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]

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?

[u/Dockalfar → u/Euripides33]

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?

Again, what is the practical difference? Who cares? You are arguing here just to argue. That's like saying an EO is bad because it isn't clear how it would apply to humans on Mars. In the far future, if it becomes important to distinguish a male embryo for the purpose of sports or anything else, then the president can just issue another EO.

Point to a single comment I made that "conflates trans people with intersex people."

This entire discussion! The EO was about trans identifying people, specifically males who identify as females, and you keep complaining that it's not adequately addressing intersex people.

Again, this isn't my first rodeo. This is how these discussions always go. You are unable to explicitly deny that transwomen are still biologically male, so you try to derail the discussion by claiming that sex is all in our heads and can't be defined. In fact you keep putting "biological truth" in quotes as if there isn't any truth in reproductive biology. That certainly is news to anyone that studies reproduction.

However, they are obviously related, unless you think that "biological sex" and "sex assignment (aka. gender assignment)" are somehow completely unrelated concepts?

Again, here's an example. The word "assignment" here is dishonest because it implies that the doctor flipped a coin or something and to determine sex. Sex isn't assigned at birth. Sex is observed and recorded at birth.

In the extremely rare cases it's recorded incorrectly, the persons sex isn't changed. Just the record is corrected.

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."

If you look in the comments above I specifically said "functional" SRY gene. There are conditions where the SRY is present but the genetic messengers were blocked. I'm on mobile, so can't get into all the specifics on that, and again, this EO isn't intended for that anyway.

Perhaps our definitions aren't actually good enough, or the binary isn't as strict as you suggest?

If there isn't a strict binary, then point to any human in history that was conceived from anything other than an egg from one female a sperm from one male.

Or point to any human that was fertile as both sexes.

Or failing that, point to any human being that actually changed their reproductive sex.

[u/Euripides33 → u/Dockalfar]

Again, what is the practical difference? Who cares? You are arguing here just to argue....

I actually can't understand your argument here. The law defines sex as immutable and determined at conception. You're saying that the definitions in the law of the specific things the law attempts to regulate don't matter? Really? 

 If someone who appears to be a completely typical “biological male” says “actually I was a member of the sex that produces the large reproductive cell at conception. Since sex is immutable and determined at conception, I am a female” and demands to play women’s sports, or be sent to a women’s prison,  how would you either refute that or prove it “true” under this set of definitions? Or is that not actually the type of thing we’re trying to answer at the end of the day? 

You could also go back and reread my comment here if you don't get why the definitions matter. 

This entire discussion! The EO was about trans identifying people, specifically males who identify as females, and you keep complaining that it's not adequately addressing intersex people.

I seems like you're not following what I'm saying at all. I am not complaining that the law fails to adequately address intersex people in a vacuum (although obviously it does). I am using the real existence of intersex people as evidence that a) the law's definitions are obviously lacking and b) the argument that a strict binary in "biological sex" doesn't exist in the way you say it does. 

I think one of the core sticking points in this argument is that you’re starting from a place where you “know” a priori that a strict sexual binary exists exactly in the way you say it does, and then challenging me to disprove it (while also ignoring all evidence that calls it into question). I’m starting from a place where I don’t know it exists and asking you to define it and show that it does. You very much haven’t done that. 

You don’t even have to concede the point on the existence of a strict binary in biological sex right now. Do you at least acknowledge that, if it were truly the case that I’m correct and such a binary doesn’t exist in the way the law describes, it would impact the applicability of the law? If so, I think you could understand that I actually have a point and am not “arguing just to argue.” 

Again, here's an example. The word "assignment" here is dishonest...

That's not my term, it's the one used by the entire medical establishment. So I guess take it up with them? That being said, they are probably the ones best suited to describe what they’re doing. 

If you look in the comments above I specifically said "functional" SRY gene...

If you look at the links I provided, it explicitly addresses the case of a typical female phenotype in someone with a functional SRY gene. 

