I would argue we don’t need a word. If you need to specifically talk about all people who have vaginas, you can just say “people with vaginas.” If you need to refer to those with XX chromosomes, you can say “XX people.”
If you need to distinguish trans women from cisgender women—well, I just did. The same is true of trans men vs. cisgender men.
The only part where I can see an issue is that there is probably a difference between a vagina created by “bottom surgery” and one that has been present since birth. However, I would expect that would only be really relevant in medical contexts. Otherwise you can just refer to “people with a uterus” or “people with ovaries” or similar.
In every day conversation, I can’t see that these medical differences would come up often enough to need a single word. However, I could be wrong. And I agree that, if a word is needed, it will come. It will be used colloquially first.
I think the desire to have such a word right now is based more on people adjusting to the newly mainstream information on gender and sex. I suspect they’ll find that such words are not as necessary in practice as they seem to them right now. A whole lot of us are in a state of, well, transition.
No, we don’t. In most everyday contexts we can just keep using woman or man, regardless of the persons genitals. In situations were specificity about genital configuration is required we can be specific about genital configuration.
You can tell that we don’t need a word by the way so very, very few people say “I met a nice cis woman yesterday, we’re going out again next week”. This isn’t because they find “cis woman” to be too clunky in that context, it’s because they either don’t imagine anyone would make the wrong assumptions if they just said “woman”, or they don’t consider it their problem if someone does.
I don’t know about you two, but I am not attracted to a gender. A person’s gender expression can increase or decrease the attraction, but I’m attracted to a specific morphology, the one that tends to come with XX chromosomes and what is considered the phenotype thereof. We are a sexually dimorphic species and for at least some of us it is the genital configuration and related anatomical elements that makes another person sexually attractive to us or not. And reciprocally, many of us wish to be sought after specifically because of our personal incarnation of the sexual (not gender) morphology we possess. It’s fine for someone to like me because of who I am as a person, but I don’t wish for someone to dole out sexual opportunities to me as rewards for being a nice person if they don’t also have the hots for my body. I’m a femme (aka girl) (or sissy if you prefer, the male equiv of tomboy) and yes I definitely want someone who wishes to be with someone feminine, who prefers that, not just tolerates it as not-a-dealbreaker, but I also want that someone to like the maleness the same way that I enjoy femaleness, and once again I’d not be all that happy to be with someone who just shrugs and says “I don’t care what you got, I am turned on by what’s in your head”. Maybe I shouldn’t be that way, but I am. I get the hots for people I don’t even like as people, because of their body shapes. And I’d feel at a disadvantage if that were not mutual. I like mutuality.
So if you think I’m gonna go around saying “I was assigned male at birth” or “I happen to possess testicles, a penis, an adam’s apple, flat chest with tiny nipples, and a narrow pubis bone angle” instead of preferring a single word such as “male”, I suggest that you are wrong to expect that.
Is this really a terminology problem, though? I could see the benefit of specific terms to describe your preferences on a dating site, for example, but I don’t see why the currently-available terms don’t suffice. Sure, if you select “men” for whom you’re interested in, you may hear from trans men who don’t have penises or Adam’s apples, and that may disqualify them from your consideration. It might not disqualify them from the consideration of everyone who’s only interested in men, though, so that’s not really a problem with the term, but a matter of the term not being narrow enough to precisely describe your preferences. You could elaborate further that you’re only interested in cis men. If you want a term for everyone who has a penis, regardless of gender identity, it’s probably best to spell that out in so many words, because most pre-op trans women would not think of themselves as candidates for dating someone interested in men. I do wonder, though, if they might be right about that. Being the right gender may not be a sufficient condition to win your attraction, but might it be a necessary one?
A failure to be sufficiently narrow in scope is a problem with a term. We have “animals” and yet we like to also have “fish” and “reptiles” and “mammals”.
Your example touches on what I might be interested in w/regards to a hypothetical dating site, but you should also consider how I might wish to be “found” by people based on their preferences. I would be a disappointment and perhaps a waste of time for someone seeking men, and also for someone who wishes to date a female person.
It’s not like we don’t already have specific words. We do. Man is a gender. Male is a sex. Feminists and LGBTQ communites (such as those who distribute the “gender unicorn” poster) are pretty consistent about the distinction.
Does the addition of “cis” sufficiently narrow the term for you? If so, again, not seeing a problem. We don’t all get one-word non-acronymn terms that embrace all the things we like and none of the things we don’t. If not, what does the term still comprise or exclude that it shouldn’t?
My friends and I just use “human.” It encompasses any and all sexes, gender expressions and morphologies. It also gives the only salient information needed as an introduction. Why do you need to know what organs a person has? Does it change your opinion of them if you find out one or more of their organs have been removed? I don’t have tonsils, is that germane when someone introduces me? Well, neither are my internal and/or reproductive organs. If there’s some great need for you to know something that intimate I’d expect we’d be on good enough acquaintance that you could just ASK me.
Culture still matters. Most cultures around the world still privilege men and diminish women. It isn’t fair to say that the Taliban is proscribing the rights of humans. They are actively working against women and not men.
You can argue that they are an extreme case, but besides my responding so what, the reality is that men and women are treated differently here in America right now every day. For just one major example of out many, men do not worry about rape and other sexual assault in the same way women do. The presentation of women as women is extraordinarily important and so is the presence or absence of a vagina in some of these cases.
