A potentially missed detail with Trump's EO combating the trans lunacy. Personhood begins AT conception.
(media.greatawakening.win)
🏆 - WINNING - 🏆
Comments (27)
sorted by:
Looks like the party of actual science to me! Suck a fat one and take your pseudoscience and shove it up your ass, lefties.
They didn't word it correctly. At conception, every embryo has female characteristics. They don't develop sex organs until much later. It should have been a chromosome-based matter. You can't fake chromosomes.
It is chromosomes. It's a person belonging to the sex that...
You belong based on your chromosomes. It doesn't say in that moment, the moment of conception, that the person has to exhibit those sex-specific characteristics.
Exactly. At conception, one is a single-cell zygote (a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes) and no one is producing reproductive cells at that point. But which type of reproductive cell one will produce is already coded into one's DNA at that point.
The beauty of it is that the left is using this as a gotcha, saying that Trump is saying EVERYONE is a woman.
So they're admitting that gender is assigned at conception, meaning life begins at conception.
They'll never see it themselves, but it's still hilarious.
They worded it perfectly. Sex is determined at conception. XY and it is a male and belongs to the sex that produces small reproductive cell. XX and it is a female belongs to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
You are falling into the trap. Having female characteristics does not make one female. A man may cut off his penis, have a fake vagina built, get breast implants, put on makeup and a dress. That man will now have female characteristics but he is still a man. This wording makes it crystal clear that sex isn’t about “characteristics” or “features”.
A fertilized egg at conception does not have male or female characteristics. But it does have a sex. And will for the rest of its life.
The genius of this wording
Exactly. This is quite simple.
A sperm is either X or Y. An Egg is X.
At the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, sex of the embryo is determined.
Sex is determined determined before the embryo starts developing at all.
This just speaks to the pseudoscience of the left. It only counts as something if they can "see" it. Or, if they cannot see it. The sex of the child is only determined once the gestation reaches a certain point where the sex organs are visible. And you can clearly be a different sex once your breasts or testes are removed.
My point exactly, why not just say XX and XY? Simple.
Because that would exclude edge cases, less than 0.1% of the population.
I personally know one. He has XX karyotype, but has a dick and balls. Affects about 1 in 20,000 people.
Thankfully, he agrees with us, and knows he's a fringe example.
If you have balls, you have a Y, or because of SRY gene. Your friend has the normal X and one mutated X that's mostly a Y chromosome that didn't form correctly, but still contains most of the Y chromosome genes and critically the SRY gene.
The whole XXX and XXY or XXXX and XXXXY and all the other genetic oddities that occur are still males if it ends in a Y.
So they get excluded. 99.9% is good enough.
That doesn't matter. If that is the natural progression of all humans then that is a function of conception then, just like ears and hands, gets developed during the gestation of that person. But the important part is recognizing that the trajectory of A PERSON'S SEX is at conception and NOT assigned at birth.
Now we’re talking.
You know, they really are self defeatIng. If they had left well enough alone, none of this would be on the books But they HAD to ride the slippery slope all the way down and their movement is absolutely crumbling under the lunacy of birthing people and chest feeders
I don't think the wording matters all that much. What matters is the legal challenge to the Executive Order that will inevitably end up in front of the Supreme Court, where it can be settled permanently.
TBF wording is what's going to be challenged
Oh that’s smart because they’re taking back as far as you can possibly biologically go to define gender. Nice!
Mike just hides at home as this starts
See my reply to BeerMan:
At conception, one is a single-cell zygote (a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes) and no one is producing reproductive cells at that point. But which type of reproductive cell one will produce is already coded into one's DNA at that point.
OK but why do the definitions have to read like a children's book
What's wrong with XX and XY, FFS
You've been to a court? Stupid people can be judges. There's not an IQ test or anything. You make it simple it stays simple.
a bit naive. it's not so much stupidity as cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics. if you leave flexibility, they'll twist the wording into gordian knots to make it mean what they want it to mean.
see also: Roe v Wade. yes it was eventually overturned, but even ginsburg admitted it was a poorly formed decision.
No. I've been there. Some of them are legitimately stupid.
You do realize there are more state courts than federal courts? And you're most likely to end up in one of those?
This is huge and genius!
If you had to make a choice between killing a 7 day old proto-fetus or a 30 yo which would you choose? "At conception" is nowhere close to a "person" in my view
Neither.
Thanks for playing though.
If they worded it that way, there was a reason we may not be aware of. Everything has meaning.