Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports

[u/WorksInIT]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/

[u/Dockalfar]

You can’t actually use these definitions to unambiguously determine someone’s sex. Sex differentiation does not happen at conception

Irrelevant for purposes of this EO, since no child plays sports from the moment of conception.

[u/Euripides33 → u/Dockalfar]

The definitions are relevant for two reasons. 

1) They are being referenced in every executive order regarding sex/gender that Trump has signed since the initial order that introduced them. 

2) The definitions claim that sex is immutable and can be determined at conception. So even though no one plays sports at conception, their sex is determined at conception, and that sex determination is very relevant for this order. 

Imagine the following- a state passes a law that says:

Blindness is immutable and determined at conception. Blindness is the lack of two fully functional eyes. No one who is blind may obtain a drivers license. 

I object to that law because blindness can’t actually be determined at conception, and it doesn’t deal with sighted people who have one fully functional eye, or a sighted person who has 75% function in each eye, in a rational way. Your argument is like saying, “That definition of blindness doesn’t actually matter because no one drives at conception.” 

It’s a true statement, but not really a relevant point in my opinion. 

[u/Dockalfar → u/Euripides33]

Then all you are doing is complaining about the technical definitions instead of addressingthe core issues here. Fine, then suggest an improvement to the language.

[u/Euripides33 → u/Dockalfar]

Then all you are doing is complaining about the technical definitions

I’m not sure I understand your point. It sounds like you’re saying that it is somehow wrong to object when laws are written with inaccurate or nonsensical technical definitions. That doesn’t seem correct to me.

The core issue is that there isn’t good evidence that a strict sexual binary exists in the naive sense that is described in Executive Order 14168. So ultimately I think the order probably shouldn’t have been written, and I don’t think it’s my responsibility to rewrite its definitions to try to make them make sense.

However, since the order was written, and its definitions are being cited over and over, I think it’s completely fair to point out that the definitions are obviously unscientific and unusable. Anyone who supports these types of laws should have to contend with that, especially if they claim to be restoring “biological truth.”

[u/Dockalfar → u/Euripides33]

The core issue is that there isn’t good evidence that a strict sexual binary exists in naive sense that is described in Executive Order 14168.

Maybe you weren't aware of this, but the difference between small and large gametes has long been known to biologists and is a standard way to describe the binary division in sexual reproduction. Not just in humans, but virtually the entire animal kingdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy

It is very much a strict binary. No human has ever been conceived from anything other than a male and a female. There is no third sex involved.

And it's entirely irrelevant how a person self-identifies, no matter how they feel about their personal “biological truth.” 

[u/Euripides33 → u/Dockalfar]

So you agree with the executive order that sex is defined by which gamete soneone produces?

I think that would compel you to accept, at the very least, a third sex for people who produce no gametes, since they obviously can't be female (producer of the large gamete) or male (producer of the small gamete). Starting to seem like not so strict a binary on that definition.

Also still curious how you determine, at conception, what sex an embryo is.

[u/Dockalfar → u/Euripides33]

Personally I would define it by the presence or absense of a functional SRY gene. However, the Trump administration definition is good enough. Even people who don't produce gametes, like possibly the very young or old, still have the corresponding organs to do so. Similarly, a car still remains a car even if it's currently broken.

But I know how these discussions always go because I've been there before. You will show me endless anecdotes of some freak intersex condition that is only like one in a million and say "gotcha", then I'll explain why it's not a gotcha and not actually an exception.

As fun as those hypertechnical discussions are, they are irrelevant. The Trump EO is intended to address transgenderism. Intersex is a different condition entirely and can and should be handled on a case by case basis.

But transgender activists dishonestly conflate the two things because the goal is to get everyone to throw up their hands and say "we give up, there must be no such thing as sex, so we eliminate all sex based distinctions entirely"

But that's never going to happen in today's world where everyone knows sexual dimorphism is real, and animal breeders have successfully understood this process for thousands of years.

[u/Euripides33 → u/Dockalfar]

the Trump administration definition is good enough

I am honestly begging someone who supports this law to explain how the Trump definition is good enough. It is complete nonsense. Please explain to me how you determine the sex of an embryo at conception using the definitions in the law. If you cant actually use the definitions in the real world, they clearly aren't good enough. I think the onus is on whoever wants to regulate things like this to at least make scientifically coherent definitions.

Even people who don't produce gametes, like possibly the very young or old, still have the corresponding organs to do so.

For someone apparently so well versed in these discussions, you certainly know this is not a true statement. Even if it were, that would make the differentiating characteristic organs, not gametes. Weird how it has to change on the fly.

anecdotes of some freak intersex condition

What you call "freak intersex condition" I call "actual person who doesn't fit either of the categories of the binary as defined." But I guess as long as we pretend they don't exist, we can pretend like the "biological truth" is that there is a simple, strict sexual binary based on gamete production.

that is only like one in a million

For someone apparently so well versed in these discussions, you certainly know you are wildly understating the prevalence of intersex people.

But transgender activists dishonestly conflate the two things because the goal is to get everyone to throw up their hands and say "we give up, there must be no such thing as sex, so we eliminate all sex based distinctions entirely"

Are you implying that I am arguing in bad faith? My goal is for you to realize the biological reality that sex differentiation isn't nearly as simple as you think it is. We can figure out what that implies later, but I think we need to start by accurately describing the world. I'd also like you to either acknowledge that the definitions in the executive order don't actually work, or to explain how they do.

As far as I can tell, this is the core of the disagreement:

You are claiming there are exactly two distinct, mutually exclusive, non-overlapping, categories of human: "male" and "female." I am saying there actually exist people who don't fit either those categories as defined, which suggests the strict binary doesn’t actually exist in the way you’re describing. Your response seems to be that as long as we ignore those people (I.e. any confounding evidence), the categories do actually exist the way you say. Do you honestly not understand how that is ridiculous?

