Skip Navigation
20 comments

  • Isn't this just conceptually kicking the can? The definition of a group isn't 'belonging to the group' you would still have to explain what defines that group? Obviously it can't be 'producing the x reproductive cell' since that status is not innate or immutable. They're clearly even aware of this, it's funny that this is the best they've got.

    Also isn't this legally creating people who have no sex or people who technically are multiple sexes?

    They're not sending their best, folks.

    • Genuinley how do they even prove this? Like my ex is interesex, assigned female at birth but produces (a small ammout of non-functional) small gametes, like what even are they occording to this law? and how would they even know that from legal documents alone?? Like being assined a sex at birth is the only thing on the books, but even that doent always alighn with the gametes you will produce (or already have) at birth. Def some can kicking going on...

20 comments