Um, the sheer irony of even the “biology exists” part of what you said is that any biologist will tell you how factually incorrect his law is.
Lmao I’ve been told that “at least it’s a more coherent and accurate description of gender than the last administration had”
And like, no, it’s inaccurate and incoherent. How do you define “the sex that produces the large reproductive cell” if someone never produced that cell? Are infertile people sexless, or is there some other sex characteristic that’s more reliable than gamete production? If there is, why not use that as a metric instead?
You could have just said “chromosomes.” Good job, you think some men can get pregnant. Of course, you probably think Swyer syndrome is an exception to your rule that XY=male and XX=female, which throws a bit of a wrench in the idea that sex can be defined by something like gamete production or chromosomes. These people exist and have to get driver’s licenses and shit, it’s not like you can just pretend they’re an outlier so they don’t matter. Should their sex be determined by chromosomes, or the gametes they have? Or is there perhaps a third, more useful method of determining whether to call them men or women?
…maybe we could just ask them?
It’s almost like it’s an insanely complicated subject that requires more than a grade school education to understand and more than one sentence to define
