It's Trump, it doesn't have to make sense.
The order reads, as per The Independent, "Specifically, the order defines a female as a “a person belonging, at conception to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,” while a male is a “person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”
They are *defining* biological sex, and poorly. Of course, they got it wrong.
Re: Politics
3832These are people that literally think a sky man molded the original motherfuckers from mud.
We're headed for social anarchy when people start pissing on bookstores.
Re: Politics
3834No.
If at conception one has the large reproductive cell, one is female.
If at conception one has the small reproductive cell, one is male.
By decree.
Re: Politics
3835Even if by decree, there is literally no such thing as “one having the large/small reproductive cell” at conception. At conception there is literally just a single cell. It’s so dumb
Re: Politics
3837This entire effort is odious and wrong. But based on my reading skills and 1000 level Bio education it might actually hold up to do what they're trying to do. The language quoted above states:Hex wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2025 6:29 pmEven if by decree, there is literally no such thing as “one having the large/small reproductive cell” at conception. At conception there is literally just a single cell. It’s so dumb
“a person belonging, at conception to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,” while a male is a “person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”
That's different than "having" a reproductive cell. I'm sure a biologist can name plenty of situations where it's not that simple, but to my limited understanding that bullshit could hold up instead of being the hilarious fail I want it to be.
Re: Politics
3838Ah, I worded it incorrectly.losthighway wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2025 6:49 pmThis entire effort is odious and wrong. But based on my reading skills and 1000 level Bio education it might actually hold up to do what they're trying to do. The language quoted above states:Hex wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2025 6:29 pmEven if by decree, there is literally no such thing as “one having the large/small reproductive cell” at conception. At conception there is literally just a single cell. It’s so dumbenframed wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2025 5:34 pm
No.
If at conception one has the large reproductive cell, one is female.
If at conception one has the small reproductive cell, one is male.
By decree.
“a person belonging, at conception to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,” while a male is a “person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”
That's different than "having" a reproductive cell. I'm sure a biologist can name plenty of situations where it's not that simple, but to my limited understanding that bullshit could hold up instead of being the hilarious fail I want it to be.
Re: Politics
3839Peter Mandelson was appointed by Starmer to be the UK ambassador to the US. Trump is not happy about this.
Trump poised to reject Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US
It's a long shot, but seeing as both of these people were friends with Epstein, wouldn't it be great if this led to accusations and information coming out.
Who has the most dirt?
Trump poised to reject Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US
It's a long shot, but seeing as both of these people were friends with Epstein, wouldn't it be great if this led to accusations and information coming out.
Who has the most dirt?
Dave N. wrote:Most of us are here because we’re trying to keep some spark of an idea from going out.
Re: Politics
3840I hate to ask, but why this bizarre language? If you want to describe gender as a binary physical trait, why dont they just use XX/XY? How is that less effective than this weird wording? Sure there are chromosomal abnormalities, but those are already pretty well documented as well. What is the spin here?