this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
1003 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19595 readers
2964 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Representative Sarah McBride, the first out trans congresswoman, criticized Donald Trump’s executive order defining gender as strictly male or female.

McBride points out that biologically all embryos develop as female until the SRY gene activates weeks after conception.

The order, which ties gender to reproductive cells at conception, unintentionally categorizes all humans as female from conception based on biological facts.

McBride’s remarks highlight scientific flaws in the policy.

(page 4) 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 200 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (19 children)

Theres two possible interpretations due to the at conception bit I think. Either he made everyone a woman, or he abolished gender all together. Either way this EO make Trump the single largest gender changer in history as he just changed the gender of either ~150 million or ~300 million people.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Bad headline IMO, she's more so pointing out more flaws in it which is different than laughing it off

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

"This is logically flawed because " won't really bother a bunch of Young Earth Creationists. You're arguing with people who will retreat to the baseline argument "because God said so" in a pinch. Getting into the messy details of embryonic development won't save you, because that's not how their nominations to the FBI, the DOJ, or the Federal Judiciary are going to interpret any of it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

"God made me a woman at conception and changed me to a man. I'm correcting God's indecisiveness."

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Actually it being poorly written helps a lot with court challenge. That was one of the reasons why so much was overturned in his first administration. There was a fear that this time he'd sign better written executive orders that would survive challanges instead we're getting a lot of them like this

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (14 children)

The truth is, they don't care how poorly written it is, they're just trying to flood the zone with stuff, and they win no matter the outcome. If it's not challenged, they have policy, if it is challenged, it occupies time and resources and most importantly, if it's challenged unsuccessfully, they have legal precident.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This assumes the courts will challenge it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 113 points 1 week ago (7 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You kids are spoiled with all your gender identities. Back in my day, we only had one gender, and we were grateful for it!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago (1 children)

TWO GENDERS ENTER! ONE GENDER LEAVES!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

For some reason this makes me think of the inscription on the One Ring.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

One gender to start them all, one gender defines them

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

One gender to bring them all, and in togetherness find them

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 74 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You've heard of non-binary gender, get ready for its upgraded form: unary gender

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ope we're all gay now. Time to grab the most outrageous outfit you can come up with and get in the parade everybody.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Urinary gender???

Any of y'all wanna join the Peepee Club? Urine!

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›