• LostWon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    14 days ago

    Pretty sure according to current science, the sex is “undifferentiated” until a certain point in development. That means Trump wrote it so no one is female, lol.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      13 days ago

      Even as a zygote, the chromosomes are still XX and XY, aren’t they? (Ignoring XXY, etc.)

      It’s still stupid as hell, and the female thing would be funny-sad, but scientifically I’m not sure it’s accurate.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        13 days ago

        As the article points out until the genitalia develops it’s impossible to accurately predict the sex of a fetus due to instances of fetuses with XY chromosomes occasionally developing as female. On the other hand it should be impossible for an XX fetus to develop as male as far as I know.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          13 days ago

          It’s rare but possible. Basically, the piece of the Y chromosome that hosts the SRY gene can wind up swapped onto a different chromosome and still work its magic. You really only need that one single gene to trigger the whole cascade of development that makes a person male.

          I think another interpretation of Trump’s order is that nobody is female, since no embryos are capable of producing the “large reproductive cell” at conception. At conception they’re just a single cell, they aren’t producing any reproductive cells yet. That’s not until quite a while later in development.

      • LostWon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        Fair. But if we do include intersex people with less common chromosomes in this topic, I wonder if they might get overlooked? I hope so, since it’s probably the best chance here except in the unlikely case a “wait and see” stance is allowed.

        *edit - correction: I somehow forgot that as orclev said (and usernamesAreTricky expanded on with a vice versa), it’s possible for XY folks to be cis women. So chromosomes don’t deliver the desired gotcha either.

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

        Expression is where it’s codified. For instance: I have XX chromosomes, but I also have dangling genitalia and a great big bushy beard. All because the X chromosome I recieved from my father had an SRY transcription error, and my body had male expression “switched on” by the SRY gene.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 days ago

      It rather depends on how you’re defining sex. And I’m not joking, the article gives good examples on when it is ambiguous.

      • LostWon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        Thanks for pointing that out. When I first checked the link, I must have been tired as I missed that there was an article beyond the image and headline somehow. (Normally my habit would have been to check if the topic was covered, since headlines can be misleading. Case in point, in this case they were going for humour more than accuracy there, but the article indeed has examples.)

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 days ago

          I missed that there was an article beyond the image and headline somehow.

          This is 100% understandable… Especially on a phone these days it’s getting crazy hard to read articles.