks operational utility. Under this definition, the only way to verify that a person is a woman would be by extracting and examining their ova, which cannot possibly be a reasonable test for ascertaining whether a child can play on the girls' team. And that's before even considering intersex folk (as you noted), who might produce neither or both types of reproductive cells.
Edit: Or to give a more poignant example, suppose a prepubescent boy loses their testicles somehow. Then in order to assign the boy a gender, the executive order would need to be read as "...to the sex that [eventually will/would have] produce[d]...", which is, besides being grammatically inconsistent with the text, an unverifiable counterfactual. Something unknowable cannot be the basis for law.
IMO they let their desire to write personhood for zygotes into everything override their ability to write this well plus demonstrated that there's no definition that will include everyone. It's...
IMO they let their desire to write personhood for zygotes into everything override their ability to write this well plus demonstrated that there's no definition that will include everyone.
It's almost like "What is a Woman" got turned around on them
I agree and I hope people do it. I am by no means saying that the executive order is right, in formulation or in its probable intention. I am saying that interpreting it as "Trump is so dumb that...
And I think this point actually does matter -- an executive order is a legal document; if the terminology is incorrect (or nonsensical), then that will be a possible avenue for challenging its legality.
I agree and I hope people do it. I am by no means saying that the executive order is right, in formulation or in its probable intention. I am saying that interpreting it as "Trump is so dumb that he made all of US legally women" is in my opinion disingenuous and doesn't help the fight in any way either. I think the two interpretations, "producing reproductive cells at conception" vs "producing reproductive cells at some point", are equally probable without context and the second one is more probably with context. But the important part is that both are a problem.
Why are you asking me that? I said* that part of the reason why I dislike people making fun of (/being outraged at) exaggerated things that likely aren't true is that it takes away attention and...
Why are you asking me that? I said* that part of the reason why I dislike people making fun of (/being outraged at) exaggerated things that likely aren't true is that it takes away attention and media space from the real issues, like the fact that the executive order effectively bans the existence of intersex people.
* in the toplevel parent of this comment chain, but I don't think I even lightly imply anything else in the other comments
No worries, I certainly didn't think that! Currently I'm wondering whether Trump will attempt to fix/clarify his executive order or instead double-down and cede no ground.
I am by no means saying that the executive order is right, in formulation or in its probable intention.
No worries, I certainly didn't think that! Currently I'm wondering whether Trump will attempt to fix/clarify his executive order or instead double-down and cede no ground.
Yeah, we all know more or less what he means, but his choice just does not fit reality, meaning there will be people who do not even fit what he "more or less" means, which seems to me to be...
Yeah, we all know more or less what he means, but his choice just does not fit reality, meaning there will be people who do not even fit what he "more or less" means, which seems to me to be enough legal footing to throw out something that is entirely predicted on its absolute nature.
That said, if you read the actual executive order, it's shockingly gentle with respect to gender identity. Yes, it calls it "internally inconsistent," or something along those lines, but the wording really does seem resigned to accept the existence of gender identity, and thus trans people, even if he's "doing what he can" to not officially accept them within the context of the federal government.
The executive order notes that
“Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”
And also says all this, which is what I would call the most milquetoast attack of gender and trans identity I've ever seen:
(f) “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.
(g) “Gender identity” reflects a fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum, that does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.
It calls it false and inconsistent, but it doesn't really deny people's right to believe it. NOT THAT IT'S ACTUALLY A POSITIVE IN ANY WAY, I just find it odd to see him decline an opportunity to attack it much more strongly.
According to developmental biologist and noted atheist blogger PZ Myers, it's more accurate to say he's declaring everyone Trans.
link
And also, apparenlty we have this gender "at conception". Lol
Sounds like he made us all intersex and not trans or female.
But the point was, we [generally] change from "undifferentiated" to a specifc gender. And if we change, then we're Trans. Put another way, we transition from undifferentiated to male/female.
Just wait until the Trump admin finds out that "miscarriage" is just a nice word for a spontaneous abortion (my super-religious neighbor has been struggling with this for decades but still voted for him, baffling). And that "mono" is a nice way to explain to parents that their child or adolescent has herpes.
I don’t think that the virus that causes mono is the same as herpes simplex 1 but my medical knowledge is rusty Ive been out of healthcare for a decade now.
It's herpes 4 I think. But in the same way we don't call all colds rhinovirii and coronavirii etc, I'd need to see intention behind the naming of mono that way.