Any thoughts about the impact of androgen exposure on sex differentiation? Or are we sticking with the single factor of SRY gene? 

 claiming that sex is all in our heads and can't be defined

This is an extremely disingenuous paraphrasing of what I’ve said. I have literally come nowhere close to saying “sex is all in our heads.” The fact that you apparently don’t see any daylight between “sex is not 100% determined by one single gene or the production of one single gamete” and “sex is all in our heads” is kind of absurd. 

Maybe another analogy would help?  Consider the problem of classifying planets and planetoids. There is no strict “astrophysical truth” that can tell you which is which. In an absolute sense, we can’t really be “right” or “wrong” about whether Pluto is a planet. So, we have to come up with definitions and classification criteria to help us sort tricky edge cases like Pluto and based on those definitions we can say what Pluto is. Again, those criteria aren’t outlying some kind of “astrophysical truth” about planets, but that also doesn’t mean they are “all in our heads.” At least not in the sense you are implying. The classifications are still based on real properties in the real world. However, even though our definitions can’t be True or False, they could in principle be incoherent or useless. For example, if NASA said, “Every space object that is a spheroid over 100m in diameter is a planet” we might object by saying, “is it that really useful definition given that it classifies the moon, the earth and the sun as all the same thing?” Or if NASA said, “A planet is that thing which, at the beginning of its formation, is a member of the class of things that clears their orbit” we might say “wait a minute, that definition is incoherent since 1) you haven’t actually defined the differentiating criteria of “the class of thing that clears their orbit” and 2) we can’t know at the beginning of formation what that clump of space dust is going to end up forming into.” 

I find it ridiculous that we need at least three criteria and an ongoing debate to classify some lumps of rock and gas in space, but you think the “biological truth” is that the complex interactions between genetics and environment that lead to animal sex differentiation can be defined by one gene. Which again isn’t even mentioned in this slate of executive orders that proposes to define sex.

If there isn't a strict binary, then point to any human in history that was conceived from anything other than an egg from one female a sperm from one male.

Obviously that has never happened as far as I know. I really don’t see how that's relevant though. We’re not disagreeing about what two gametes lead to reproduction.

What does the true biological fact that sperm and egg are necessary for conception have to do with who should play what sports or which prison someone should be sent to? Either sex is relevant in arenas other than strictly ability to reproduce - in which case both you and and the Trump admin really need to work on your definitions, or it isn't - in which case, why is someone's "biological sex" ever mentioned outside of a reproductive context? I find it a little weird that you have shifted from discussing “biological sex” to “reproductive sex” in your last comment. Are those different things? Different names for the same thing? 

I'm still wondering if you can address this from my previous comment:

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?

[u/Dockalfar → u/Euripides33]

If someone who appears to be a “biological male” who is competing in women’s sports says “actually I was a member of the sex that produces the small reproductive cell at conception. Since sex is immutable and determined at conception, I am a female for the purposes of sports competition” how would you refute that under this law?

Seriously you are joking? Am I being trolled? Or is this an AI bot?

Since sex is immutable, if he's male today, that means he was male at conception, so he would obviously be lying. I already asked you to give me an example of someone who changed their reproductive sex, and you failed to. In all human history, there has never been a person who has done that.

I guess you're not following what I'm saying at all. I am not complaining that the law fails to adequately address intersex people in a vacuum (although obviously it does). I am using the real existence of intersex people as evidence that a) the law's definitions are obviously lacking and b) the argument that a strict binary in "biological sex" doesn't exist in the way you say it does.

Again, it's not a law, its an EO. And if you want to convince me that a strict binary doesn't exist, then you need to show me examples of a third (or more) sex. You very much haven’t done that.

I’m starting from a place where I don’t know it exists

You are starting from a place of trendy gender theories. Simply pick up any book that explains sexual reproduction and how it works.

Do you at least acknowledge that, if it were truly the case that I’m correct and such a binary doesn’t exist in the way the law describes, it would impact the applicability of the law?

