Except that interpretation ends up being circular in a way. They don’t have the characteristic, but one day they will belong to a sex that is associated with producing them, even if they personally never do. The wording is very weird because they think they are sidestepping chromosomal and hormonal anomalies, but end up in either taking them literally at their word (no one is any gender) or applying some looser interpretation that becomes flexible since “belonging to a sex” is then not tethered to any objective fact since the timeframe is then up for grabs.
For example, they could have said “if the sperm contributed a y chromosome, then male, else female”. But they probably were thinking of things like Morris, Kleinfelter, and Swyer and wanted to have wording flexible enough to account for those. But it results in enough ambiguity to allow for things.
So first and foremost, I am not defending these idiots at all, just looking at what they have actually written. I don’t believe that they are behaving sanely, let alone reasonably.
It’s not circular, but is in a practical sense retrograde, since it involves making a determination at birth based on criteria that cannot be accurately assessed until some point in the future. Therefore, obviously, the way the sex is actually determined at birth isn’t going to align 100% with the definitions they’ve outlined here and is going to cause some massive problems for subset of humans who don’t deserve any of this. As a result, they’re not sidestepping issues with chromosomal variability so much as walking head first into them, like a steel post.
I completely disagree that this definition is “not tethered to any objective fact”, because whether or not you produce sperm/ovum at some point over your lifespan definitely reflects an underlying reality and is how sex is determined the rest of the time when we aren’t talking about humans and social issues.
But even in the future the language is a bit wonky. If you are sterile for some reason, does that mean you have no gender? Well, guess it does say that you don’t have to actually produce those cells, you just have to “belong to the sex that produces the cells”. Ok, but then it technically avoids defining what “belonging to the sex means”, except to say that determination is done at conception, which opens the question to whether they consider a Morris Syndrome person to be a man? Or do they consider that person to have “belonging to the sex that produces larger reproductive cells” even if they, personally do not. Some people can go many many years without knowing they don’t have ovaries.
It’s strangely awkward and even more convoluted for their attempt to avoid saying it is the y chromosone.
Except that interpretation ends up being circular in a way. They don’t have the characteristic, but one day they will belong to a sex that is associated with producing them, even if they personally never do. The wording is very weird because they think they are sidestepping chromosomal and hormonal anomalies, but end up in either taking them literally at their word (no one is any gender) or applying some looser interpretation that becomes flexible since “belonging to a sex” is then not tethered to any objective fact since the timeframe is then up for grabs.
For example, they could have said “if the sperm contributed a y chromosome, then male, else female”. But they probably were thinking of things like Morris, Kleinfelter, and Swyer and wanted to have wording flexible enough to account for those. But it results in enough ambiguity to allow for things.
So first and foremost, I am not defending these idiots at all, just looking at what they have actually written. I don’t believe that they are behaving sanely, let alone reasonably.
It’s not circular, but is in a practical sense retrograde, since it involves making a determination at birth based on criteria that cannot be accurately assessed until some point in the future. Therefore, obviously, the way the sex is actually determined at birth isn’t going to align 100% with the definitions they’ve outlined here and is going to cause some massive problems for subset of humans who don’t deserve any of this. As a result, they’re not sidestepping issues with chromosomal variability so much as walking head first into them, like a steel post.
I completely disagree that this definition is “not tethered to any objective fact”, because whether or not you produce sperm/ovum at some point over your lifespan definitely reflects an underlying reality and is how sex is determined the rest of the time when we aren’t talking about humans and social issues.
But even in the future the language is a bit wonky. If you are sterile for some reason, does that mean you have no gender? Well, guess it does say that you don’t have to actually produce those cells, you just have to “belong to the sex that produces the cells”. Ok, but then it technically avoids defining what “belonging to the sex means”, except to say that determination is done at conception, which opens the question to whether they consider a Morris Syndrome person to be a man? Or do they consider that person to have “belonging to the sex that produces larger reproductive cells” even if they, personally do not. Some people can go many many years without knowing they don’t have ovaries.
It’s strangely awkward and even more convoluted for their attempt to avoid saying it is the y chromosone.
Yep, the courts and lawyers are definitely going have their hands full.