But it's kind of neat to know because of some of the weird behaviors it demonstrates!
Yeah like I think the symptoms are different.
Transmitted the same way and stays with you forever, but I believe theres no rash like there is with simplex 1
Mononucleosis (“mono”) is Epstein-Barr virus actually (EBV).
Aka human herpesvirus 4
Chicken pox is also a herpesvirus, but I don't know if anyone would describe it as a nice way for parents to describe their children's herpes.
Oh my god, I just imagined half a conversation where some parents are talking and one mentions “oh yeah, my five-year-old came home with herpes a few weeks ago, pretty sure he got it from one of the other kids at school, but none of the other parents are admitting if their kids had it earlier so we don’t know who started spreading it around”
Yeah I agree, words have meanings but also words can have such strong vibes, so I definitely wouldn’t try to defend that usage in colloquial conversation...
Unfortunately, elementary school teachers have to tell this to parents often and yes, the parents often want to find out who is culpable. The parents also ask "what is mono?" or "how did they get mono/chickenpox/these canker sores in their mouth?" which is not a discussion teachers ever want to have. And it's worse when they find out that their kid doesn't actually have canker sores from chicken pox, but actual herpes, and is a victim of CSA or child-on-child abuse. No teacher should have to be in the position to break that news to a parent.
Anyway, it wouldn't hurt to take common infections more seriously just to prevent their spread. At the same time, no one really wants to find out that their kids (teacher's kids or parents' kids) are exposed to things that parents could've helped to prevent. We should take both more seriously and don't.
On a related note, with the apparent number of adults with shingles these days, I think it's also pretty clear that pox parties were a bad idea.
The point was that mono is a nice way to say herpes, and yes but no. The previous comments made it clear I'd need to see intentionality behind "hiding" the herpes virus name.
Chicken pox is varicella-zoster but in the herpes family so it at least can play dumb
Yes technically a herpesvirus.
Not buying it because the whole point of this was the "at conception" part. You can't transition what you were at conception. He made it official (pending legal action) that you cannot be what I will call "transsex" (as opposed to transsexual or transgender) because the official term used by the government is "sex" and it is no longer officially mutable, meaning that we all must be [UNDEFINED].
Yeah actually, everyone does it: at conception we are undifferentiated, then we transition to either male or female (the spectrum of intersex issues aside).
No, you can transition from what you were at birth, but you can't change the past. At conception, you were neither, which would officially make everyone [UNDEFINED]. You could only be trans in this scenario if you went back in time and added the large or small reproductive cells at the moment of conception.
What you are is mutable, what you were is immutable because it's in the past and the past is unreachable.
What do you think a developmental biologist means by "undifferentiated"?
To be clear: the claim that developmental biologist PZ Myers (read: not me) is making is that at conception we have no gonads or reproductive cells (which is what Trump, et al are using to bucket people) and are merely are all masses of undifferentiated cells. At various points in the development of the fetus, transitions occur wherein we become one gender or the other (again, setting aside the spectrum of intersex complications). Hence, at the time of our birth, we are already "trans" in that we have transitioned from from an undifferentiated set of cells to a differentiated one.
Now, I grow weary of this tiresome converstion and bid you adieu.
I really don't care whatsoever what a biologist has to say because I am not talking about biology; I am talking about what Trump wrote, which exists solely in bizarro-cuckoo world. Trump claims sex is immutable and permanently set at conception, it is, therefore, impossible for it to make anyone trans-anything.
Given the way Trump defined this, the argument that ol' boy is making would be like saying that if someone who was assigned male at birth gets a reassignment surgery, they are no longer "assigned male at birth." Pure nonsense, right?
The way this executive order is written, your sex is not just set at conception, but it is rather (officially) set in stone at conception and cannot be changed. It does not matter if we do not have a biological sex at conception and then do have one later on; Trump's definition does not change with the passing of time.
Trump's definition is not tied to any biological reality; it is just words on a page. If your biological reality changes, that does not change the words on the page. Nothing you do can change your sex so far as Trump's executive order is concerned.
Trump's order does not say "at conception, sex is considered XYZ;" rather, it says that everyone's sex is determined by which reproductive cells they produced at conception. This is not only not how sex is expressed in reality, but it is not physically possible, as the moment of conception is the moment when you are not producing anything, as it is before production of anything has started. It would be like saying "all cars are divided into 'gas guzzler' and 'high-efficiency' categories based on the rate at which they consume gasoline at the moment the alternator turns over. No gasoline is being consumed at that moment, just as nothing is being produced inside of the zygote at the instant of conception.
