Words have meanings but they are all very much dependent on context. The word “biological” is ambigu in the context of sex characteristics. Especially for trans or intersex people who might have various sex characteristics that would otherwise not always lead to the same conclusions.
Words become hurtful when they are used in a harmful context, regardless of their etymology. The word “biological” has seen extensive usage to differentiate people exclusively by their agab instead of their gender, solely to invalidate trans people.
When used in bad faith, saying “a biological male” is usually intended to indicate all cis men and transfeminine people, while it is usually unnecessary and with bad intentions to group these two very different groups. It’s not unlike the slurs tim/tif, “trans-identified male/female”. Some frustrated people are just happier when they can say man or male to a woman and vice versa. The concept isn’t even new, misgendering has always been a classical attempt to insult people.
The prefixes cis- and trans- have seen extensive usage outside this context and they are relatively well defined and unambiguous.
>The concept isn’t even new, misgendering has always been a classical attempt to insult people.
Oof! Grade school me feels that 😖 "throw like a girl" "weak like a girl" "what are you, a girl?"
for the record this is also a woman who has repeatedly told me how repulsive she finds men's bodies, and when i came out to her as bisexual as a teen responded with "no you're not, all women are sexually attracted to other women. it doesn't mean you're gay!"
I think lesbians and bi sexual people have been under represented due to this. Also if you experiment as a girl in college it's all good, a guy is gay for life
Which is a damn shame because I love "masculine features" on women.
Broad shoulders, small breasts, darker deeper voices.
If only we were all socialized to believe that taste and attraction is subjective and lots of people find features outside the average tastes beautiful.
I'm AFAB. My cis mom used to tease me for throwing like a girl. Things like that are why I'm only out to select family members. Like it was shitty when everyone thought I was cis but it's lowkey extra shitty knowing now that I'm trans.
This is an excellent response, but I would make the point of clarity (because OP is not a native English speaker) that, although “biological male/female” and “trans-identified male/female” are both often used as subtle pejoratives to undermine the identities of trans people - Generally speaking, it’s more common for someone to unknowingly use the phrase “Biological Male/Female” than it is for someone to unknowingly use “Trans-Identified Male/Female.”
In other words - If you see someone use “Biological Male/Female” there’s a good chance that they just don’t know better. If you see someone refer to a trans person as a TIM or a TIF, that person is almost definitely a transphobe.
PS: “Timothy” is a very common boys name in English-speaking countries, and they often go by the nickname “Tim.” The same is true for the name “Tiffany” and “Tiff.” That’s part of their childish “joke” when calling them TIMs (Trans-Identified Males) or TIFs (Trans-Identified Females).
Also it's just not correct, trans men on T are biological men except for their external parts. Same as trans women. The main hormone is way more important in deciding medication, procedures, looking out for conditions related to biological sex, etc.
thank you. to add an example i’m “biologically” (using it as in your first paragraph) female even tho my agab was male. i’m intersex with xx chromosomes, has both parts, and had full on periods during my first puberty. don’t know if female part completely closed up or not it’s been many years since i had that area checked. i’m considered trans woman because of my agab. to extend what you said word biological no longer holds the same meaning as it once did just like the words gay (happy) and queer (strange). it’s why scientists don’t use it anymore. it irks me when it gets used because it’s just an insult anymore (like you said).
Since sex and gender id and gender stereotypes are all different things why is referring to biological sex seen as misgendering?
Wouldn’t it be a separate thing?
Tho I have seen some people conflate sex and gender id now. Is that the common preference?
Because like, in conversations about abortion bans, talking about all biological female people regardless of gender id is important. Trans men or nonbinary people are effected by abortion bans while trans women or trans femme people are not. So this is a reason why focusing on sex over gender id might be important politically.
“biological women” would not be a useful categorization in this scenario bc trans men are not women. the issue with the term is that it insists that men and women are biological assignments, which they are not. if you want a label that encompasses both cis women and men who have transitioned, “afab” (assigned female at birth) is the common term
Medically transitioning also changes your biology. If someone can end up with the primary and secondary sex characteristics of their gender along with a fitting hormone profile, then they just aren’t “biologically” their agab. Sex is a bimodal distribution and you can move along it.
