• Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    305
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Trump declares himself herself the first female President of the USA? 😳

    (Edit: Excuse me Mrs. President, I had misgendered you.)

  • SuperIce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    213
    ·
    13 days ago

    Technically no. They aren’t male or female, they’re undifferentiated. Since we’re neither male nor female at conception, this order means males and females don’t actually exist at all.

    • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      13 days ago

      At conception the future sex is determined by the chromosomes that the sperm contributes. Once fertilized, there are either X and X or X and Y, which will be XX and XY once meiosis occurs for the first time.

      So technically once fertilization occurs(conception), sex has been determined.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        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.

      • kadup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        13 days ago

        At conception the future sex is determined by the chromosomes that the sperm contributes.

        Explain that to XY individuals with a mutated SRY, meaning they never develop male traits at all, even though they’re XY.

      • clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        Only correct comment here. Genetically, all things are already set in stone at conception. People parroting the 6 week thing are conflating genetic determinism with development of external traits.

        There’s also the issue with intersexed individuals and other individuals with chromosomal differences… I suspect they are out of scope of the order as they really don’t fit either definition

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    166
    ·
    13 days ago

    I think this is actually more gender abolitionist if you think about it. No one is producing reproductive cells/gametes at conception. They begin by producing undifferentiated stem cells that will later specialize into all of the other cell types.

    Male and female now officially retired. Rejoice!

    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      MAGA: “truth and science needs to bow to holy scripture!”

      The Bible: “For in Christ there is… neither male nor female…” (Galatians 3:28)

      MAGA: “wait, not like that!”

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      13 days ago

      But what society-created roles and stereotypes will I conform my entire being to now? I don’t know how to be me and need to be told options.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        13 days ago

        Everyone is now assigned 5 random fandoms at birth or, in the case of people already born, starting right now.

        You are now a superfan of the Dallas Mavericks, Firefly, The Times of India, Fussball Club Basel 1893, and decorative felt. Have fun!

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      It’s a bad faith question that deserves a hillarious answer

      “What is a woman? Why it’s someone whom, family members aside, you’ve never seen naked.”

      “What is a woman? The kind of people at the bar who cover their drinks when you get too close.”

      “What is a woman? A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF SECRETS!”

      “What is a woman? Well these curvy people who smell nice and go by she/her pronouns and sometimes they have big meaty penises to suck, but only if you’re lucky.”

      “What is a woman? According to Donald Trump’s day 1 executive order; literally every American Citizen.”

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      That’s always what I figured, that they’d fumble if you turned the question around and asked them to define woman or man. Buncha chumps.

      E: le spelling

      • invertedspear@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        13 days ago

        Nah, they have no issue with a tautological definition. “A woman is a female human that’s born a girl” makes perfect sense to anyone that’s asking anyone else to define what a woman is.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          They had months to draft the definition in the executive order. Perhaps more than a year if it was started internally by Project 2025. They still fucked it up.

  • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    13 days ago

    I didn’t consider this option, but it seems to be an easy fix to the whole gender thing. Everyone is female. period. *(no pun intended)

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Silly Matthew, still believing that words written by Trump’s administration mean anything…
    Same mistake many opponents of the Nazis made in the beginning.
    Fascists don’t play by the rules, whatever they say or write only has meaning as long as it benefits them.
    When you point out inconsistencies in what they wrote yesterday, they laugh at you. And then they shoot you.

    • WrenFeathers@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Can you imagine, an entire nation- identifying as female? I’d imagine their reaction would be similar to how Christian’s felt when they saw the Bible being removed from schools….

      “Nooooo! Not like that!”

  • Nate Cox@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    13 days ago

    Listen I get that these people have never taken a science class, but I damn well know at least some of them watched Jurassic Park.

  • fadingembers@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    12 days ago

    It’s cool and all to dunk on their logical fallacies, but don’t think for one second that their poor wording will stop them from enacting untold violence against trans people.

  • Now, I’m not gonna disagree with this but I reckon it’s a bit confusing to be changed so suddenly.

    Can we have an adaptation period? It’s gonna be tough to break the habit in such short notice.

  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    I suppose there is also the argument to be made that Trump made everyone nonbinary, as a zygote has no apparent sex characteristics or gamete production, being a single cell.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      13 days ago

      ooo mister fancy french man here with the zygotes and the gametes and what-not.

      Proper MAGAt terminology is “gooblop” and “thingys”. Here’s your truck flag.