Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Donald J Trump, the first female president of the United States of America.
I think it would still be George Washington, though I am not sure if this applies after death.
Wat
Underrated comment here, thank you for this
If you want to argue technicalities (and you REALLY should at least examine those before making legally binding edicts reinterpreting reality), it actually makes every American nongender.
It specifies "at conception", at which point no sexual characteristics have developed.
Even more specifically, at conception, we produce neither large nor small reproductive cells. So we all have no sex.
So we all have no sex.
Stop it. You're reminding me of my early adulthood.
When is the early part supposed to end? Asking for a friend
That was my thought also. Trump getting rid of a legal gender distinction altogether by accident would be hilarious. I hope he stands his ground and insists it's not a mistake.
Ironically, the executive order goes on to acknowledge the difference between sex and gender
Or genderless. Either way I'm down.
Yeah they define female as member of species with largest sex cell but also state the sex person is at conception is their sex, therefore we are all sexless.
Another reason why politicians shouldn't have a say in science and biology.
Pretty sure according to current science, the sex is "undifferentiated" until a certain point in development. That means Trump wrote it so no one is female, lol.
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.
not all people with XY chromosomes end up with a penis.
not all people with XX chromosomes end up with a vagina
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.
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.
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.
Expression is where it's codified. For instance: I have XX chromosomes, but I also have dangling genitalia and a great big bushy beard. All because the X chromosome I recieved from my father had an SRY transcription error, and my body had male expression "switched on" by the SRY gene.
Yep
It rather depends on how you're defining sex. And I'm not joking, the article gives good examples on when it is ambiguous.
Thanks for pointing that out. When I first checked the link, I must have been tired as I missed that there was an article beyond the image and headline somehow. (Normally my habit would have been to check if the topic was covered, since headlines can be misleading. Case in point, in this case they were going for humour more than accuracy there, but the article indeed has examples.)
I missed that there was an article beyond the image and headline somehow.
This is 100% understandable... Especially on a phone these days it's getting crazy hard to read articles.
Well, it shows that the average right winger was fast asleep in school, especially during science and history classes.
That's because anyone with a basic understanding of human biology knows sex is a biological concept that is quite fluid - and gender has an incredibly soft scientific basis if any at all, within social contexts. If he had people who actually understood science helping his write this, they would only be explaining the ways it's wrong.
Considering iflscience also got reading the order completely wrong, I feel the issue is with your education system in general.
Not my education system. I live in a civilized country.
*their
I'm trying to wrap my head around how executive orders work. I'm not American.
Can someone explain what's the legal process compared to a bill for example?
A policy applied to federal agencies on the whims of the executive/administration (president+staff). (FBI, CIA, DHS, ICE, TSA, HHS, FDA, so forth...)
Does not impact state law, judicials, or enforcement agencies. Though many of these do take their lead from federal guidelines to some degree, especially at the police and sheriff level.
This will be sued over constitutionality in the courts
Stacked courts will probably claim it's constitutional
Up to Congress to specifically and independently say it's unconstitutional. This Congress will probably not do that
IF there's another election, and the term limit is still adhered to, the next administration may chose to revoke it or alter it assuming they have differing policies.
Rinse and repeat.
[Edits: clarification and structure]
Is there a process to make them official? Like is there a vote on them by Congress or something? Or are they automatically applied?
They are applied with effect based on how they're written. They are "Official" but they can't change the writing of the constitution. Another administration can immediately revoke them as he has with many of biden's. The courts can only change how the constitution is interpreted. Congress needs to pass an amendment to change the constitution.
They're not laws... The president is the head of the "executive branch" which has a number of federal departments that execute the laws passed by the legislature.
Executive orders are basically "memos" from the president that direct those departments on how to operate since the laws don't typically get into too much detail about the specifics.
These orders apply only to federal offices, he has no authority over private business or state governments without passing a law.
Does this mean I have to update my drivers license since I'm going to be female for the next four years?
Oh, that could be fun.
That's so cool. I'm glad we can find a good laugh in the midst of this hell.
This is pretty poor for what's supposed to be a science blog
Presidency
Yeah, I stopped following IFLScience over 10 years ago. Even then, their posts vere not very accurate scientifically.