From a biological perspective, the EO is exactly correct, as the first few pages from any biology text will demonstrate. As far as mapping “man” and “woman” to “biological male” and “biological female” is concerned–well, it’s not something with an objective answer.
Anyone else read this,
The use of hormones or surgical interventions do not change a person’s sex because such actions do not change the type of gamete that the person’s reproductive system has the biological function to produce.
and wonder if they understand what effect the surgical removal of a person’s reproductive system has on the type of gamete that the person’s reproductive system has the biological function to produce post-op?
Clearly your former parts have the same function even if they’re laying in some surgeon’s medical waste bucket. They can’t perform that function, but neither can a child’s nor an elderly person’s.
The point, despite the evil intent, is what they do under normal adult healthy circumstances.
Nitpicking or supporting the facts in that evil EO amount to normalizing it. Not something any of us should be doing.
In Plato’s Symposium, Aristophanes tells why and how men and women were split from a mythological androgyne:
Excerpt from Plato's Symposium (Click to show/hide)
In the first place, let me treat of the nature of man and what has happened to it; for the original human nature was not like the present, but different. The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost, and the word ‘Androgynous’ is only preserved as a term of reproach. In the second place, the primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backwards or forwards as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast. Now the sexes were three, and such as I have described them; because the sun, moon, and earth are three; and the man was originally the child of the sun, the woman of the earth, and the man-woman of the moon, which is made up of sun and earth, and they were all round and moved round and round like their parents. Terrible was their might and strength, and the thoughts of their hearts were great, and they made an attack upon the gods; of them is told the tale of Otys and Ephialtes who, as Homer says, dared to scale heaven, and would have laid hands upon the gods. Doubt reigned in the celestial councils. Should they kill them and annihilate the race with thunderbolts, as they had done the giants, then there would be an end of the sacrifices and worship which men offered to them; but, on the other hand, the gods could not suffer their insolence to be unrestrained. At last, after a good deal of reflection, Zeus discovered a way. He said: ‘Methinks I have a plan which will humble their pride and improve their manners; men shall continue to exist, but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; this will have the advantage of making them more profitable to us. They shall walk upright on two legs, and if they continue insolent and will not be quiet, I will split them again and they shall hop about on a single leg.’ He spoke and cut men in two, like a sorb-apple which is halved for pickling, or as you might divide an egg with a hair; and as he cut them one after another, he bade Apollo give the face and the half of the neck a turn in order that the man might contemplate the section of himself: he would thus learn a lesson of humility. Apollo was also bidden to heal their wounds and compose their forms. So he gave a turn to the face and pulled the skin from the sides all over that which in our language is called the belly, like the purses which draw in, and he made one mouth at the centre, which he fastened in a knot (the same which is called the navel); he also moulded the breast and took out most of the wrinkles, much as a shoemaker might smooth leather upon a last; he left a few, however, in the region of the belly and navel, as a memorial of the primeval state. After the division the two parts of man, each desiring his other half, came together, and throwing their arms about one another, entwined in mutual embraces, longing to grow into one, they were on the point of dying from hunger and self-neglect, because they did not like to do anything apart; and when one of the halves died and the other survived, the survivor sought another mate, man or woman as we call them,—being the sections of entire men or women,—and clung to that. They were being destroyed, when Zeus in pity of them invented a new plan: he turned the parts of generation round to the front, for this had not been always their position, and they sowed the seed no longer as hitherto like grasshoppers in the ground, but in one another; and after the transposition the male generated in the female in order that by the mutual embraces of man and woman they might breed, and the race might continue; or if man came to man they might be satisfied, and rest, and go their ways to the business of life: so ancient is the desire of one another which is implanted in us, reuniting our original nature, making one of two, and healing the state of man. Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called Androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men: the women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they hang about men and embrace them, and they are themselves the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature. Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them.
Note the teleological aspect.
~Max
Moderating:
There is no place in the OP where the legal or political positions on this issue are asked for or discussed. Please leave political/legal discussions for P&E. They have no place in this thread and are essentially a hijack.
One may as well offer the political/legal definitions held in France, Saudi Arabia or Russia. Bear in mind that the Constitution used to stipulate that Blacks were 3/5ths of a person, too. That obviously didn’t make it correct.
[Grumble.] The Constitution said that “three-fifths of other persons” were to be the number used for apportioning the number of members a state had in the House. Since “other persons” referenced back to “free persons,” it was slaves rather than blacks who were to be counted this way. All slaves were blacks but not all blacks were slaves. That’s a distinction similar to some being made in this thread.