It’s trivializing to reduce the issue to one of nouns. First the entire worlds’ cultures have to accept the equality of women and men. It would be nice to think that calling them both “humans” would bring about that equality, but I don’t believe it for a second.
In contrast, I realized a few years ago that I am mostly attracted to gender. I used to think I might be partially bi, and I suppose that’s still true. But I realized one day that all of the women who have turned me on are very masculine people, and that’s a lot of what I find attractive about them. They don’t all have masculine morphology – some have had very traditionally female bodies. But they “feel masculine” to me, in a way that’s hard to define but probably pretty close to gender expression.
But I think we have enough words. And dating sites usually (always?) include pictures, so you can see for yourself if that person looks hot to you.
This is a very relevant observation. Back when unmarried, romantically entwined couples living together seemed shocking or at least noteworthy, it seemed like we might need a special term to describe such an out-of-the-ordinary situation. Now, since it isn’t an eyebrow-raising situation any more, no one really gives a shit. “Partner” works fine but it is a generic term - as has been noted, “partner” gets used by married people as well, it doesn’t specifically imply unmarried status. (Or living together, for that matter - I think it just implies romantic commitment; someone could be in a long-distance relationship with a partner.)
Sure, there might be specific instances where the details matter, but when they do, they can be explained. It’s like a Red Delicious apple versus a Winesap apple - do we really need a one-word term for each of those? Nah. “Apple” will do, and if the details matter, we can add words as required.
I would be interested to get an example from the OP where it is genuinely awkward because there is no single word for “human with a naturally occurring vagina.”
My understanding in the Trans debate, was that sex and gender were 2 different things.
It has increasingly difficult for me to keep up with the terminology. I am not trying to be difficult.
Compare the heated debate in a recently closed thread about Pregnant People vs Pregnant Woman and the thread about the details of woman’s Menstruation regimen. One is trans specific, and everyone has very strong opinions on word usage. One is not trans specific, and gendered language is used freely without question.
And in this thread, there are differing opinions from trans friendly posters as to my OP. So forgive me if I claim there is some confusion about what terms I, a trans friendly but not really my hot button topic type of person, should be using.
My understanding was that gender and sex were two different things.
“Men should have a prostate exam at age 50”. Not allowed because some men were not born with prostates.
“Males should have a prostate exam at age 50”. I thought this was the acceptable usage because “males” assumed “biological male” “human with a penis” “human with XY chromosomes”
Now I am confused because even the notion that there is a biological difference between males/females puts me in the trans phobic camp, which is not my intention.
Also, I think there should be a simple English word, in the context of medical/biological discussion, to use.
“If you have a prostate, you should begin getting regular exams at age 50 or as recommended by your doctor.” Some males don’t have a prostate because cancer can cause you to have it removed. Saying “all men” or “all males” should get prostate exams is dumb because not all men have prostates.
WHY do people get so hung up on this question? What DIFFERENCE does it make for you to have a certain Very Specific Word to denote something that’s actually just a thing in YOUR head, that’s important only to YOU? Make up a fucking word, it doesn’t matter. In the meantime, language will shift as language always does to suit changing needs and realities. Y’all can keep on internally translating anything that applies to “smizmars” and then everyone will be happy.
What’s wrong with “Prostate exams should begin at age 50” or “People should have prostate exams at age 50”?
It’s not like people aren’t going to be sure if they have a prostate or not. If the local paper writes that the home town library is urging people to return overdue library books, we don’t need to specify “people who live in this jurisdiction.” If you are from out of town or don’t have any overdue books, you aren’t going to freak out because you fit within the category “people” but have no overdue books to return.
I agree the terminology juggling can make someone wish for things to be as simple as they once were. But in reality, a lot of gendered language is pointless and actually complicates things.
For example, take this:
Gee golly, it’s all so complicated, how can I ever express this without knowing the right word for “person born having prostate?” Well, how about this:
“Prostate exams are encouraged beginning at 50 years of age.”
Boom. Easy. Don’t have a prostate? It’s not for you. If you’re a doctor? Ask your patient if they have one.
For the rest of the time, I would say general laypeople should just say “man” or “woman” in any situation where you’re not sure. The worst that happens is someone’s going to correct you. You won’t die, you might learn something.
Whether you have tonsils or not is of little interest to anybody. In contrast, physical form, primary and secondary sex characteristics are fundamental to attraction for the vast majority of people. Humans are not going to stop noticing or caring about this, we have been programmed to care about sex by millions of years of evolution.
What does that have to do with it? I’m not going to fuck you so what difference does it make if I have a vagina or a penis? If you’re still going on with BS simplistic evo-psych just so stories in 2021 then I’m not surprised you’re insisting on rigidly gendered language.
The fact someone may be married, or sworn to celibacy, or otherwise uninterested in sex does not stop them being attracted to other people. And please note I wasn’t talking specifically about genitals, but the body as a whole.
Did you feel the need to correct the OP of the “how do tampons work” thread? or every other poster?
This thread is specifically about language usage in a trans friendly world. People have very strong opinions.
The other thread isn’t trans specific. I haven’t seen anybody take issue with “women” “females” “girls”. Nobody got all worked up about “well some boys have to deal with their first period too”
There is probably a lot of overlap in posters in all three threads.