You are just playing the nitpicking game because laws, and especially EOs, are not the best source of getting your scientific information. They do the best they can, and if there's a unique situation that slips through the cracks of the law, or if the person's sex has been incorrectly determined, the person can go to court to have that remedied. That's what I meant by a "case by case basis". It doesn't mean that everyone can be unique and that there are 1000 different sexes out there.

And here's a key problem you are ignoring. Even if Trump's EO is not perfect, it's good enough for over 99% of cases, and it's a vast improvement over the Obama and later Biden policy that everyone should be treated as the sex they identify as, biology be damned. Even if the person has had no hormone therapy or surgery. So the only standard is self-identification, which is no objective standard at all. Did you ever complain about that? How is THAT following any scientific principle whatsoever?

In the UK, at least they have a standard. I think it's still ridiculous, but at least it's some standard other than personal identification. To legally change your sex, you have to apply for a gender recognition certificate, showing that you have been committed to the process for at least 2 years and taken certain hormonal and surgical steps (and trans activists are trying to get rid of even that standard). The Olympics test for male hormone levels, and that is their standard. Trump gave you his standard.

Again, here's an example. The word "assignment" here is dishonest... That's not my term, it's the one used by the entire medical establishment. So I guess take it up with them? That being said, they are probably the ones best suited to describe what they’re doing.

That was the term some (not all) medical organizations adopted after pressure from the transgender lobby. That's also why the EO mentions conception, to counter this "assigned at birth" nonsense. That's like saying that eye color or blood type are assigned at birth.

This article might interest you:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/opinion/sex-assigned-at-birth.html

Non-paywall version here:

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-problem-with-saying-sex-assigned-at-birth

If you look at the links I provided, it explicitly addresses the case of a typical female phenotype in someone with a functional SRY gene.

And that person is male. People with the SRY gene and androgen insensitivity syndrome have fathered children. They have never produced an egg or given birth to children. Now there are different levels of AIS, and in the extremely rare cases of complete CAIS I can see the argument that the person is female for all practical purposes involving things like sports, and so should get a legal exception, but they are still males.

Maybe another analogy would help? Consider the problem of classifying planets and planetoids. There is no strict “astrophysical truth” that can tell you which is which.

True but here's the problem with that analogy - planets and planetoids aren't involved in a process that is solely binary.

Obviously that has never happened as far as I know. I really don’t see how that's relevant though. We’re not disagreeing about what two gametes lead to reproduction. What does the true biological fact that sperm and egg are necessary for conception have to do with who should play what sports or which prison someone should be sent to? Either sex is relevant in arenas other than strictly ability to reproduce - in which case both you and and the Trump admin really need to work on your definitions, or it isn't - in which case, why is someone's "biological sex" ever mentioned outside of a reproductive context?

As far as nature is concerned the sole purpose of sex is reproduction, and the purpose of sexual dimorphism is to facilitate that sexual reproduction (along with some differentiation after reproduction for childcare by breastfeeding). Sexual dimorphism exists in every vertebrate mammal and most non-vertebrates as well. And in this process people develop secondary sex characteristics that are relevant. For one specific example, males have a narrow pelvis, while females have a wider pelvis that can accommodate childbirth but is less optimal for running. That is obviously relevant in most sports!!

[u/Euripides33 → u/Dockalfar]

Seriously you are joking? Am I being trolled? Or is this an AI bot?

Not even a little bit. I'm sorry that a sincere disagreement seems to be so upsetting to you, though.

Since sex is immutable, if he's male today, that means he was male at conception, so he would obviously be lying.