In this same way, you cannot change which category you fit into because it is defined as what you were at that moment. There is no possibility of being trans-anything because the categories are defined by peering at a moment in the past. The past is unchangeable; it does not matter if you change species before (or after) birth; your (official, nonsensical) sex has been set for life.
It does not say "everyone is conceived as one sex or the other"; it declares "'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.'" It specifically states that it is immutable, therefore it is impossible for it to declare everyone trans.
Thus, as no one can possibly fit into the two immutable options, we must, therefore, be less than "no sex," as that is not an option—we are all of a totally undefined sex, as no definition fits.
Hey so I get this is what Trump and his administration actually thinks but this is a lot for a biologist's joke - in what is mostly people trying to cope - about this executive order. You're spending a lot of energy, in several threads, arguing "what they're saying" and yes, we know you cannot transition if it's immutable by definition.
But what's the point worth making here, especially in response to a whistling in the dark joke? Are you just trying to ensure your point was understood? Or underlining the dumb wording in the document? Or highlighting how profoundly wrong this is?
Because this feels like yelling loudly about a joke to explain the thing we do all understand, I think. But I am not sure I'm following you here. /Gen
I'm just frustrated by someone responding to what they think I'm saying and not what I've actually said.
I get that, but the initial comment was the joke, and then your responses have started with "not buying it" for example. At some point it looks like you're actually arguing the point rather than sharing the administration POV, or that you really think "Undefined" is more valid than "everyone is trans/non-binary/female."
If you could be clearer about the fact that you're speaking within the hypothetical fucked up scenario the administration is proposing that might clarify your point and reduce some of the arguing.
I think the response you're getting is from this sort of devil's advocate sort of angle you're taking and I know personally I'd rather people share their thoughts, not what they think Trump thinks, but more so it seems like it's being really frustrating and I don't perceive you as a typically hostile/frustrated person, especially around topics of sex/gender/etc. so I am figuring that this isn't working for you either. And if there's a dry humor happening it just doesn't seem to be landing!
Not the boss of you by any means, just noticing this and wanting to help nudge you as someone that appreciates your posts generally.
Well, I shared an article saying "Trump just did stupid thing x," someone came in saying "no, he did y," I said that it sounded like their "correction" was incorrect, they dug in, and I simply did not cede my point.
This is a demonstration of problems with interpersonal communication writ large—if someone comes along and attacks what you say, it does not matter who is right or wrong; you get labeled as hostile or as someone who "always needs to be right" just because you didn't immediately roll over and give up, even though it was your interlocutor who needlessly came in to correct you.
Now, if this were in a different, Trump-free context, and they had just made the funny observation that technically everyone is trans because our sexual markers change during gestation, sure, that's a fun point, and even if it doesn't fully match the accepted definition of "trans," fun observations and shower thoughts don't have to be totally accurate. They're just supposed to be fun.
But when you apply that as a correction to what someone else says, you don't get to be upset when you get pushback. And my pushback was just a simple "Sounds like he made us all intersex and not trans or female." Nothing escalatory about it at all, just you correct me and I'll correct you.
But God forbid someone point out errors in the logic of a biologist and atheist with a blog 😱
To be clear I didn't think that person said "no he did Y" I thought they said "a biologist said that it he did Y" in a similar "ha this is in fact all stupid, what a world we live in sense." As in, agreeing with your post and adding another angle to the "dumb" of it all.
I didn't interpret any response to you as an attack or a correction and I thought it was obvious you felt that way which is why I spoke up. It doesn't look like you're defending a point or criticizing a biologist's logic so much as dying on a very unnecessary hill. We've got much better hills for you to die on in this fucked up world. /J
Just offering a different perspective and hoping if nothing else you'll talk out the intent of the original comment(s) that upset you with that person rather than presuming an attack or correction.
/Gen
I started feeling annoyed with the response to my "Not buying it" comment because that's where it became clear that they were not reading the words I wrote.
I get that, I think you were having two different conversations
I'm not sure what you mean.
I think they were sharing something else amusing and you were feeling corrected and in arguing took on the administration's position which you don't hold but the only way to confirm that is for you to talk with them. I'm just sharing that from the outside you seemed heated for zero reason, and then you felt you were being attacked by me for that.
