Changes in culture and society can be very difficult for some to accept. No doubt that many Americans see the existence of gay marriage, and even interracial marriage, as a similar “absurdity”.
I owned and operated an upscale B&B for 10 years. During that time we had numerous same gender couples. The situation was matter of fact and did not arouse comment.
Under consideration above is the linguistics appropriate to a pregnant female filling the traditional role of male husband. That is properly described as a female impersonating a male role. The rules of the board are necessary for orderly discourse. That is also proper and acceptable. But the factual basis of a female becoming male simply by desire is a Trumpian absurdity.
If you find yourself in a hole…
How so?
Your mixing biology and society/culture. Biologically, this transgender man might be female. But “husband” has nothing to do with biology, only society and culture. There’s no such thing as “husband” outside of human society and human culture. Societally, and culturally, this person is a man, and a husband. Biology is irrelevant to this person’s identity in terms of society and culture.
You seem highly hung up on the “pregnant” aspect. Do you commonly refer to every transgender man as a “male impersonator” and transwomen as “female impersonators”?
There isn’t a female becoming “male”, there is a female becoming “a man”. Progressive modern America is abandoning the definitions of man=adult male human and woman=adult female human, therefore allowing there to be male women and female men.
This may indeed be the societal trend. In that case the language needs to catch up.
It’s not an absurdity, though. It’s scientifically accurate, based on studies of both sex and gender. Both are a spectrum, and are not binary. And they may not match. The rigid definitions of male and female don’t hold up in real life.
The person in question may have been born into a body with XX-chromosomes, but that does not make him female. Clearly his brain was male, or he wouldn’t identify as male. Other parts may also have been male. He has since transitioned, meaning he has changed some of his sex. Unfortunately, however, there is no way currently to change all aspects of one’s sex.
One thing he can’t do is get testes or make sperm. So it’s not uncommon for trans men to choose to give birth in order to have a biological son or daughter. In particular, if you are married to a woman without a uterus, it can make sense to use your own.
The one thing he’s not doing is an impression of a man. he’s not some crossdresser or drag performer. He’s committed to the gender role of a man, and he’s committed to altering his biological makeup to be more male. And that accusation, that he’s just pretending, has historically been used for oppression. Trans people often face violence and discrimination.
So such is just generally not accepted in society anymore, and we got a rule against it. No more misgendering. It’s no different than not being able to say certain things about black people or gay people. It’s not that the thing you said is true, and we want to forbid it. It’s that it’s false and hurts people to say.
It’s not just a trend, it’s done. That doesn’t mean that these are the only definitions that people use, but these are definitely definitions used by trans people and trans allies. These are valid usages of these words and phrases. This board has, rightfully IMO, decided to be on the “trans ally” side in terms of this particular question of language use.
I have yet to see a clear definition of trans.
I linked to where you asked the question 2 years ago. Would you like a direct link to the answer as well (it’s two posts later)?
That doesn’t really answer the question.
Do you believe a trans man is pretending to be a man, the way someone pretending to be a cop is impersonating a police officer?
Thanks - that’s an interesting concept. Makes your wedding night kinda like Christmas morning.
That was a good warning. Well done, Chronos!
Thanks - followed the link and the answer is:
“someone who identifies as a gender other than what they were assigned at birth”.
That is clearly role playing - impersonation.
I believe that is the point
Modding: I’ve bumped this up to the modloop. But I think the warning is going to stand base on what I’ve seen in this thread.
I’m closing this thread until a ATMB mod can check it.
My observation as a poster and not a mod is you’re digging a deeper hole Crane.
Please no more flags and do not start another thread on this while this one is closed. There may be no answer to this until tomorrow.
Since it is clear that Crane is aware of the rules (even if he chooses not to follow them), this will remain closed.
As a reminder, our guidelines for posting on transgender issues says this:
“Likewise, do not deliberately misgender off-board figures. This is a more rigorous standard than we apply in other contexts; we do not normally mod posters for merely insulting off-board figures. Deal with it.”
The full guidelines can be found here:
ETA:
After a discussion in the mod loop, the warning stands.