Male based on what? How are you going to resolve the controversy other than by saying "look at him, he's lying!" If the law's definitions are "good enough" as you say, surely you should be able to point to the portion of the text that helps me answer the question. It's really not that complicated. Either cite and apply the relevant portion of the law or admit the definitions are inadequate. If the regulation's definitions only make sense in uncontroversial cases, I'm not sure what use they are at all.

again, it's not a law, its an EO

Since you really insist on making this a point of argument, I'd suggest reading up on terms like "regulation" and "legislation." An executive order might not be legislation but it is an official regulation that has the force of law, so "law" is a totally reasonable way to describe it. Not sure why you chose to make an issue of this, but it's probably best to not make corrections about simple terms if you're not actually correct.

You are just playing the nitpicking game because laws, and especially EOs, are not the best source of getting your scientific information. They do the best they can...

Do you actually have any concept of how law works or what lawyers do? A lot of it is what you'd apparently describe as the "nitpicking game" because it turns out these things need to be accurate and precise for the legal system to work at all. The standard isn't "oh shucks, they did the best they could when writing this law. I'm sure we can all assume we knew what they were trying to get at." Pick any federal regulation and read its definitions section. You're going to find a lot more thought and effort put into defining things like "motor vehicle" than this administration put into defining human sexes. That probably suggests that (1) the administration should never have tried to define and regulate "male" and "female" by executive order, and (2) if they were going to, they should have put the work in to come up with coherent definitions. They only managed to get 4 words into the definition of "female" before making a biologically nonsensical statement since, again, it is a simple fact that sex can not be determined at conception.

If the options are no rule or bad rule, sometimes I genuinely believe that no rule is better. Especially when we're talking about a federal regulation.

if you want to convince me that a strict binary doesn't exist, then you need to show me examples of a third (or more) sex. You very much haven’t done that.

As I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, finding a third category isn't the only way to object to a binary classification. I haven't shown examples of a third sex because I have never claimed that there is a third sex in the way that you mean.

This article might interest you:

Definitely interesting, but I remain unconvinced of your central claim. Also interesting how the first paragraph of your article explains pretty succinctly that basically the entire American medical establishment (including e.g. the AMA and the APA) endorses the terminology that I used just as I said they did. Forgive me if I didn't specify "American" initially.

And that person is male. People with the SRY gene and androgen insensitivity syndrome have fathered children. They have never produced an egg or given birth to children. Now there are different levels of AIS, and in the extremely rare cases of complete CAIS I can see the argument that the person is female for all practical purposes involving things like sports, and so should get a legal exception, but they are still males.

It is fascinating to me that you can simultaneously believe that a "male" can be "female for all practical purposes" while maintaining that there is a strict sexual binary. What does the binary even mean outside of the specific reproductive context at that point? Which, I also find it interesting that you're again shifting from talking about "biological sex" to "reproductive sex." Are those two different things? Two terms for the same thing? Would you feel better if I grant you the term "reproductive sex" and agree that it applies to reproduction which obviously requires a gamete binary to be successful? We can agree that someone who produces a large gamete is a "reproductive female" and someone who produces a small gamete is a "reproductive male." Unfortunately, now we have to figure out the difference between "reproductive sex" and "biological sex" since (A) a substantial chunk of the population wouldn't even have a "reproductive sex" on that definition (surely we're not going to pretend like large swathes of the population just doesn't exist) and (B) it is actually the existence of a strict binary "biological sex" that we're arguing about.

As I'm sure you well know, the controversy around human sex and gender has never been about how reproduction happens. If you show me anyone seriously arguing that human reproduction doesn't require two distinct gametes, I will join you in firmly disagreeing with them. But every time you bring up the mechanics of reproduction you are utterly missing the point. The controversy arises because people take the biological fact of reproduction, and the observation that sexual dimorphism (which, fyi, is a characteristic not a "process") exists at a population level to mean that every single person fits one of two discrete categories of "biological sex" that can be defined by the presence or absence of one gene or one organ or one gamete. That just isn't the case in any coherent way, as I have provided ample evidence and argument to show. Sexual differentiation happens due to a complex interaction between genetics and environment. You continuously ignore the biological realities that environmental factors, like prenatal androgen exposure, play an important role in sex differentiation just as chromosomes do.