I can only share what I thought from my perspective, and it seemed out of character for you. If that's not accurate that's fine, I was just checking in.
Who is "they?"
I made the post, they commented, and then we just had a back and forth.
I've been talking about your exchange upthread. Zipf_slaw was who you were having that with. We're clearly not communicating anymore so I'll step back out.
Sorry, I thought you were using plural "they."
I don't think that was intended to be serious. It reads like it is a joke to me.
Which part? The comments I'm responding to, or the blog post?
Brb, changing all people in the government database to Sex = NULL
I mean, nobody produces reproductive cells at conception. So I guess we all have the gender of an empty set?
I never expected something so woke from Trump. The abolition of gender!
Do you use the {} or the ∅ bathroom?
Naw iπ, because it's transcendental.
Everyone is non-binary. Because they couldn't be arsed to be competent at their evil
My friend and I were talking about this the other day and the conversation got around to how difficult it is to identify the sex of spotted hyena due to their naturally high exposure to hormones and how the particularly high male-associated hormones result in some ... distinct visual similarities between sexes. It also makes all the cubs pretty aggressive from the moment of birth. It's some real Frank Miller-esque Spartan shit.
From what I understand, that same visual similarity exists among human fetuses for a brief time before the androgen kicks in and that makes defining sexes anything but easy. The evangelicals and their comrades want everything biblically simple and it just isn't that way.
I can't wait for their mental gymnastics to take them to the point where they start measuring masculinity by androgen levels and they find out that balding MMA pedophiles in exile are in fact masquerading as men and were never men at all.
Edit: Ironically I had "them" in there where it shouldn't have been and it needed a "they" elsewhere.
This sounds very specific but I can't find anything that explains what you're referencing. Also, they rarely care about FTM people; it's all about fears that MTFs will rape our women and *gulp* trick us into having sex with a man!
Andrew Tate
I'm going to take the risk of just sounding like a contrarian: this seems like people are intentionally interpreting the slightly unclear statement in the worst possible way and ignoring both realistic other options and some scientific terminology in order to make Trump sound stupid (well, more than he is). Instead of focusing on the parts that are actually important - "banning" trans people and intersex people. I don't think this is the way to go.
This is why I think that:
Imo this can very clearly be interpreted as "belongs, at conception, to the sex that [eventually] produces the xxxx reproductive cell" and I don't even think it's in any way improbable. I think they just arrived at this unclear formulation because of their need to emphasize "sex is decided at conception and cannot be changed", so they added a time quantifier that makes it seem like they're also saying that we produce reproductive cells at conception.
And to explain the scientific terminology part of my argument, saying that everyone starts developing female organs and therefore we are all female at first is imo inaccurate. As far as I know we develop parts of male reproductive organs as well and it is more precise to say that we seem to be mostly sexless than that we are female. In any case, outside of chromozome disorders, our sex is decided at that point. Again, not defending the overall message, I think it's stupid and wrong, but I also think that people are deliberatly trying to make it seem dumber than it is.
As I said in another comment, this is mostly whistling in the dark. This is bad and we know it's bad and we discussed it in another thread as well. But right now all we have is an executive order and not regulation or legislation to back it up and it's not really clear what any of it ultimately means.
I'm not binary and demi gender. I'm also 100% able to fall back on binary pronouns and not want to kill myself. I am lucky.
But sometimes to survive through the dark you make some jokes
Also, there are other reasons besides chromosomal disorders that sex is more complicated, And their inability to write this executive order in such a way that no one is excluded from the categories listed that they claim are universal and immutable is proof of that.
I don't think we are in disagreement over the consequences of this and stupidity/maliciousness of its intention.
The thing I disagree with is this interpretation of "Trump is so dumb he just made the whole US legally female". I don't think it's true and I believe that people's capacity to follow issues (or to form outrage) is a zero sum game: focusing on this (and that is not necessarily a problem on Tildes, but I saw it all over reddit and instagram) takes away energy to care about the actual problem or plenty other issues. Plus it gives ammunition to anyone who disagrees because it seems like a disingenuous interpretation, which shifts the arguments from the actual problem to the problem of whether the interpretation is made in bad faith or not. I've seen both happen plenty of times.
I understand that, though I think it is in fact written poorly and that your generous read doesn't necessarily hold up legally speaking. But I'm not a lawyer and this EO itself is more performative than not.
But I'm of the opinion that the jokes aren't bad even if they're not productive. They're releasing steam. And nothing we say will change their minds. We did have more discussion about this in another thread that was more serious but personally I'm waiting for the further action before I figure out what to do about it.