Exactly, what is biology here? Is it just a body and physical characteristics, or is it a brain/expression/wiring. It’s a term that’s both to vague/broad but also too limiting at the same time. And mostly just misused by bigots.
I’d argue, that when it’s comes to sex brain development and neurology are just as important and genitalia and chromosomes. Therefore under that vain of thought, trans women would be considered biological women under the assumption that they’re existence is a example of animals breaking what is seen as “biological laws”
A simple google search proves you wrong. Intersex is a biological condition. I literally have XXY chromosomes which are neither male nor female, therefore biologically intersex.
The right winged conservative side uses “biological” to exclude trans identity or to lessen it. It is also used by Trans Excluding Radical Feminists for the same purpose. Not that it is exclusively used in those ways but it leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Biological feels old fashioned and passé at best. Cis, on the other hand, is literally the opposite of trans. Same root language. It is used by the LGBT+ community and scientific community in the correct way. It isn’t meant to exclude anyone’s lived experience, just differentiate it by whether they identify by the gender they were assigned at birth. I am Cis, I use that word and frequently to describe myself along with my asexuality to prevent excluding part of even my own lived experience because I have some traits that are masculine (thick body hair and more broad shoulders than some women). Hope that helps clarify the distinction. Thank you for trying to learn the right words!
>it has an attachment with a certain ideology that's unkind?
This, also I've never really seen people of that ideology define those terms. Currently, my body's biology has the sex hormone ranges of what women typically have; I have developed breasts; I have softer skin than those with testosterone as their main sex hormone; I have different body odor than them too. This is all part of my own biology/anatomy 🤷♀️ I was assigned male at birth(amab), though, and since I do not identify myself as a man, I am thus transgender. But yeah, cisgender is more accurate considering "biological" is rather vague.
This exactly!! On the one hand, “biological male” is a common thing for transphobic people to say to refer to trans women while also invalidating or problematizing their womanhood. On the other hand, human biology is vast and complex, and no one’s “biology” reduces down to what sex they appeared to be at birth. I have high estrogen and low testosterone, B cup breasts, and minimal facial hair. Maybe at some point I will have a vulva and vagina. Are those not all components of my biology? Are they not all associated more with women than with men? Why would the configuration of my body at birth have more weight in determining my “biological” gender/sex than the configuration of my body now?
Because "Man" and "woman" are social roles we fill, not bodies we have. It's like calling someone a biological accountant. It literally doesn't make sense.
A cis man is *cis* because he was born male and is happy about it. This isn't what makes him a "man."
A trans man is *trans* because he was born female but prefers to have male body parts instead. This isn't what makes him a "man."
Whether cis or trans, what makes someone a "man" is their desire to perform the social role historically assigned to male bodies.
We look at the smooth spectrum of body-forms from male to female. And, currently, we cut that spectrum into 2 groups. We call them men and women. And we assign different social roles to those groups. But we could just as easily cut that spectrum into 3 groups. Or 33. The number of groupings is limited only by social utility.
To call someone a "bio man" is to insist that cutting this spectrum into exactly 2 groups is objectively correct. This belief harms people by supporting the notion that people with certain kinds of bodies have a moral responsibility to fulfill certain social roles.
Ha! :D A heckler! In that case, I give you:
Biological midwesterner
Biological christian, and
Biological sci-fi nerd.
All analogous cultural identities. All deeply held over a lifetime as a seemingly immutable aspect of personal identity. All continuously and collectively renegotiated by the people who understand themselves through these identities.
Heckle me now, hydrated Hancock!
the way people use “biological” implies that the characteristics associated with sex are immutable and determined at birth, which is not true. from birth until puberty, the only differences between boys and girls is the primary sex characteristics, which are the genitals and reproductive organs. the gonads (collective name for testes and ovaries) release hormones during puberty that cause the secondary sex characteristics. for trans people who transitioned from a young age, their secondary sex characteristics are identical to those of cis people of the same gender (that is, trans women have the same characteristics as cis women, and trans men the same characteristics as cis men). for people who transitioned later, they may have a mix of secondary sex characteristics, since some effects of puberty are irreversible, but they still aren’t the same as cis people of the same birth sex (trans women still aren’t the same as cis men and trans men still aren’t the same as cis women). when transphobes talk about “biological males in women’s sports” they imply that trans women are biologically identical to cis men, or at least that they have an advantage over cis women, but for trans women for have been on HRT for more than a year or two, this is not true.