Moreover, it was the South, not the North, who wanted slaves to be counted as equal to a free person, while the North wanted them counted as zero, exactly the opposite of how people today consider it, and as you did by implication.
I feel compelled to explain it every time someone gets it wrong, which is apparently always. [/Grumble.]
Thanks for the clarification. Ignorance fought.
Hell, as an 18-year-old cis male, I certainly could, with not much of an intervening time interval at all. That “talent” didn’t last for very long.
Not thirteen in an afternoon and I also know 13 is nowhere near the limit but not from personal experience. As someone pointed out there is a reload time that men have and women do not.
A reload of what?
You are going to have to go back through the thread to find out.
As I aleady posted,
Your post is correct, but as far as I know it’s not impossible in theory that a human could produce both types of gametes, and I once come across a case where doctors believe one person may have done so:
To me, the question about differences that might be determinative (all people who do X are this, all people who do Y are that) is boring and very well known. For example, all cispeople who can make babies are ciswomen, all cispeople who can produce sperm are cismen.
I thought the OP was asking for the opposite? Converse? All men can/have…? All women can/have…? Or, the somewhat easier cases of all cismen/ciswomen can/have…? That’s the more interesting question, and I don’t think there’s an answer.
So, @Moriarty, which one are you after? The (to me boring) question of, “statistically speaking, most men/women can/have X”? Or, the more interesting, and I don’t believe answered, question of “This is a clear dispositive difference between (cis)men and (cis)women, so that I know if someone is a (cis)man, I know X.”
Higher testosterone gives men more muscle mass, strength, and oxygen efficiency, giving them an advantage in many sports. But women often outperform men in sports that favor flexibility, balance, endurance, and precision.
Sports where men excel:
• Power & Speed Sports: Sprinting, weightlifting, wrestling, football, rugby, baseball, and throwing events.
• Endurance & Cardio: Cycling, long-distance running (except ultra-endurance).
• Explosive Sports: Basketball, soccer, ice hockey, tennis (serve speed).
• Extreme Strength & Combat: Powerlifting, strongman, boxing.
Sports where women excel:
• Flexibility & Precision: Gymnastics, figure skating, diving.
• Ultra-Endurance: Marathon swimming, ultramarathons.
• Coordination & Strategy: Archery, shooting, equestrian, curling.
• Balance & Technique: Snowboarding, rock climbing, long-distance cycling.
Closing the Gap
• Swimming & Tennis: Differences are minor.
• Esports & Motorsports: Strength is irrelevant, allowing equal competition.
But, adjusting for size, no man or woman could compete against the sheer athleticism and flexibility of a cat. 
The latter is indeed an interesting question.
Broadly speaking, we recognize that men and women and different. But it’s damn hard to pinpoint an actual difference between men and women; trends and probabilities, yes, but fundamental differences, no.
men excel in marathon swimming, long distance cycling, swimming, rock climbing and ultra marathons. Like I mentioned men have larger hearts, larger lungs, more hemoglobin per liter of blood, higher VO2 max, more skeletal muscle, etc.
Men even outperform women in archery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_archery#Women’s_records
As far as tennis, the Williams sisters were ranked #1 in tennis for women. They were beaten by a man 6-1 who was ranked #203 in men’s tennis.
As far as gymnastics, it depends on the event. Events that require flexibility are ones where women dominate. Events that require upper body strength are dominated by men.
Animals with similar gender dimorphic characteristics generally fall into a few different categories.
It could be used for signaling - at some point in history female hominids viewed male hominids with a big beard as healthy specimen worth reproducing with.
It could also be used in intraspecific combat. Lion manes prevent lions from getting their teeth around their opponents’ jugular. Would a beard help an early hominids avoid having his throat slashed by an early stone tool? Maybe, but it seems like blunt force is going to be applied by hominids more often.
While I don’t disagree with what you have said, I think there is a third possibility. It had some use once in the distant past. Now, like the appendix it is vestigial.
Men outperform women in the vast majority of sports, including ones where physical strength is irrelevant or of much lesser importance compared to other qualities. Here is a thread from 2015. The second post in that thread provides links to four other threads on the same topic.
The only explanation I’ve heard is that, on average, “Men are better at focusing vs. women.” Not sure if this is supported by peer-reviewed studies.