ETA: The goal is to overwhelm us with chaos and laughing off the dumb, making fun of the Sacaramuccis as it were, is how we survive with our souls intact, IMO.
I don't want to take away laughing at dumb shit from anyone, but specifically with regards to Trump et al I think there has been a trend of flooding the press and social media with every little dumb thing he does or says interpreted in the worst possible way, and it made many normal people (not political opponents) mentally check out and not care about the big things either.
Similar to JD Vance couch fucking, which was worse because it was completely made up. I'd say that 90% of mentions of JD Vance I've seen on reddit involved couch fucking and almost none involved things that are actually interesting - discussing his positions, what to expect of him or how he shifted from being somewhat reasonable in the time of Hilbilly Elegy to what he is now. I don't think people are so dumb that couch fucking is the best they are able to talk about, I think part of it is the culture of encouraging it.
To add to what you’re saying, in my experience people have absolutely no trouble enforcing laws that don’t make any sense.
I would disagree. If interpreting the executive order differently requires rewriting the text, then I would not consider that a preferred interpretation of the text, especially when a valid interpretation already exists (even if it contradicts Trump's intentions). And I think this point actually does matter -- an executive order is a legal document; if the terminology is incorrect (or nonsensical), then that will be a possible avenue for challenging its legality.
But I would note that your interpretation also isn't decisive. Boys generally won't begin to produce reproductive cells until puberty, which would make them effectively sexless until they reached that age and underwent a physical exam. Moreover, such an interpretation lacks operational utility. Under this definition, the only way to verify that a person is a woman would be by extracting and examining their ova, which cannot possibly be a reasonable test for ascertaining whether a child can play on the girls' team. And that's before even considering intersex folk (as you noted), who might produce neither or both types of reproductive cells.
Edit: Or to give a more poignant example, suppose a prepubescent boy loses their testicles somehow. Then in order to assign the boy a gender, the executive order would need to be read as "...to the sex that [eventually will/would have] produce[d]...", which is, besides being grammatically inconsistent with the text, an unverifiable counterfactual. Something unknowable cannot be the basis for law.
IMO they let their desire to write personhood for zygotes into everything override their ability to write this well plus demonstrated that there's no definition that will include everyone.
It's almost like "What is a Woman" got turned around on them
I agree and I hope people do it. I am by no means saying that the executive order is right, in formulation or in its probable intention. I am saying that interpreting it as "Trump is so dumb that he made all of US legally women" is in my opinion disingenuous and doesn't help the fight in any way either. I think the two interpretations, "producing reproductive cells at conception" vs "producing reproductive cells at some point", are equally probable without context and the second one is more probably with context. But the important part is that both are a problem.
But what about the people who, at some point during gestation, produced both cells? How should they identify on federal forms?
Why are you asking me that? I said* that part of the reason why I dislike people making fun of (/being outraged at) exaggerated things that likely aren't true is that it takes away attention and media space from the real issues, like the fact that the executive order effectively bans the existence of intersex people.
* in the toplevel parent of this comment chain, but I don't think I even lightly imply anything else in the other comments
I honestly don't remember, and I realized that when I hit submit, but I knew I had a really good reason when I started typing, so I just left it.
No worries, I certainly didn't think that! Currently I'm wondering whether Trump will attempt to fix/clarify his executive order or instead double-down and cede no ground.
Yeah, we all know more or less what he means, but his choice just does not fit reality, meaning there will be people who do not even fit what he "more or less" means, which seems to me to be enough legal footing to throw out something that is entirely predicted on its absolute nature.
That said, if you read the actual executive order, it's shockingly gentle with respect to gender identity. Yes, it calls it "internally inconsistent," or something along those lines, but the wording really does seem resigned to accept the existence of gender identity, and thus trans people, even if he's "doing what he can" to not officially accept them within the context of the federal government.
The executive order notes that
And also says all this, which is what I would call the most milquetoast attack of gender and trans identity I've ever seen:
It calls it false and inconsistent, but it doesn't really deny people's right to believe it. NOT THAT IT'S ACTUALLY A POSITIVE IN ANY WAY, I just find it odd to see him decline an opportunity to attack it much more strongly.
My only hope for us making it through the next four years is that they really are all incompetent idiots.
no, it did not, and it is no more than pedantic sophistry to pretend it did
Oh well, good then.