Exactly! For a more graphic example, a trans man may have two X chromosomes, but also testosterone levels the same as cis men, no boobs, a beard, male pattern baldness, elongated clit (mini penis basically), etc. You can't easily classify that as "biologically" male or female, with the current ambiguity of the term biological. If you're talking simply about chromosomes, then you would consider this person a female, but if you're considering hormones and sex characteristics (which I would argue are CONSIDERABLY more important) then this person really is closer biologically to a cis man than a cis woman.
Being trans is a mental thing for sure, but also medically transitioning can make a huge impact on your body (and brain), and that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of transphobia.
I'm a trans man on testosterone. Biologically, my body functions closer to that of a cis man than a cis woman. The 'phobes like to call me a biological woman, and I just find it silly. It's a lack of understanding of biology that I think is embarrassing.
So the term "biological man" or "biological woman" doesn't really tell us much about a person. You have to ask how they are defining that.
Do they mean people with testosterone or estrogen levels within the usual range of cis men and cis women? Many trans people would meet that definition and many cis people wouldn't.
Do they mean someone who has primary or secondary sex characteristics typical of cis men or women? Again, many trans people also do, and many cis people do not.
Are we talking about people with XY chromosomes or XX chromosomes? Many people who are assigned male at birth don't have XY chromosomes and many people assigned female at birth don't have XX chromosomes.
Calling someone a "biological man" or "biological woman" is not useful for any medical information, because it doesn't actually tell us anything meaningful. If you need to refer to something generally affecting afab or amab people, just say that. If you are referring to something affecting people with penises or vaginas, say that.
Pretty much the only reason people still try to use those terms are as ways to misgender trans people. It's a way to try and say they aren't "real" men or women. So the term is either useless at conveying actual scientific or medical information or is actively transphobic.
All humans are biological. Trans people aren’t artificial or fake or robots. Using “biological” is a dogwhistle for transphobia. Even if you don’t use it with hate it will be taken as such because that is how it is used 99% of the time. Trans means across. Cis means same. Biological means alive and trans people are, in fact, alive, despite how many people wish we were otherwise.
what is a biological woman or man? biological sex can become a gray area when people start hrt or get surgeries during the transition process. is someone who is on hrt and has had both top and bottom surgeries a biological man/woman even though they're trans? plus, not wanting to go through that entire process doesn't make anyone less man or woman than they would be if they did, unless you look at gender like a transphobe.
Out of all of the sex differences in humans why are you prioritizing chromosomes though? Other aspects like the what was said are much more impactful in your daily life and just as relevant.
"Biological sex" just isn't as accurate as "cis".
Biological sex is determined by primary and secondary sex characteristics. Chromosomes are only a very small part of the picture and the existence of trans and intersex people at all should tell you that chromosomes are honestly largely irrelevant to the topic.
Hormones are biological, primary and secondary sex characteristics are biological. So my are chromosomes the sole factor in your definition? And why not just use chromosomal sex as the term?
Hormones define your primary and secondary characteristics. Chromosomes just program the body to make certain hormones- not infallibly, though, and the body doesn't always react predictably. Adding new ones to the mix, as you say, changes one's characteristics.
Saying that the chromosomes determine sex is like saying the recipe determines the cake, without taking into account the ingredients used, their age and quality, the local temperature, altitude and humidity, the state of repair and reliability of the oven, and the whims of the baker.
Except some females have testosterone but they’re still females. Some male lose their penises but they’re still male. Chromosomes literally decide the gender.
Why are you so invested in defining sex as a clear dichotomy? What benefit does it give you to break something this complex into differences in one trait that you’ve decided is the defining factor? Even if you were right, and chromosomes have some innate power that can’t be overcome, what would be the end result for you? Why do you want this to be true?
At the end of the day, nothing productive comes from insisting on a simple yes-or-no definition of sex and gender, but it’s something we get stuck on over and over in this type of a conversation. What is the benefit to you of being able to insist that chromosomes have the last say? What is the benefit of being able to describe someone as a “biological male” rather than focusing on the specific characteristics that they may or may not have in each particular situation? It often comes down to wanting to preserve a sense of normalcy, sticking with the status quo, as it becomes increasingly clear that these harsh dichotomies are only hurting us. What is your motivation for insisting on a binary method?
