>xy
At conceptien, the chromosomes are set and selected

>>16559544
nah, chromosomes
>bu-but XXY & such things exist!!!1!!1
yeah, fuckups happen, like the elephant man ofr that kid whose bodily tissues where fuckes such that they broke apart as if they where made of wet paper, life is so... are you a fuckup?

>>16559558
If the legal definition for sex is based on allosomes, does that mean everyone will need to have a karyogram to legally have a sex? Considering that karyograms cost ~10k USD each, who do you think should be responsible for paying these expensive medical tests?

>>16559707
Not everything requires the most expensive and accurate testing, that's not how medicine works. You can determine the allosomes with a very high degree of accuracy with a simple observation of primary and secondary sexual characteristics. If this isn't conclusive and there's a strong possibility of a disorder, that's when you order the more expensive testing.

Do you also think you can't diagnose someone with morbid obesity without a DXA scan and hydrostatic weighing?

>by developing female sex organs
Isn't this factually wrong and leftist dishonest?
You don't start out with a womb and labia and a clitoris. You start out with some general undifferentiated thing that can become either, right?

>>16559714
>simple observation of primary and secondary sexual characteristics
Which are female for the first six weeks following conception, as pointed out in the OP. I will reiterate the question posed in the OP:
Do you think everyone is female, or should sex be determined at a later developmental stage.
If it's the latter, you disagree with our current legal definition of sex.

>>16559718
>Isn't this factually wrong and leftist dishonest?
It is dishonest and mostly wrong, but not entirely wrong, kinda. All embryos develop the müllerian ducts for example, which can technically be considered the proto-female reproductive organs, but the SRY gene present in the Y chromosome triggers a hormone that makes ducts regress and disappear. Nipples can also technically be considered a female characteristic that did not regress in males. It's silly semantics though, these are all simply considered "undifferentiated", because that's what they factually are.
>>16559722
>Which are female for the first six weeks following conception
They aren't female, they're undifferentiated.
>If it's the latter, you disagree with our current legal definition of sex.
aIf it's the latter, you disagree with our current legal definition of sex.
"at conception" is a pretty unfortunate term, but you can still determine what the allosomes were at conception through physical examination after delivery.

>>16559544
Yes, keep playing the "teeheehee, well, actually" game and see how much that benefits you with the general public. Amazing how much effort these people put into maximizing how much of the world sees them as aloof and unlikable. When the masses tire of them and they get "handled", as eventually happens each time this type of thing arises, they always wail "Why us? What did we ever do?"

>people born sterile don't have a legal sex
Rough

Wait, androgen insensitive women with female birth certificates who have lived and identified as female their entire lives have now had their legal sex changed by the feds without their consent?

Damn, guess it wasn't about protecting women or birth certificates or anything else.

>>16559781
You don't have to produce reproductive cells to belong to a sex that does.

Analogy - as a government pencil pusher, you belong to an organsation that has a legal monopoly on violence, but are not authorized to exercise violence yourself.

Familiarize yourself with logic and the differences between a genotype and a phenotype.

There just shouldn't be a legal definition of sex/gender, nor any references to such in the law. The only identity distinctions in law should be citizen/non-citizen and minority/majority (as in adulthood).

>>16559806
Yeah i don't see why a law needs a definition for sex either if sexes are supposed to be equal under the law. Unless this is groundwork for unequal treatment.

>>16559544
I'm pretty sure at conception you don't have much of anything since you're literally two cells.

>>16559722
>primary and secondary characteristics
>secondary
Uh. You need to drop mid/post puberty indicators for this discussion.

>>16559790
>You don't have to produce reproductive cells to belong to a sex that does.
I want you to think about what you just said for 5 seconds.

>Analogy - as a government pencil pusher, you belong to an organsation that has a legal monopoly on violence, but are not authorized to exercise violence yourself.
Aw, he thinks government pencil pushers would be held accountable for their actions more than cops. How cute.

>Familiarize yourself with logic and the differences between a genotype and a phenotype.
If whether or not you meet the definition of a thing isn't diagnostic of that thing, the definition is wrong, the person doing the diagnosis has no idea what they're doing, or both.

>>16559544
Doesn't seem that way. It says "the sex that produces the small reproductive cell". So if you belong to that sex when you're conceived, you belong to that sex always. I guess you could argue that you can't conclusively know to which sex you belong to at conception, since you yourself do not produce sex cells then, but it definitely does not say that everyone is a female. That's just a retard interpretation.

>>16559904
>I want you to think about what you just said for 5 seconds.
I want you to study logic and the differences between a genotype and a phenotype.
>Aw, he thinks government pencil pushers would be held accountable for their actions more than cops. How cute.
You're missing the point entirely.
>If whether or not you meet the definition of a thing isn't diagnostic of that thing, the definition is wrong
Would you stop being human if you lost a leg in an accident, given that humans are bipedal?

>>16559972
>Would you stop being human if you lost a leg in an accident, given that humans are bipedal?
The number of legs is on a spectrum. Humans are spectropedal.

>>16559977
The number of legs of anything is on a spectrum, anything can lose legs and you can glue a leg to anything. The definition you coined has no practical use as it doesn't differentiate anything. Do you wish to admit to having a poor grasp on logic and biology, or do you want to keep doubling down on your ignorance?

