politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
At the moment of conception....
Of course that's the real poison pill of this. The real intention is to declare personhood at conception... and pave the way for the nation wide abortion ban. Making things worse for trans people, is just the decoy.
Doesn’t everyone start out female and then become male or stay female?
Conception is literally the point when the sperm fertilizes the egg:
reference
At that point it's not anything, it's just a fertilized egg. Assigning a sex to it makes no sense at all.
So everyone should be no sex then?
At conception, yes, there is no sexual differentiation. In humans the SRY protein is responsible for a fetus developing male sexual characteristics. The effects of this gene are expressed after week 6 of development:
That is, at least a month and a half after conception.
The EO doesn't depend on a zygote having completed sexual differentiation, but memes about it are dominating the conversation anyway because nobody under 30 was taught how to read in school and twitter-brained bad faith misinterpretations are the new standard for dialogue.
**TL;DR: The issue is that there is no "good faith" interpretation of the text for anybody who studied 11th grade biology or above. **
It essentially makes a bunch of statements and assumptions with very very concrete omissions:
1. The zygote (fertilized egg) is a "person". It's a philosophical question, but considering that in IVF studies, successful implantation rates are around 10-15% (implantation does not guarantee survival past the 3rd trimester). So it's actually very unlikely that the particular zygote will become a human being with agency. So good faith arguments would argue for special protections, but not personhood to it and that's how you spot that the endgame is to use this false argument to override the agency of the actual person carrying the pregnancy.
**2. There is no sex assigned at conception. ** A single-cell zygote only has 2 sex-specific parameters: sex chromosome sets (or the lack thereof), and DNA methylation patterns. Neither of those guarantee manifestation of a male or female phenotype. So based on that, we are all asexual. The default sex for humans is actually female, and the primary function of the Y chromosome is to inhibit the development of the female form signs of that initiate in everyone first. So by that default, we are all female. And then the best faith assumption is that they mean is chromosomally determined sex at conception, but chromosome variations like XXY and XYY aren't uncommon, and there are conditions where male chromosome sets yield female phenotype due to testosterone insensitivity (see testicular feminisation).
So no, the EO reads like someone trying to make biological definitions who has a <11th grade understanding of biology.
I have a biology degree. I took developmental. The textbook is right here on the shelf next to my desk. I am perfectly well aware of how embryonic development of the sexual system in mammals works. Incidentally, you've managed to get it wrong, but I'm not going to get into it here because it has nothing to with the point in my post which was about reading comprehension and what the text actually says. The definitions contained in the text of the EO read:
source
The structure of the sentences clearly indicates the 'belonging' occurs 'at conception', not the production of disparately sized cells. When the production occurs is not specified at all and nothing in the definition depends upon when it occurs, merely that it does at some point. This creates it own set of problems, but not the ones everyone is pointing and laughing at.
Firstly, I have an MD and would have never commented on this without reading the specific text from the WH. Med school curricula cover this in molecular biology, embryology, medical genetics, pediatrics and obstetrics, and endocrinology.
Secondly, the definition implies that zygotes can be classified as male/female at conception, which they obviously cannot be without further clarification. Your "good faith" reasoning is that you can retrospectively make that assignment, but there are no criteria to determine how that assignment ultimately happens, which therefore requires additional layers of "good faith" reasoning. Which takes us back to, yeah, the WH definition is hot garbage.
The text provides some clarification for how they want the classification at conception to work which, definitely yes, is hot garbage and creates more problems than it "solves", but that doesn't make it not say what it says.
Can you point me to the part of the text where they provide clarification from a biological standpoint? This language sets up the interpretation: "the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female [...] grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality". So if this is an "incontrovertible reality" then why do people have such an easy time refuting it?
Which gives me flashbacks about having to learn the specific adrenal enzyme dysfunctions that lead to erroneous sex-assignments at birth. But again, I don't think people need biology degrees to have an understanding of this and I'd like society to stop trying to give "good faith" interpretations to texts that are explicitly written in bad faith.
Doesn't it have a complete set of sex chromosomes at that point?
As far as I an aware, yes. But the degree did not mention chromosomes, but rather
If they declare personhood at conception some pregnant women should demand to be allowed to purchase a life insurance policy, and immediately sue when denied.
The levels of chaos that can come from this are off the charts... Yeah someone can purchase life insurance on an unborn child... at the same time every miscarriage is on the board for manslaughter/homicide, basically leading mothers to prove that the miscariages were not intended or negligent. The ramifications and definitions of things are outright terrifying.