Isaac Speer

I apologize if I've misunderstood you. It's not clear to me what exactly you think is fixed from 'conception'. If not chromosomes, then what exactly do you imagine is determined at conception and persists regardless of bodily changes?

Because you keep saying that sex is something that's fixed from the time of 'conception'. Likewise you seem to believe that all intersex individuals are really just male or female. That's why I've inferred that you may think that sex categories are based solely on chromosomes.

It seems like you're reducing "sex" to chromosomes. Do I understand you correctly?

I encourage you to re-read the definitions and consider how they are tautological. They essentially say someone is a specific sex because they belong to that sex at the time of conception. They never say how one can tell which sex a person belongs to.

No, but I don't have time to argue all day with people I don't even know.

Oh I'm sure the Iranian people will love that. /S

The US-Israel relationship is finally facing a reckoning. It doesn't need to slide into antisemitism | Joel Swanson Israel’s role in drawing the US into a war on Iran is attracting healthy scrutiny. It’s also creating a permission structure for antisemitism

There are a lot of legitimate questions to ask about Israel's role in lobbying the US to fight this war in Iran, and also a lot of antisemitic conspiracies about the "Zionist-occupied government" going around. I wrote about sorting through those fuzzy lines here: www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

Sorry, I just don't have any more time today to argue with you. Thanks for your time.

Im asking you if your own view is that people's legally recognized sex should be based solely on their chromosomes.

You seem to be claiming that all intersex people really are deep down just male or female. Assuming that is true, do you really think people with androgen insensitivity syndrome should be forced to live as a man even if they have a vagina?

I'm suggesting that the absence of a singular, defining criterion shows the flaw with the White House's view. They are trying to claim sex is an "immutable biological classification" yet can't name a single criterion that is met by all men or all women.

Chromosomal testing, hormonal testing, genital examination, etc. are different ways of testing for different sex characteristics. They aren't all testing the same thing, but rather different correlated things. Your Covid-19 analogy doesn't work.

You proposed a method - chromosomal testing - that isn't directly related to the White House's definitions. Maybe "belong to" could be interpreted as "has an XX or XY chromosome" but that's not what it actually says.

Right, XX vs. XY aren't even the full range of chromosomal variations, just the most typical ones.

It says sex is an "immutable biological classification" of "male and female", but does not state what exactly divides humans into these two categories. It just presumes it's obvious. If you think that's a workable definition, then we just have very different ideas of what 'workable' means.

Right, the definitions don't actually provide any criterion for determining a specific embryos' "sex". They just presuppose that it's obvious.

actually providing a criterion for determining an individual's sex. That's a key reason it's an unworkable definition, separate from the problem of focusing on 'conception'.

I understand it's not saying "is capable of producing at conception." It says "belong to the sex that is capable..." That's one of the problems with the definition, though; it presupposes that the question of individuals' sex is totally clearcut and obvious. It poses as scientific without...

Yes gametes are in the definitions, I mis-spoke. I still think the definitions are unworkable. I'll note that the definitions don't even define "sex" directly, probably because it's easier to just assume it's obvious and clear-cut.

Sorry, you are correct, I mis-typed there. I meant the definition says nothing about chromosomes. It is based solely on which gamete a person's "sex" is capable of producing, sperm or eggs. It's an unworkable definition because no embryo can produce sperm or eggs.

The definitions say nothing about gametes or chromosomes. Even if they did, defining sex in terms of XX vs. XY chromosomes ignores the existence of intersex individuals, whose external genitalia may not match their chromosomes.

Here's the order itself: www.whitehouse.gov/presidential....
It says people are either male or female at "conception" based on whether they belong to the "sex" that can produce sperm or the sex that can produce eggs. No embryo can produce sperm or eggs at conception!...

They presume there's a clearcut answer because they "know" and haven't actually looked into the science. See the Executive Order from last year claiming people have sex characteristics at conception!

In Defense of Effeminate Boys If anyone had suggested that I might really be a girl, I don’t know how I would have responded. By Ben Appel

If medical authorities have a rigorous way of distinguishing effeminate boys from transgender kids—or of distinguishing transgender kids from proto-gay kids—they aren’t saying. I have met a number of detransitioned gay men who tried to live as women for a time because they and their families were so averse to homosexuality. According to a 2019 report in The Times of London, staffers at Britain’s foremost gender-identity clinic joked darkly that, as a result of the facility’s work, “there would be no gay people left.” A statement last month by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons noted that there is no validated way to assess whether a child’s gender distress will persist over time or disappear without medical intervention. A lack of good research and recordkeeping means that we may never know how many patients who would have been considered effeminate gay boys not so long ago have undergone medical treatments for gender dysphoria.

Absolute trash. The author did not speak to a single medical professional and the article does not contain a shred of evidence that effeminate gay boys are being bamboozled into thinking they're trans.
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0...

Tweet from the ADL: "Today is #Purim — a holiday when we celebrate the thwarted plot to annihilate the Jewish people of Persia, modern-day Iran, and the courage of those who stood up against hatred. This year, the Purim story feels closer than ever. The former Iranian regime's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — a man who openly and obsessively called for the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel and the death of Jews worldwide — is a stark reminder of how the themes of this holiday echo into the present day. In Judaism, we are taught to cultivate joy even in the darkest of times. Joy and grief coexist, and we hold space for both. So, as we rejoice this Purim, we recognize the dangers and uncertainties of this moment. We are praying for the safety of American service members in harm's way, Israeli civilians and soldiers, our partners and friends in the Gulf and all others in the region who have already been targeted."

We need to separate Jews from the gov of Israel in critiquing this war with Iran. By saying that fighting Ayatollah Khamenei is fighting Haman, linking the war to Purim, the ADL is actively effacing that difference. Not only are they not effectively fighting antisemitism; they're making it worse.

They started an illegal, unjust war, and even left our own citizens stranded in the Middle East. I do not know how Trumpublicans sleep at night.

Tweet from White House Rapid Response: ". @SecRubio : "The president made the very wise decision—we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.""

I don't for a moment think Israel manipulated the US government into doing something it didn't want to do on its own anyway - but wow is this official messaging from the White House not going to tamp down the conspiracies.

"Nearly under threat" is a solid justification for war. /S

Having lived through the last time the US launched open-ended wars on a Muslim country over alleged WMDs, I can say that this time around is even more idiotic and openly evil.

History repeats itself, first time as tragedy, second time as farce. (Paraphrasing Marx)