• catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    18 hours 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
      49
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours 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
        4
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        17 hours 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.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      17 hours 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.

        • orclev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Thanks for the correction. I guess that makes sense considering that the Y chromosome is just a mutant X chromosome, so there should exist mutations of the X chromosome that would result in male genitalia or intersex genitalia developing.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        15 hours 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
      16 hours 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.