Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.
We already have a far less problematic set of terms for that: Assigned Male at Birth (AMAB) and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB). “Biological male” is a scientifically misleading phrase that bigots invented to slander trans people and it should not be used by anyone.
This was already explained to you earlier in the thread. “Male” and “female” are, biologically speaking, not distinct and mutually exclusive categories in humans. This is the case naturally, and the terms become even less useful once you account for those who modify parts of their biology, whether by surgery or by artificially triggering natural biological processes, to bring those parts into congruence with other parts of their biology.
“Biological male” is a slur. It has no basis in science. It’s a term coined by bigots to misgender trans people with sciencey-sounding words so their abuse looks reasonable at a glance, in much the same way that proponents of Scientific Racism use pseudoscience in an attempt to legitimize white supremacy.
Which biological process do you think that term refers to? If you can’t pinpoint a single specific one, and have that make sense and have every person agree with you, then it’s clearly not useful.
The only thing thats useful about it is it allows someone to be a bigot andact like they’re intellectually superior (while also managing to be less precise and generally incorrect).
So my answer must be simple, when discussing a complex topic, but you will circle back to claims of complexity to dismiss anything I say.
That is hardly a good faith response.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
It only needs to be simple if you say it should be simple. Biological male is a bad term because it implies some simple binary, which doesn’t exist. If it does exist, then you should be able to tell me specifically which biological process it refers to.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
Fine answer. OK, so when someone takes HRT they are modifying these biological processes to fit with their chosen gender, correct? So they are now biologically their chosen gender, according to your definition, right? They are not the gender assigned at birth anymore.
I never said HRT was “sex change” though I would argue it potentially changes your sex, based on some definition of sex.
I did in another comment refer to a sex change surgery, which may be what you’re referring to. Yeah, that has other names, but the point of that comment was the language is something we’re working backwards to, and not something we should work forward from, unlike what you implied with your comment that was on. Whatever it’s called, that’s not an argument for what effect it has. We change the names of things as we evolve our understanding. We don’t understand based on what things are called.
I know the difference between sex and gender. My point has been consistently that sex is hazy. It is not a binary, and calling someone “biologically male” who does not want to be called that is a snobby way to be an asshole, particularly because “biologically male” doesn’t mean much, if anything. Assigned gender at birth is clear and there are no questions, so use that. If they’re undergoing HRT and/or gender reassignment surgery, their biology is no longer that of their birth, so they are not “biologically male.” Do you agree with this, or are you going to continue arguing that you were totally right the whole time? If you think you were right, which part of biology is the sex identifier? You haven’t answered that.
If you think you were right, which part of biology is the sex identifier? You haven’t answered that.
I have already very clearly articulated my answer to this. Go back up a couple of comments and read it again if you need to.
though I would argue it potentially changes your sex
Then you are arguing against the prevailing medical and scientific opinions, gender affirming care can assist with aligning secondary sex characteristics but does not change the patients sex.
It has long been an argument of the trans community that gender and sex are different, which Im not disputing at all but you are trying to make unclear.
Feminizing hormone therapy is used to make physical changes in the body that are caused by female hormones during puberty. Those changes are called secondary sex characteristics.
The sum of them does not make a binary definition of sex, nor does it make an unchanging one, as I’ve said before. If you want an unchanging binary definition you need to define what that would refer to.
It has long been an argument of the trans community that gender and sex are different, which Im not disputing at all but you are trying to make unclear.
I agree, gender is not sex. However, sex is not just something you’re born with, as we’ve clearly seen with intersex characteristics and also being able to change the body with HRT.
I know the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics. I have said nothing that should indicate otherwise. You’re just trying to be the “well actually…” person. Obviously primary sex characteristics are not the definition of sex. If they were then men males who have their testicals removed wouldn’t be men males and women females who have their overies removed wouldn’t be women females. You agree that’s wrong, correct? (I know, asking these questions is pointless because you just ignore them, but hopefully they make you think.)
Sex is many things, which includes things effected by HRT and surgery. Saying “biological sex” to refer to sex assigned at birth is dismissive of this, right? (Not to mention it’s totally wrong if we agree sex many characteristics.) If so, we should avoid the term, correct? It’s not the same as gender assigned at birth, right?
Edit: men => males, women => females, because I could forsee the “technically…” coming.
