• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Well, it shows that the average right winger was fast asleep in school, especially during science and history classes.

  • LostWon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 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
      0
      ·
      10 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.

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        The EO definition didn’t refer to chromosomes at all actually it referred to female as “at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell” and male “at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”

        A zygote is a singular cell at coneception… so you could also argue it’s saying everyone’s bigender actually. In any case its extremely poorly written, goes against science, and forgets about intersex people

        (also note that XX and XY chromosomes don’t guarantee AMAB or AFAB. You can have XX chromosomes and present completely AMAB and vice versa)

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          It wouldn’t be bigender, because that single cell has (again, oversimplifying here) either XX or XY, right?

          Although if that’s how they’re defining gender, then anyone infertile (not producing sperm or eggs) is, by their definition, neither male nor female. So I guess they’re still recognizing a form of nonbinaryness? Just in a really incorrect way.

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    I’m trying to wrap my head around how executive orders work. I’m not American.

    Can someone explain what’s the legal process compared to a bill for example?

    • untorquer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      A policy applied to federal agencies on the whims of the executive/administration (president+staff). (FBI, CIA, DHS, ICE, TSA, HHS, FDA, so forth…)

      Does not impact state law, judicials, or enforcement agencies. Though many of these do take their lead from federal guidelines to some degree, especially at the police and sheriff level.

      This will be sued over constitutionality in the courts

      Stacked courts will probably claim it’s constitutional

      Up to Congress to specifically and independently say it’s unconstitutional. This Congress will probably not do that

      IF there’s another election, and the term limit is still adhered to, the next administration may chose to revoke it or alter it assuming they have differing policies.

      Rinse and repeat.

      [Edits: clarification and structure]

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    If you want to argue technicalities (and you REALLY should at least examine those before making legally binding edicts reinterpreting reality), it actually makes every American nongender.

    It specifies “at conception”, at which point no sexual characteristics have developed.