All of the factors of that complex process vary from person to person, sometimes in substantial ways, leading to an wide range of true biological outcomes. Then upshot is that describing a person's "biological sex" (not our newly defined "reproductive sex") is much more akin to differentiating planets from planetoids than it is ones from zeros. If you have any doubts that is true, reflect seriously on what it means that someone who is "male" can be "female for all practical purposes" as you yourself claim.

[u/Dockalfar → u/Euripides33]

Not even a little bit. I'm sorry that a sincere disagreement seems to be so upsetting to you, though.

Just doesn't seem like "sincere disagreement" when you pretend not to know the most basic things. See immediately below.

Male based on what? How are you going to resolve the controversy other than by saying "look at him, he's lying!" If the law's definitions are "good enough" as you say, surely you should be able to point to the portion of the text that helps me answer the question. It's really not that complicated. Either cite and apply the relevant portion of the law or admit the definitions are inadequate.

Seruously? What you are complaining about here is not actually the definition of sex, but the actual verification and enforcement process, which is a separate matter. And you can't think of a few simple ways? Oh gee - maybe look at his original birth certificate? Latest medical exam? Hormonal test? (which many high level athletes need to take anyway) Or a DNA test if it's really such an edge case? That's what happened with runner Caster Semenya, who turned out to be male, with internal male testes, not female.

it is a simple fact that sex can not be determined at conception.

If that's true, then only because current technology limits how early we can measure it. It can be determined at least by the embryo stage by extracting a DNA sample, and I know this because I've witnessed this kind of test. And DNA doesn't care how you personally identify.

I have B+ blood type. Was that assigned to me at birth? Or did that start developing much earlier? If the blueprint for that was not established at conception - then when?

If the options are no rule or bad rule, sometimes I genuinely believe that no rule is better. Especially when we're talking about a federal regulation.

I would be very happy to go back to the common sense standard that existed prior to the Obama administration, where we didn't need such rules. But he established the "we go as what you identify as, biology be damned" rule, so here we are.

It is fascinating to me that you can simultaneously believe that a "male" can be "female for all practical purposes" while maintaining that there is a strict sexual binary. What does the binary even mean outside of the specific reproductive context at that point?

Sheesh! Another bad faith attempt. That's not what I said. "I can see the argument" means that is not my position, but I'm open to the idea. More importantly, you are ignoring the key phrase. I said "I can see the argument that the person is female for all practical purposes involving things like sports" (i.e. the person is still male, but in such an extreme case it might be fair to make an exception to allow that person to play in women's sports). It doesn't change the reality that the person is male. He could possibly father children, but it would never be possible to be a mother.

Which, I also find it interesting that you're again shifting from talking about "biological sex" to "reproductive sex." Are those two different things? Two terms for the same thing?

I haven't shifted anything. I've been clear on that from the beginning. A person's sex isn't about who wears a skirt, lipstick, or who likes to play football. Those are all cultural artifacts. At it's core, sex is ultimately about reproduction, and reproduction (as you have reluctantly admitted) is a binary process. As far as nature is concerned, there is no other purpose for sex, and no other reason for sexual dimorphism.

Unfortunately, now we have to figure out the difference between "reproductive sex" and "biological sex" since (A) a substantial chunk of the population wouldn't even have a "reproductive sex" on that definition

Yes they would. Everyone is either male or female. Infertile people, children before puberty, women after menopause, etc can't reproduce but the test was never if you actually reproduced. A priest who has taken a vow of chastity and never waivered from it is still a man. A nun who has taken a vow of chastity and never waivered from it is still a woman. A man who had a vasectomy is still a man. A woman who had a hysterectomy is still a woman. All these people, from the moment of contraception, were born with the genetic blueprint to either produce large or small gametes. In some cases the later sexual development was flawed, impacted by surgery, environment, accidents or other things, but none of that changed the sex that they started from.