• HubertManne@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    that seems obtuse as well. why not define as if you have a y male and if you don’t female. I am not endorsing this bill but their definition is horrible. I complain about “gender assigned at birth” phrase but boy it fits for this bill.

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        yeah there are folks with medical conditions. that is true. this is one thing I fear about the ruckus we have around this nowadays. that it will essentially out them. Honestly I did not make up the cis word so im not sure if it applies. its again another recent type of thing.

          • glacier@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Klinefelter syndrome occurs when a person who is assigned male at birth is born with an extra x chromosome. Most people with the condition are cisgender boys or men.

            Being trans is not a medical condition, although many trans people have gender dysphoria, which is psychological distress a person may have due to identifying with a different gender than the one that they were assigned at birth.

    • StringTheory@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I have a friend with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. She’s a woman, has always been a woman, is married to a man, and has two adopted kids (AIS means she’s sterile). She has XY chromosomes.

      Is someone going to walk up to her and say, “Sorry, ma’am, you’re male now”?

      Her gender assigned at birth was female. She was raised as a girl, always identified as a girl, and had no idea anything was different until she started having health problems at puberty.

    • LassCalibur@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most likely any attempt at specific, verifiable definitions would be insufficient for their fascistic purpose. A biologist, Forrest Valkai, covers well the complexity involved when defining the social construct of sexual differentiation in a measurable way in the video Sex and Sensibility. Hence, the laws reliance on “reproductive role” while simply assuming some unstated definition of “biological sex”.

    • apis@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they aren’t interested in doing so, and know that there are no good ways to define these things.

      What they want is the means to impose strict gender norms, and to persecute anyone who does not fit for any reason and in any way.

      So, today they want workers who aren’t super gender conforming to provide their birth certificates to use the restroom. Then they’ll escalate until workers conform or get shoved out. After that, strict gender dress codes for all employees, then gender-specific roles… sometime down the line, a ban on married women working in state organisations, women unofficially barred from most workplaces & most roles, and ideally barred from being out of the house without a male relative as chaperone, blocked from having a bank account or owning property, and in due course… welp now they are property.

    • kibiz0r@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s probably specifically because they wanted to punt the intersex issue to the court system. Talking about chromosomes is too specific and measurable. Talking about sex in terms of being associated with gametes makes it more subjective.