>>16559544
That's a common misconception: penis grows the last, balls emerge often even after birth. But chromosomes are given at birth.

>>16559544
Well, we're assigned sex before birth.

>>16560016
>But chromosomes are given at birth.
my bad. At conception, of course.
(the easy question answered many times itt)

>>16559748
Your president is the most unlikable creature in the world. Someone might even mangione him and his cronies in a few years.

>>16559972
>I want you to study logic and the differences between a genotype and a phenotype.
You're missing the point. If you define a sex by the production of particular cells, but don't require producing those cells to belong to that sex, your definition is fucking useless. There isn't a consistent check to perform to include or exclude anything from the fucking category.

The definition put forward isn't a fucking genotype. It's "sex that produces the large reproductive cells" or "sex that produces the small reproductive cells".

>>16560073
Don't you find it tiresome that people have to speak in lawyer language to interact with you? That's why you get the definition in OP. Eveyone knows what a man and a woman is, but your kind is pretending not to. That's why we're here now talking like like lawyers.

OP's definition is rather clever actually because it prevents anyone from changing their sex. Almost every human produces gametes at some point in their life, and those gametes define the two sexes. Nobody produces both. The reason it mentions "at conception" is to prevent someone from changing sex by grafting a set of balls onto themselves. This definition does not answer how you'd determine to which sex a week old embryo belongs to, but it doesn't have to do that because you can still do it. A simple method is to wait awhile: If you see an embryo go through oogenesis, you can say that it surely was a female at conception too.

>>16560061
What's the purpose of your red herring?

>>16559544
guess that means abortion is murdering a woman.

>>16559544
Are they able to define what a woman?

the chromossomes are already set, we just don't see differences at the start, but it's already XX or XY
>>16559544

>>16560303
Why not define it by whether a Y chromosome is present? It covers 45,X, 46,XY, 47,XXY, 47,XYY, etc., some of which can't produce gametes. The gametes definition makes some people sexless.

>>16559544
>Owned dem conservatives kek with my superior intellect
No, you smelly cock dwelling smegma lickin ultrafaggot retard because no one is producing sex cells while they are in the uterus, it takes years to have a viable working reproductive cell.

>>16559544
I believe this definition might fail if you consider the case in which people are sterile at birth, because then you cannot logically resolve the "sex that produces" part of the statement. The individual could, under this definition, define themselves as any gender at any time since at no moment they will produce a viable reproductive cell and therefore, their sex cannot be proven to be one or the other.

>>16559544
That's just another pro-lifer trying to convince troons into hating abortions:
>6 week old fetus is already a person
>this somehow validates troons
>also abortion of such fetus kills a person
>abortion is murder

>>16560446
Trannies don't care about logical consistency. They live in a fantasy world that can only exist when the power of the state is used to force others into validating it. Should that power ever be removed (it will), the pent of force against them will be a tsunami. Until then, there's nothing that can be said to them to dissuade them from their insanity.

>>16560073
>If you define a sex by the production of particular cells, but don't require producing those cells to belong to that sex, your definition is fucking useless.

>if you define homo sapiens as bipedals, but don't require being bipedal to belong to that species, your definition is fucking useless.
Anon, i beg you, read a book. Please.

>The definition put forward isn't a fucking genotype
It relates to the genotype, or the karyotype if you want to be more specific.
>It's "sex that produces the large reproductive cells" or "sex that produces the small reproductive cells".
This is determined by the allosomes. The allosomes also termine a number of other sexual characteristics. You can still belong the group that has a specific sexual characteristic defined by specific pair of allosomes, if you have that pair of allosomes and all the other characteristics that come with it. Your genotype and karyotype fit. That your phenotype changed because of environmental factors is irrelevant.

It's really tiresome to argue with someone that doesn't even have a grasp on high school genetics. I will ask you again, read a book.

>>16560303
>Don't you find it tiresome that people have to speak in lawyer language to interact with you?
It really boggles my mind that someone who describes strict definitions as "lawyer language" would come to the science board of all places. What are you even doing here?

>>16560469
Does it really boggle your mind? Are you really this offended by the fact that the message you're replying to said "lawyer language" instead of "scientific precision"? And do you require that scientific precision in all your conversations? Does your message have any substance, or is it just an underhanded insult? What are YOU doing here? Other than defending far left politics, of course.

>>16560373
It's to make the definition more general and to match how it is with other anisogamic species with entirely different chromosomes. You could use sex chromosomes for humans specifically.

>>16560543
>Does it really boggle your mind? Are you really this offended by the fact
"boggle" does not imply "offended". See this is why definitions are important, you can barely speak english because you don't know what words mean.
>"lawyer language" instead of "scientific precision"? And do you require that scientific precision in all your conversations?
I do prefer people to have basic reading comprehension. "scientific precision" also implies you have troubles with simple definitions, you're missing the point entirely, but that's not a surprise.
>Other than defending far left politics, of course.
>>someone said something mean to me, therefore leftist
Back to /pol/, read a book on your way out

>>16560373
> It covers 45,X, 46,XY, 47,XXY, 47,XYY, etc., some of which can't produce gametes.
Wouldn't cover de la Chapelle syndrome for example, which are XX males capable of producing sperm, pretty sure they can even be fertile.