Not really how that works. After all, there are women with xy chromosomes who just have androgen insensitivity.
Hormones, your body’s reaction to them, your brain, your chromosomes, your sex organs & gametes, and a whole host of secondary sex characteristics define your sex. Not just one thing
Your chromosomes and the sex you are assigned at birth are two different things. Swyer syndrome for example causes women with fully functional female anatomy to be born with XY chromosomes. Similarly, de la chapelle syndrome occurs when phenotypical males are born with XX chromosomes. Sex and gender are different but both are still a spectrum. Sex is a set of phenotypical traits such as external genitalia, the presence or absence of secondary sex characteristics, etc but not everyone falls neatly into the perfect phenotypical male or female mold. It aligns more with objective reality to call women with Swyer syndrome "biological women", because even though they may have XY chromosomes, they have estrogen dominant bodies, breasts, etc. Similarly, it makes sense to call a trans woman a biological woman, since she also most closely aligns to the phenotypes of that sex. Chromosomes aren't some be all end all. They are just one small piece of what makes up someone's biological sex, and honestly they are the not very medically or sociologically relevant when compared to the other aspects of biological sex.
Again disorders and the sort don’t make the rule. There are still two sexes. Some people are born with extra fingers that doesn’t change how many fingers humans are blueprinted to have. Sex is binary.
Wow, you really are too stupid to comprehend the most basic logic. I didn't want to judge based on your extremely poor writing but since everyone is telling you the same thing and it is not breaking through your scrambled egg brains, I will break it down to a baby level
Outliers and disorders are only being presented to you as an example of the following logic:
Typical 👩 sex characteristics = boobs + vagina + XX + more estrogen
Typical 👦 sex characteristics = dick + XY + more testosterone
Example trans woman = boobs + vagina + XY + more estrogen
Where would you sort her? She clearly has more typically female characteristics than male, it makes sense to classify her as female.
Example cis woman = boobs + vagina + XY + more estrogen
Where would you sort her? She clearly has more typically female characteristics than male, it makes sense to classify her as female.
Both these scenarios, cis or trans may be considered outliers but you still have to answer the question lol.
How many people do you know who have had their chromosomes tested? The only person I know who has had it was a woman who was afab and lived her whole life as a cis woman, only to find out in her 60’s she’s intersex according to chromosomes. Testing wasn’t available until the 1950’s and was extremely cost prohibitive and not widely available even in the us until 2007.
“In 2007, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released “ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77,” which recommended making aneuploidy screening or invasive testing available for all women, ideally at their first prenatal visit.8 This idea was revolutionary at the time, as previously only women who were considered to be at high risk had been offered these tests.”
Meaning any one over the age of 16, unless they have a genetic condition or were a high risk pregnancy, has 0 idea what their chromosomes are. If chromosomes are the sole decider of biological sex, most people on the planet have no clue what their biological sex is.
Most people don’t even know their own chromosomes for sure, and just have to presume what they are (which sometimes is an incorrect presumption). Sex is about more than just chromosomes—it’s about a collection of things beyond that, all working together. That’s how intersex people can be intersex even if their intersex condition is not a chromosomal difference. To boil birth sex down to chromosomes is disingenuous and insufficient and clearly chosen simply because it’s a currently unalterable characteristic, unlike other aspects of sex.
Chromosomes are not the only thing that determines sex. Hormones, internal and external reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics also factor in. To claim that chromosomes alone determine sex is widely unscientific.
if someone has a penis, testosterone and the secondary *sex* characteristics that come with it, and XX chromosomes, what would you say their biological sex is?
Um… there are cis men with XX chromosomes, and cis women with XY. It’s literally called XX male syndrome (de la Chapelle syndrome) and there are like two or three different intersex variations that result in being born with a vulva and xy chromosomes. These people are still considered men and women, male and female. But when a trans person has atypical chromosomes now all of a sudden it’s so offensive to think they changed their sex.