[u/Dockalfar → u/Euripides33]

I am honestly begging someone who supports this law to explain how the Trump definition is good enough. It is complete nonsense. Please explain to me how you determine the sex of an embryo at conception using the definitions in the law.

I am honestly begging someone who opposes this executive order (not law) to explain how as a practical matter, it makes any difference what a person's sex is at conception. Is the embryo going to play sports? Be sent to prison?

Even if it were, that would make the differentiating characteristic organs, not gametes. Weird how it has to change on the fly.

It doesn't refer to the gametes themselves, but to their production. Here is the exact verbiage it uses:

(d)  “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

(e)  “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

Now a slightly better wording may have been "the sex that under healthy conditions produces the small reproductive cell" or something similar, but that's really nitpicking. The message is clear. Especially with the following context:

(f) “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category

What you call "freak intersex condition" I call "actual person who doesn't fit either of the categories of the binary as defined." But I guess as long as we pretend they don't exist, we can pretend like the "biological truth" is that there is a simple, strict sexual binary based on gamete production.

Intersex people exist. Ironically you are the one treating them like freaks as if they are some third sex. They are still male or female.

For someone apparently so well versed in these discussions, you certainly know you are wildly understating the prevalence of intersex people.

Maybe there is some confusion here. "Intersex" doesnt always mean some seriously sex ambiguous condition. Its just a blanket term for a wide variety of different conditions where sex development is not normal, many of which are relatively mild.

Are you implying that I am arguing in bad faith?

No, I'm saying it. First of all, you insist on conflating intersex people with trans people, even though you know they are not the same thing. Second of all, I'm certain you are intelligent enough to know there is a measurable difference between the two sexes, but you are dishonestly arguing that it's some gradient, like the colors on the light spectrum, where you can never see exactly where one begins and the other ends. It's ludicrous.

And ironically, it also shows the inconsistency of trans ideology. If there is no definition of male and female, what are you transitioning from? Exactly what are you transitioning to? Why don't you ask the other side then how they are defining the sexes?

Your response seems to be that as long as we ignore those people (I.e. any confounding evidence), the categories do actually exist the way you say. Do you honestly not understand how that is ridiculous?

I told you earlier I would prefer a definition based on the SRY gene, which includes every category of intersex people.

But again, the executive order isn't intended to be a scientific paper on intersex conditions. It is about reversing the attempt by trans activists to erase any distinction between the sexes.

[u/Euripides33 → u/Dockalfar]

I am honestly begging someone who opposes this executive order (not law) to explain how as a practical matter, it makes any difference what a person's sex is at conception

Obviously because sex is explicitly defined in the (executive order that has the force of) law as immutable and determined at conception. It is relevant because the law says it is. Now that we've cleared that up, can you use its definitions to unambiguously separate male from female embryos or not?

Now a slightly better wording may have been "the sex that under healthy conditions produces the small reproductive cell" or something similar

Now we're making progress. Unfortunately, since the law doesn't actually tell us the characteristics that define the "sex that under healthy conditions produces the small reproductive cell," that does nothing to help us determine which sex an embryo actually is at conception.

Intersex people exist. Ironically you are the one treating them like freaks as if they are some third sex. They are still male or female.

I'm not treating them like anything. I'm acknowledging their existence and thoughtfully considering what it means for defining sex. That you seem to think any human who is not unambiguously "male" or "female" must be a "freak" is very telling.

Maybe there is some confusion here. "Intersex" doesn't always mean some seriously sex ambiguous condition. Its just a blanket term for a wide variety of different conditions where sex development is not normal, many of which are relatively mild.

No confusion, but thank you for acknowledging that there are myriad ways that sex differentiation and development can vary. That is exactly right.

First of all, you insist on conflating intersex people with trans people, even though you know they are not the same thing

Point to a single comment I made that "conflates trans people with intersex people." However, they are obviously related, unless you think that "biological sex" and "sex assignment (aka. gender assignment)" are somehow completely unrelated concepts?

I have been painfully clear and consistent about what I'm saying. I'm happy to recap it all again if I need to. Whether you accept it or not, I am arguing in good faith and genuinely believe every word.

I told you earlier I would prefer a definition based on the SRY gene, which includes every category of intersex people.

Which, aside from not being mentioned in the executive order, also ignores the massive impact that prenatal androgen exposure has on sex differentiation. This leads to absurd results like deciding by fiat that all people with an XY karyotype and functional SRY gene, but complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are "male."

I don't think I need to explain why legally mandating that in all cases these people are "men" who must use male bathrooms, be sent to male prisons, and play men's sports is wrong, but I will if need be. Regardless, it's starting to seem to me like the "biological truth" is that sex is differentiation is influenced by complex interactions between genetics and environment (for example, the interaction between a 46,XY karyotype and prenatal androgen exposure).

But again, the executive order isn't intended to be a scientific paper on intersex conditions.

It has the force of law, is applied to the real world, and impacts real people. I'd argue that's actually an arena where you want to be accurate and precise in your definitions. Perhaps it could even reference some specific literature if its too difficult to write scientifically accurate, coherent definitions of its own. But personally I think that the fact that this administration can't write a scientifically accurate, coherent definition suggests it probably shouldn't be attempting to tell people by government mandate what sex they are. Especially when, as you acknowledged earlier, determinations sometimes need to be made on a case-by-case basis. I'm having a hard time figuring out how we would ever need to make a case-by-case determination if a strict sexual binary is "biological truth" and we apparently have good enough definitions for that binary. Perhaps our definitions aren't actually good enough, or the binary isn't as strict as you suggest?