• usernamesAreTricky
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    17 hours ago

    The EO definition didn’t refer to chromosomes at all actually it referred to female as “at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell” and male “at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”

    A zygote is a singular cell at coneception… so you could also argue it’s saying everyone’s bigender actually. In any case its extremely poorly written, goes against science, and forgets about intersex people

    (also note that XX and XY chromosomes don’t guarantee AMAB or AFAB. You can have XX chromosomes and present completely AMAB and vice versa)

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      17 hours ago

      It wouldn’t be bigender, because that single cell has (again, oversimplifying here) either XX or XY, right?

      Although if that’s how they’re defining gender, then anyone infertile (not producing sperm or eggs) is, by their definition, neither male nor female. So I guess they’re still recognizing a form of nonbinaryness? Just in a really incorrect way.