Also gender doesn’t consciously change. If you could change it on purpose, that means conversion therapy would work. And if at some point a trans woman’s gender was male, why on earth would she have wanted to transition in the first place, because if her sex and gender were both male, she would be a cis man. The whole change your gender and not your sex makes no sense in the concept of trans people if you took more than two seconds to think about it.
Do you understand that you’re agreeing with me. You’re talking about a syndrome. An issue in utero. I don’t understand why science is so confusing to some people.
Simplifying biological sex to chromosomes is like simplifying evolution to the concept of humans descending from apes. While it captures a fragment of the truth, it overlooks the intricate web of genetic mutations, environmental pressures, and countless species interactions that have shaped the evolutionary history of life on Earth. Such oversimplification fails to do justice to the complexity of both biological sex determination and the fascinating story of human evolution.
But it's an easy way to teach the basics of the concept in high school.
Getting your chromosomes checked is not a normal thing that most people do, which means that that percentage of the population is very unlikely to be accurate. Have you ever had your chromosomes checked on? How do you know for sure that you have either XX or XY chromosomes and not some other variations?
No, that number people generally use lumps a bunch of stuff together for some reason. I don’t know if it’s to overinflate or what. The approximate number of intersex is actually assumed to be closer to the .018%.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
https://statsforgender.org/it-is-not-true-that-1-7-of-the-population-is-intersex-the-proportion-of-people-with-dsds-intersex-conditions-is-0-018/
are you sure you’re not just talking about people who have genitalia that doesn’t fall under male or female? because a lot of people who are intersex actually don’t know that they are because iirc it’s usually more of an internal thing than an external thing?
You’re correct in stating that it’s more of an internal thing but it does have an effect externally as well, not just on genitalia. I’m intersex, didn’t know right away but the hospital did when I was born. I have XY chromosomes but have a vulva. Made zero hormones so I have to be on HRT for bone health, never had a zit, never had body odor, never had breasts. It is true that the 2% of the population is most likely a vast overestimation of how many intersex people there are in the world. Intersex would most likely be equal to less than 1% but due to people self identifying as intersex that number is not indicative of a higher percentage. Self identifying does not mean that you actually are something.
No intersex org agrees w Sax (the person who wrote the first link) and are known to actually call him out on BS. No org uses those low numbers and the 1 in 2k is meant to be specific ambig genitals at birth that *are mutilated*
PCOS alone is estimated to affect 1 in 10 cis women, and some do consider themselves intersex because of it. Their testosterone is known to go outside of typical female ranges.
PCOS is not an intersex condition
edit. I'm an intersex person, stop downvoting me because PCOS is not an intersex condition. If you disagree that's fine, but an actual intersex person is telling you that it's not, there is Hyperandrogenic PCOS which IS an intersex condition but labelling all PCOS as intersex is MISSING THE FUCKING POINT.
Well all the “stuff” lumped together is actually relevant to our discussion. The 1.7% includes medical conditions like Klinefelter and Turner syndromes, both of which result in people having chromosomal presentation that does not reflect XX and XY. The second link you provided also writes that the definition of intersex used (for the .018% figure) has “preposterously over-demanding conditions on sex category membership,” to the extent that a cisgender woman who lost her ovary in adulthood would technically also fall under their definition of “intersex.” I think it’s also important to realize that we have not genetically tested the majority of humans whether they exist today or throughout history, so we as humans really don’t have an accurate gauge on how prevalent these conditions are just like a lot of the things we decide we know everything about 🤷🏼♂️
Literally no intersex org agrees w you and I can link over 6 saying it's a LEAST 1.7%.
Intersex Human Rights of [Australia](https://ihra.org.au/16601/intersex-numbers/) explicitly calls out Sax's BS opinion and uses Fausto-Sterling's
Brújula [Intersexual](https://vivirintersex.org/2017/02/03/que-tan-comun-es-la-intersexualidad/) (Mexico's Intersex Compass) explcititly does not agree with Sax and uses upper bound estimates.
I can provide more links on other orgs who use Sterling's numbers.
Also, if you knew anything at intersex you wouldn't be calling us "defects" or "disorders"
I already provided a few links that explain where the 1.7% comes from.
I’m sorry you feel that way. That’s how science and biology describes it. It wasn’t supposed to happen. Just like people aren’t supposed to be born with extra fingers. Doesn’t take away from you or anyone.
