Hello Everyone,
When someone is referred to as a transgendered woman does that mean that person was born a woman and is now living as a man or does it mean a person born as a man is now living as a woman?
The parlance, AIUI, is that the gender descriptor (man or woman) refers to how the individuals currently identify themselves. So, a transgender woman is one who currently identifies as a woman, but was born male (e.g., Caitlyn Jenner is a transgender woman).
It means someone who was born male and now identifies as female.
There’s an easy way to remember it. Take off the trans, and it should still be accurate. Just like, if you say “black woman” and you take off “black,” the “woman” part is still accurate.
Correction: It means someone who identifies as female, who previously did not (publicly) identify as female.
There is no reason a trans woman must be born a man. Hell, we all have an acquaintance who was born intersex.
Plus, born male is kinda problematic, since many (most?) trans people say they were their preferred gender all along. Their body was just wrong.
Accurate how?
Genetically or as self-identified?
Excellent clarification – thank you. 
Self-identified, rather obviously from the context of the posts.
I think you are almost correct, but I think your first sentence is wrong. I’d say more explicitly that the “trans-” prefix does not refer to a temporal transition at all, it does not refer to a sequence of events. It means rather that one’s gender identity differs from one’s assigned or chromosomal sex.
It’s analogous to the way cis- and trans- are used in stereochemistry, it’s the relative position of things, not their history.
Correct for most IME. For myself…well, although I’m intersex and trans, I’m also very tolerant and don’t get upset when people say “born male” to describe me.
It pretty much can’t be genetically, because most people don’t even know their own genetic sex, much less that of anyone else they meet.
Remember, there are many different kinds of physical sex (even before getting into the issue of mental gender), and while they have a very high correlation with each other, the correlation isn’t perfect. And societal treatment is yet another thing: It’s possible, for instance, for someone with XY chromosomes, high testosterone and androgen and low estrogen and progesterone, born with a penis and testicles and not a vagina and ovaries, and self-identifying as male, to nonetheless be raised as female.
To amplify what Chronos said, “genetic” sex is a complicated topic in the general case. It happens to be very easy most of the time, but every so often the complex dance of chromosomes, hormones, tissue development, and resulting neurocognitive development doesn’t go as it usually does, and you get people who are rather more complicated than usual.
One example is complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) in XY babies: The XY chromosomes coded for hormones to masculinize the body, but the hormones were ignored so the body developed in a feminine direction, instead. These kids get raised as girls even though every cell in their body says boy at the genetic level. Male or female?
Another is partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS) among XY infants, where the cells are only somewhat responsive to the masculinizing hormones.
There are even more complicated examples here. The sex binary, which works so well most of the time, is by no means simple even at a basic physical level, and adding gender on top of that is another galaxy of complexity to consider. No matter how you draw the lines, or how many lines you draw, there will always be people who simply do not fit into any categories.
Sex chromosome abnormalities and CAIS account for less than 1% of the population, right? So while most people haven’t had themselves karyotyped, nearly everyone can estimate their own genetic sex with over a 99% level of confidence?
We do? Are you saying that the condition is so common that it’s reasonable to assume that everyone knows someone who is intersex (It’s not, apparently it occurs in roughly 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 live births) Or are you saying that we all share a common intersex acquaintance (Cecil?!)
I’m pretty sure he was referring to Una Persson.
Am I the only one bothered by the term, in a nitpicking grammar nazi sort of way?
“Trans” means “beyond”. In my opinion, genderqueer, intersex, and “third gender” folks are "trans"gender in that sense, because they go beyond what has always been thought of as the two genders. Even androgyny or simply not conforming to traditional gender roles might be considered to be beyond gender, as well.
But the people we currently call “trans”, are very much a traditionally acknowledged gender, and often attempt to align with accepted gender roles, just not the ones their parents originally assigned them. In my opinion, that is not beyond gender at all.
And considering the recent terminology history moving from “transvestite” to “transsexual” to “transgender” in such a short time, I think we could actually fix this one.
Frankly I question the need for a special term at all. We call people “redheads” even if they were born blonde, why can’t we just call people “women” even if they were originally deemed male at birth? I can see a need for a term for the community of people who underwent this sort of uncommon but significant personal change in their lives, so they can seek each other out and learn and receive mutual support, but I think the term “transgender” just doesn’t really fit.
That’s just one of the meanings of the prefix trans-, and not the one that applies in this word.
Cisgender = gender identity conforms with assigned/chromosomal sex
Transgender = gender identify does not conform with assigned/chromosomal sex
It does not connote being “beyond”, nor does it connote temporal transition (“born a man, now a woman”).
Trans, both as a prefix and a Latin loanword, means both “across” (as in trans-Pacific) and “beyond.” It’s in the across sense that it is used here (and in chemistry, as noted above).
ETA: ninja’d.
I think your statement above is correct, in the sense that a great many transgender people would agree with you. They aren’t the only people affected though. There are genderqueer people who identify as a gender and separately from that, identify in some manner according to their physical morphology and physical presentation.
Some of us who DO so do not use “sex terms”, i.e., female and male, to refer to gender, but only to one’s physical morphology. Because it’s semantically useful to us to have one set of terms for the one and a different set of terms for the other.
(I would think it would be usefui to transgender people, if only in order to explain that they are transgender, but I’m not in charge of telling them what terminologies to use, and you’re entirely right, many people who were born male and identify as a woman consider themselves to be now and to have always been female, as well as to be now and to have always been a woman.)
You can’t draw attention to the social situation of transgender (or other gender-variant or black or women or disabled or etc) people if you are only to refer to them as people. However lofty and admirable it may be to regard all people simply as people and not treat them different because of categorical membership in some designated group, it is important and necessary, at least in the interim, to be able to specify that the category does exist, is currently socially recognized and different treatment accorded and so on.
You seem to be under the impression that these words are synonyms, older and newer terms for the same thing. They are not.
[my underline; i.e. transsexual is a subset of transgender]