There are other posts I should probably respond to here, but I’m too busy to do so today. In fact, I really shouldn’t have written as much as I did. Perhaps I’ll dive back in this pool tomorrow.
If you had quoted Novelty Bobble’s entire sentence, though, it was:
“I am being very specific in using “biologically male” to refer to someone with a full set of phenotypical male traits.”
That second part you left out is rather important. That looks very unambiguous to me. But, well, alright; if it’s wrong to use the term “biologically male” for a person with a full set of phenotypically male traits, what term, in your opinion, is permissible to describe that group of people? Just tell us the term.
Yeah, what RickJay said.
I don’t particularly feel like using long klunky phrases like “Adam’s apple, facial hair growth, somewhat pointier and more prominent chin, flat chest without mammary swellings and small vestigal-sized nipples, a belly button that’s between circular and horizontally oval in shape, scrotal sac with testicles, penis, no vagina, no menses, no clitoris, a pubic symphysis bone that’s narrow and funnel-shaped, and in general the rest of that tends to come from an XY chromosomal makeup rather than an XX configuration”, aside from which I have friends relatives and associates who don’t particularly want to hear me referencing my penis, it’s a bit TMI for most situations, right?
We have this perfectly good word, “male”, and we use it to differentiate between the kinds of plugs and garden hose connectors that insert into a receptacle rather than the kinds that enclose and snap onto a tab of some sort, the latter of which we call “female”. And for gender we’ve got guy, man, boy, masculine, fellow, dude, and a similarly long list of gender-conveying terms for the feminine gender, so how about we get to keep just this one set, “male” and “female”, to refer specifically to anatomical config?
I’m really not, I can’t stress that enough. I’m purposefully not conflating the two and don’t wish to because the point I was making (now long lost) relies upon accepting that there are many, many different ways in which to be “trans” and some of those ways are not relevant to the point I was making.
Speaking of straw men arguments. My post wasn’t about using language generically, It was insisting to an indivdual that you have information. And discounting what was stated.
Wait, cis-boys are not considered to be assigned male at birth? When the baby is born, you don’t know if it is going to be cis or trans, but you assign it a gender anyway.
When I look after babies and toddlers that are not old enough to express a gender identity, it seems presumptuous for me to say they are ‘male’ or ‘female’. That gender is being assigned to them. Or not?
They may turn out to be whatever gender they prefer but they are almost certainly one biological sex or the other.
Yeah, but ‘assigned male at birth’ is kind of a meaningless term for you, right? Except maybe for some intersex people. I am asking people who use the term.
I have been saying that infants and toddlers are assigned male and female on forms where I have to put their gender identity (I already lost the argument that we cannot determine their gender identity at this age). Is that wrong?
Dunno why it is, but those most intent on gatekeeping and policing sex and gender seem to think that biological sex is hands down the most important consideration whereas those who aren’t into gatekeeping and policing pretty much think that one’s own perception of one’s own gender identity is the most important consideration–and that all care should be taken to honor that and give people the respect of acting like they might know more about their own selves than some random stranger. I will never comprehend why the gatekeepers are so intent on classifying what might be down some random stranger’s pants but my gods do they insist on their right to define everyone else right down to deciding whether the size and shape of their genitalia qualifies them to be part of the gender identity they claim.
They are, but the term is usually used for gender non-conforming people when discussing trans issues.
The other cites I’m finding agree with Planned Parenthood.
Terms like male/female are used for both sex and gender classification. The sex classifications are:
- Male: The sex typically associated with sperm production
- Female: The sex typically associated with childbirth
These terms would not be affected by gender identity. But these terms are also used for gender identity, which means the terms can be unclear on their own. This is a valid sentence: Quinn is a male that identifies as a female. The word “male” is using the sex-based meaning and “female” is the gender-based meaning. But as Quinn may find it offensive to be referred to as a male even for sex-based descriptions, that usage is not really used.
Yes, almost everyone gets assigned a sex at birth. And at that point, no one distinguishes between biology and gender identity. They just get called boys or girls.
Some of those babies were assigned the wrong biological sex (they are intersex, they have a generic abnormality leading them to have infant genitalia that doesn’t match their genes, etc.) And some were assigned the wrong gender.
AMAB definitely includes cis men. The word only comes up in conversations about trans issues, though, so i can see where the confusion comes from.
Both are important and both can be the most important thing depending on the circumstances under discussion.
Anyone who thinks there is one single slam-dunk answer to that question for all circumstances is most defintely wrong.
Actually there are gatekeepers galore on all sides. And there are far more than just two sides, by the way.
• Cisgender gender-conforming people often tell other people of their own sex that they aren’t doing it right whether those people are presenting (or attempting to present) as that sex or the other sex. They will sometimes come right out and tell someone “You aren’t a real man at all” or “Like you’d know what a real woman would do” or whatever.
• Conventional “binary” transgender people — the kind who transition and wish to blend in with the gender they identify as — can be very gatekeepery themselves. “Hon, you’re embarrassing, at least try plucking some of those” or “If you don’t have any dysphoria you aren’t trans”.
• LGBTQIA social politics often (perhaps necessarily) involved gatekeeping because you can’t establish solidarity and craft a consistent message without making some effort to keep people on script. But it means a low tolerance for people who express their situation or experience using their own terminologies instead of shaping their phrases to fit the established message. So you get things like “Excuse me, don’t ever say ‘transman’ or ‘transwoman’, it’s ‘trans man’ and ‘trans woman’, the first versions are offensive” / “Umm, we called ourselves transwomen where I came out xx years ago, who are you to tell me that what I call myself is offensive?”
• There is a lot of identity gatekeeping where some identities are regarded as not being legitimate identities or gender expressions — you should read some of the transcripts of debates about cross-dressing and drag for example! Is it appropriation or is it legitimate gender expression? Person X will defend drag as a performance spectacle that is part of gay culture but condemn cross-dressers who are hetero people who don’t consider themselves trans. Person Y will deconstruct the notion that in order to pass as trans you need to view yourself as a cis person of the opposite sex and condemn person X as a “transmedicalist” or “truscum” bigot.
Guess you missed the part where I put in the qualifiers and made it quite clear I’m talking about the outliers on both sides of the issue. And I’m well aware of the gatekeeping problem–the day I overheard a couple friends (one a lesbian, the other a gay cisman married to a transwoman) agreeing that ace is NOT a legitimate orientation that belongs in the big letter group was illuminating. Since I’m ace myself I had a few things to say to both of them–any gender presentation or orientation that has a good chance of getting you beaten up is worthy of protection, to my mind. Deviants United!
(In case anyone else was confused, it looks like “ace” is referring to “asexual”. Makes sense, but not something I had ever seen before. 
)
You have the right of it–sorry, forget it’s not one of the well known terms but yes, “ace” is asexual.
Oops, sorry, I really didn’t mean it come across like I was correcting you. I just snagged from your leadoff sentence and ran with a reply as a riff of my own.
No problemo!