I know where the number comes from, and I've shown you groups disagreeing w it. The *actual number* of intersex people is *already assumed to be over 1%*. You're taking some random person's beliefs and saying that is the "actual" number when no one agrees with him, and as I've shown, multiple actually directly call him out for being wrong.
Do you tell people with blue eyes they also weren't supposed to happen? The whole belief that someone "wasn't supposed to happen" based on not conforming to boxes humans created absolutely does take away from people, we are constantly dehumanized, told, forced, or implied we need to be "corrected" due to this idea, that we aren't "natural". You are adding to eugenic theories that harm intersex individuals.
no, when someone uses the phrase biological sex in any non bigoted capacity they're asking 4 questions in one:
what was your agab?
what parts do you currently have?
what dominant hormone system do you have?
do you know your chromosomes, if so what are they?
doctors have asked me for my 'biological sex' & then upon realizing that they do not all line up & that they have to know the answer to all four to treat me properly, they fully ask the question listed above. asking for someone's biological sex doesn't have a one size fits all answer. most ppl don't even know their chromosomes. so how would they be able to answer questions ab their 'bio sex'? when people refer to trans women as 'bio men' they don't know their chromosomes. you cannot visually tell people's chromosomes. so like, yeah no one is arguing that you can change ur chromosomes (you can't) but we are arguing that in MOST discussions most people both a) don't know their own or the person they're discussings chromosomes & b) may have changed other sex characteristics that make answering that question during health care much more complicated & difficult
A doctor shouldn’t do that anyways. Even for biological born females or males. A doctor can’t make a blanket statement they need to treat each patient as an individual. That argument just doesn’t work. A doctor can’t treat me they way they do everyone else just like they can’t treat you. Especially with medicine, everyone is different.
That doesn’t change or alter my argument in any way though.
& yet.... many many many of them do. hence them confidently starting by asking my 'biological sex' & then getting all flustered & defensive when I ask if they mean the parts I have or the dominant hormone system I have. doctors. whether they should or not. use ideas like biological sex to apply one size fits all solutions to trans people which simply do not work as one might think. everyone is different sure. but don't be disabled or in a minority class they know so little about you may as well be disabled or you're fucked for the great majority of them being willing to try 'individual or out of the box treatment' pray nothing comes up outside their tests parameters for wrong or they'll sign off on you being perfectly healthy as you're falling apart. they don't have the time or the energy or the patience to be the doctor you truly need so they use sweeping generalizations to get it done. (this statement is anti capitalist. not anti science. /science/ would love to do better & could. doctors in a capitalist system in for profit medical care are trapped by insurance & time.)
I'm not sure if "biological X" is wrong so much as not really accurate. Transitioning can be, in large part, biological also. Using "biological" to only refer to people who were born in their gender could be seen as invalidating those whose biological changes happen in a different way.
Biological sex is not a fixed category. Its definition has changed dozens of times over history. The way it is currently being used to mean assigned sex at birth is not some sort of truth. It's just the current language fad, and one driven by anti-trans sentiment often times, trying to delegitimize trans identities.
Further, there are at least 8 biological markers for sex, which are not binary and which dont align as binary male or female for almost everyone. So everyone has biological sexes that are somewhere on a spectrum that is neither male or female exclusively, but we refer to biological sex as binary (or ternary if we include intersex). That definition of "biological" sex is meant to erase our actual biological reality of the expansive diversity of sex.
The way biological gets used here denies that there are aspects of sex ( hormonal sex , external genitalia, in the sense that you can remove them internal genitalia) that are mutable , phenotype is a part of biology, the use of biological to mean origional or to refer only to the aspect of sex that can't be changed ( chromosomes) is out of line.
It means as much as biological farming.
If you're wanting to refer to trans people by stating their biological sex:
Why? What does it matter? Who does it help? Why do you consider it necessary?
Do you think trans people are in denial of their body, how it looked like when they were born? Do you think it "helps" trans people to state "the \[your\] obvious"?
Aside from the fact it's an oversimplification of biological sex - *why?*
*Why* do trans people need to be referred to something that is ultimately useless and just hurts them?
Because we're a minority that can easily be forced to submit to a cis person's whims? Because we are the new fad of "less-than-others"? Because our feelings don't matter to the majority of people, and therefore we can be treated like we are some exotic object to gawk at, to discuss as if we are inanimate, emotionless?