We already have a far less problematic set of terms for that: Assigned Male at Birth (AMAB) and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB). “Biological male” is a scientifically misleading phrase that bigots invented to slander trans people and it should not be used by anyone.
The phrase seems to be very clear in meaning, could you tell me what you find misleading about it?
This was already explained to you earlier in the thread. “Male” and “female” are, biologically speaking, not distinct and mutually exclusive categories in humans. This is the case naturally, and the terms become even less useful once you account for those who modify parts of their biology, whether by surgery or by artificially triggering natural biological processes, to bring those parts into congruence with other parts of their biology.
“Biological male” is a slur. It has no basis in science. It’s a term coined by bigots to misgender trans people with sciencey-sounding words so their abuse looks reasonable at a glance, in much the same way that proponents of Scientific Racism use pseudoscience in an attempt to legitimize white supremacy.
Which biological process do you think that term refers to? If you can’t pinpoint a single specific one, and have that make sense and have every person agree with you, then it’s clearly not useful.
The only thing thats useful about it is it allows someone to be a bigot and act like they’re intellectually superior (while also managing to be less precise and generally incorrect).
So my answer must be simple, when discussing a complex topic, but you will circle back to claims of complexity to dismiss anything I say.
That is hardly a good faith response.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
It only needs to be simple if you say it should be simple. Biological male is a bad term because it implies some simple binary, which doesn’t exist. If it does exist, then you should be able to tell me specifically which biological process it refers to.
Fine answer. OK, so when someone takes HRT they are modifying these biological processes to fit with their chosen gender, correct? So they are now biologically their chosen gender, according to your definition, right? They are not the gender assigned at birth anymore.
HRT is gender affirming care and is not a ‘sex change’ which is outdated and offensive.
It’s odd that you’re trying to ‘debunk’ what you see as a bigoted term and you’ve come full circle to something even worse.
You should look up the difference between sex and gender before you continue arguing down this route.
I never said HRT was “sex change” though I would argue it potentially changes your sex, based on some definition of sex.
I did in another comment refer to a sex change surgery, which may be what you’re referring to. Yeah, that has other names, but the point of that comment was the language is something we’re working backwards to, and not something we should work forward from, unlike what you implied with your comment that was on. Whatever it’s called, that’s not an argument for what effect it has. We change the names of things as we evolve our understanding. We don’t understand based on what things are called.
I know the difference between sex and gender. My point has been consistently that sex is hazy. It is not a binary, and calling someone “biologically male” who does not want to be called that is a snobby way to be an asshole, particularly because “biologically male” doesn’t mean much, if anything. Assigned gender at birth is clear and there are no questions, so use that. If they’re undergoing HRT and/or gender reassignment surgery, their biology is no longer that of their birth, so they are not “biologically male.” Do you agree with this, or are you going to continue arguing that you were totally right the whole time? If you think you were right, which part of biology is the sex identifier? You haven’t answered that.
I have already very clearly articulated my answer to this. Go back up a couple of comments and read it again if you need to.
Then you are arguing against the prevailing medical and scientific opinions, gender affirming care can assist with aligning secondary sex characteristics but does not change the patients sex.
It has long been an argument of the trans community that gender and sex are different, which Im not disputing at all but you are trying to make unclear.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/feminizing-hormone-therapy/about/pac-20385096
For your convenience you can check the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_characteristics
The sum of them does not make a binary definition of sex, nor does it make an unchanging one, as I’ve said before. If you want an unchanging binary definition you need to define what that would refer to.
I agree, gender is not sex. However, sex is not just something you’re born with, as we’ve clearly seen with intersex characteristics and also being able to change the body with HRT.
I know the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics. I have said nothing that should indicate otherwise. You’re just trying to be the “well actually…” person. Obviously primary sex characteristics are not the definition of sex. If they were then
menmales who have their testicals removed wouldn’t bemenmales andwomenfemales who have their overies removed wouldn’t bewomenfemales. You agree that’s wrong, correct? (I know, asking these questions is pointless because you just ignore them, but hopefully they make you think.)Sex is many things, which includes things effected by HRT and surgery. Saying “biological sex” to refer to sex assigned at birth is dismissive of this, right? (Not to mention it’s totally wrong if we agree sex many characteristics.) If so, we should avoid the term, correct? It’s not the same as gender assigned at birth, right?
Edit: men => males, women => females, because I could forsee the “technically…” coming.