The Guardian, on Trump's EO re: gender ideology

Yes, that’s what CAIS is. But that’s not what Swyer Syndrome is. BoldRed has explained the difference between the two conditions. You could look it up, but it would be worth acknowledging you have this wrong.

I don't have a particular interest in sexual development. This is just basic bio. To repeat, the key is in the phrase "complete androgen insensitivity." Yes, circulating levels of testosterone are in the range for males, but none of the cells respond at all. So none of the secondary sexual characteristics develop. There's no male puberty, no gonad maturation. There are other forms of androgen insensitivity which are not complete and male puberty does occur. (Just as an aside, it's not technically correct to call their phenotype "externally female." Females are much closer phenotypically to the basic human body plan, which is what CAIS individuals grow up with. That includes the continued separation of the major and minor labia. In males the major labia fuse to form the scrotum, the minor labia fuse to form the skin of the penis.)

Depending on what the "C" stands for, no. That's why I also spelled it out. Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is one where all the cells in the body do not react to androgenic hormones at all. There's no male puberty, for example. The gonads don't develop and cannot produce sperm. Karyotype is 46,XY.

I know anyone can say they are anything on the internet, but I’m struggling to believe that a real evolutionary biologist with a particular interest in sexual development would confidently assert that Swyer Syndrome is the same condition as CAIS. People with CAIS have XY chromosomes, internal testes & male levels of testosterone but are unable to respond to androgens. They appear externally female but the vast majority have no internal female reproductive organs inc uterus. Swyer individuals also have XY chromosomes, but because of various genetic blips, end up with undeveloped, frictionless scar tissue called ‘streak gonads’. These don’t produce hormones. Individuals also appear externally female with a vulva snd vagina. They usually have a uterus (but obvs can’t produce eggs). They don’t go through puberty spontaneously but need hormone therapy to grow breasts and menstruate. So both conditions involve people who look female physically but are genetically XY males. However, they are quite different conditions with different causes.

Swyer Syndrome and CAIS are different conditions.

The other name for Swyers is Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. That affects development, not the initial state of being male or female. Complete insensitivity means no gonads develop but, remember, gonads are a secondary sexual characteristic. The original sperm producing potential is not realized at all, but it doesn't change what it originally was before development was stymied.

@ArabellaScott "How do scientists in general deal with the ones who say that sex is on a spectrum etc? Is it politely ignored? Are they not laughed at?"Did you ever see a movie called Men in Black? Hilarious take on aliens on Earth. Anyway, two FBI agents march up to a house as part of their investigations, ask questions about aliens, and the woman answering the door asks, "Are you being funny?" The senior one responds, "No, ma'am. We have no known sense of humour." Well, that's scientists' public face, usually. In private, the gender-lalas are considered on a par with flat earthers. Not even wrong.

https://alexroblesmd.com/gender-selection-ivf/
"How accurate is gender selection in IVF?
With the latest technology, we can achieve ~99% accuracy in determining gender for embryos."
Does Mahdawi think they're just getting lucky?
(Also want to credit the poster on the other thread who let me know this is already a thing)

The scientists provided the author with very comprehensive information, but simply put the sperm provides either an x or a y chromosome, which means sex is determined at conception. It may take six weeks of development for the sex to become apparent, but it was set at the moment of conception and is unchangeable.

Trump, first fish president.

It's the vector along which this EO will change things outside the U.S.A.

I thought we were literally clownfish?

All embryos also have Gil slits initially. Doesn't mean we are all fish

I'm not sure tbh. If i had read this (before i knew the Guardian spouted rubbish) i might have believed it. They're relying on people just skimming the article and not putting much thought into it, just to remember the "funny" bits that they'll repeat to their friends at dinner parties to make themselves sound clever and learned.

It comes down to the same thing with arguing with TRAs. They’re so gleefully able to tell everyone what a woman isn’t, there’s nothing in this nonsensical article or any of the gender wang tweets that tell us what a woman is.

So, Arwa, what IS a woman then, if it’s not this categorisation spelled out in the EO?

Also a factor:
The journalist will pitch the story to the editor or the editor will request the story before any serious research has been done. So the line or tone has been decided before it's written and the "research" is just trying to find evidence or quotes to support that line.

I agree, better said out loud upfront. She’s done gender woo no favours, quite the opposite. Yey.

The same way in which the man winning best actress, at the Oscar’s, could work. Though it’d be sad for Moore, it would shine a big fat Hollywood spotlight on gender whang bollocks..

I understand why people are horrified at these displays of batshit.

However, part of me thinks that it's better out than in.

Let's actually have people spell out what they think (there are more than two sexes, if you are infertile you're a third sex, etc).

We've had years of genderwhang bollocks getting published - sometimes by once-reputable outlets - and this travesty is the inevitable result. A generation of people who have bought the bullshit. So, they should be encouraged to explain what they believe, and show their working.

And then the grown ups are going to have to sit these people down and explain how babies are made.

So we're talking about women and men here. And yet, some, this rubbishes binaristic (?) understandings? Beats me.

WTAF!

It proves that no form of words is immune to misinterpretation by bad faith actors.

Scientifically, the sperm/eggs distinction is hogwash. Neither is produced at conception.

I wondered which TRA line the hard of thinking and righteous were going to grab onto en masse and it appears that it's this one.

Deliberate misinterpretation of biological facts for their own agendas.

Another 'expert'!

Another article. Irish Independent.

Naoise Dolan calls the EO 'bizarre' and 'unhinged'. And then goes on ...

'Scientifically, the sperm/eggs distinction is hogwash. Neither is produced at conception. Egg cells only develop after many weeks, and sperm isn’t produced until puberty. There are many cis women and men who produce neither; they’re a small percentage of the population, but their absolute number is significant enough to rubbish binaristic understandings of gender.'

She appears to think that infertility means someone is outwith the sex binary.

https://archive.ph/NLPlA