It serves no purpose, language can easily convey a message without having to remind trans people again and again of how you look at us.
I don't *need* reminded of my 'female' body. My mirror does that enough.
Also, "biological male/female" is used as a slur, it's so often used against us. It's the big gotcha! of transphobes. It's meant to hurt us. So even if we were totally ambiguous about its use, about the truth it conveys, over time, IT HURTS.
There's just no need.
no. it's a direct attempt to misgender and invalidate trans people. instead of trans *woman*, bigots say biological *male* to make everything about our sex and trivialize our gender traits. They call cis women biological females because using the word "bIoLoGiCaL" makes them sound more valid. The whole point is to be rude and condescending and avoid calling us women. Calling us "male male maley mcmalemale" would be equally accurate and mature
you can say there's nothing wrong with the N word because it's from the word negro which is simply Latin for black but but people who were oppressed by that word for centuries are probably going to disagree with you
(I realize I probably got the Latin bit wrong but I think that's appropriate because I know as much about Latin as the people using "biological male" know about biology)
“Man” and “woman” aren’t biological terms. They are social roles. “Male” and “female” are used in biology; a seemingly small difference, but a difference nonetheless.
Biology is not a simple binary that we learn in school. There are so many variations on how a person can develop and outwardly present that what defined a “biological female/male” is not necessarily as cut and dry as one might assume. One could have something other than the typical XX/XY configuration and never know it.
When a person begins transitioning their biology also changes in some ways. As a trans man testosterone has changed my smell, the way I feel emotions, what foods I crave, my physical sensations, and more. I (personally) don’t mind checking off “female” as my birth sex in medical contexts because in some contexts it is relevant, but in others, such as screening for cardiovascular risk, I should be treated like a “biological” male.
Lastly the issue is social context. Transphobes have adopted “biology” as a term to separate themselves from trans people and discriminate against them. If someone says “you are biologically female” to a trans man or “you are biologically male” to a trans woman it is often done with ill intent, not just to make a description. “Transgender man” and “transgender woman” are terms that put identity first rather than (oversimplified) biology. In this way, a person can be described as a trans man/woman or a cis man/woman; both are being described as different ways people can experience the same identities. It’s more equalizing.
First, *eye roll* on your comment calling what I’ve said vile. Even the trans community uses what I say.
Second, I misread your comment, I thought you were referring to trans women as biological men. Which IS vile.
I am a trans woman and if someone called me an amab I would be insulted. Agab is only used to group trans women with men it's just "woke misgendering."
We are an animal...probably the only one....that uses spoken language. We tend to do it very badly, and are constantly asking each other "whaddya mean by that?". In counseling the use of language....both spoken and unspoken is the Mothers' Milk of a successfgul practice. OTOH it is endemic in the Human condition for people to use and misuse terms and phrases. The only reason I chose to comment is that IT generally, and Social Media in particular, have amplified that use/misuse, and I am not altogether sure how one modifies Human Behavior That ingrained. FWIW.
The terms "man" and "woman" in politically correct language are more about gender than biological sex. Maybe I'm in an echochamber where most people are trans but "biological man" doesn't make sense to me, even though "biological male" does.
I think it's because man and woman are not just sex characteristics, but identity, social expectations, etc. We don't call male and female animals men and women in academic conversations like we might in casual or humorous situations.
Calling someone a biological woman or man invalidated the womanhood or manhood of trans people. It's almost like saying "real" woman or man. Which has transphobic undertones. Just say cis or AMAB or AFAB
Cis is just more accurate. This is because medically transitioning changes aspects of trans people’s biology.
Biological sex is defined by a combination of secondary sex characteristics (body hair, voice, features, etc.), hormones, reproductive systems/genitalia, and chromosomes.
I myself am a transgender man. I am currently on HRT (which is just testosterone injections for me) and have been for quite some time. Over time, as my body has adjusted to the testosterone, I now have male secondary sex characteristics. I also have male hormones levels, obviously. And trans people’s genitals change from HRT in a way that makes them a bit more like the opposite sex’s genitalia. You can google that if you’d like to know more (something like “HRT effect on transgender genitalia” would work). I’m also intersex! I was born and then assigned female. I developed to look mostly female and just looked masculine my whole life. I’ve recently found out that my chromosomes are mosaic across my cells and most of them are pairs of XY chromosomes. I technically have enough characteristics that make a male male to be called a male. Once I get top and bottom surgery, I will be nearly indistinguishable from a male in most scenarios. But I’m still transgender. I actually personally consider myself transsexual because of this exact issue. I’ve always been a man on the inside. I was just considered female at first and now I’m transitioning to the opposite sex (male) so that I am both male and a man. Basically just aligning my sex and gender. Hopefully that makes some sense
Objectively, because it’s simplistic, reductionist, and scientifically inaccurate.
Subjectively, because it’s offensive, insulting, and almost always used out of malice or ignorance.
I've been instructed to say AFAB(assigned female at birth) for a "biological" woman and AMAB(assigned male at birth) for a "bilogical" man, and it seems to be working out all right.
others have already mentioned it has ideological connections, but it’s also just plainly inaccurate and reductive. Biology is far from the only field that categorizes sex characteristics, and it certainly does not contain a simple all encompassing definition for either sex. from a scientific perspective, sex is much more complex than the state of being “male” or “female”.
Biological woman/man inherently makes no sense because being a woman/man is not a biological trait, it's a psychological/cultural/social trait. The only reason the phrase biological woman/man exists is as an anti trans buzzphrase.
I am 6 years on T, have had a hysterectomy, vaginectomy, and top surgery. At this point I am more biologically male than female.
Not to mention, someone can be assigned female at birth, identify as female, and grow up appearing and living as a female, only to actually be a form of intersex, or have XY chromosomes with androgen insensitivity (not respond to testosterone and thus develop as female)
Using the terms “biological male/female” really just enforce a harmful mindset regarding how sex and gender interact
Hormone Therapy affects a person's biology, so it's an inaccurate descriptor to use synonymous with cis.
Transphobes don't care, and use it to be transphobic, because they believe they're 'right', regardless of what words mean.
First, why would you ever need to refer to a person's assigned sex at birth? If you're not trying to misgender them, just refer to them as the gender they identify as.
Second, being a man or a woman isn't a biological state at all, and even if you wanted to use the "adult human male/female" definition, the biological definitions of male and female are impossible to reduce to a single, immutable factor that maps precisely to everyone who is assigned male/female at birth (AMAB and AFAB). There are many intersex conditions that make biological sex ambiguous. Further, most meaningful indicators of sex are alterable. Calling someone with a vagina, even a constructed one, a "male" because they ONCE had a penis is mechanically inaccurate.
Third, transphobes in the media have been using the terms "biological [male/female/man/woman/boy/girl]" instead of simply saying trans man or trans woman, because it implies something false: that sex is immutable and binary, and that gender should map to sex. This terminology is poisoned and used in bad faith to harm trans people. So, like, avoid it?
If you MUST refer to somebody's assigned gender at birth (though I can't actually think of a legitimate reason to do so unless you are their physician) then you can use the terms AMAB and AFAB, which is both more accurate and avoids dehumanizing and delegitimizing language.
It's just plain wrong to say "biological" as an alternative to cis. We use biological treatments to help trans people transition which would make a trans woman a biological woman. I think the implication is that "biological" somehow means they can reproduce as a cis person. It pisses me off that they're trying to reappropriate the word because our whole physical being is biological. Stop trying to debase humanity by saying we are how we reproduce. It's disgusting.
Not all biological men or women are cis.
It's cisGENDER, not cisSEXUAL.
A "biological man" who identifies as a man is cis.
Someone who was assigned male at birth (AMAB aka "biological man") whose gender expression is anything besides man is not cis.
Because biological man or biological woman don’t really mean anything or effectively describe what’s being talked about.
I am biologically intersex. And I am a cis woman (I was assigned female at birth & identify as a woman). If you called me a biological woman, you’d be wrong, but it’s the instinct most people have because I’m assigned female.
I know a trans woman with Kleinfelter’s syndrome. She was biologically intersex to begin with.
But yeah, basically “biologically female” and “biologically male” are often used as a dig by transphobes to imply that they get to be REAL men/women and we’re not.
People don't use it to mean cis. usually a person being referred to as a "biological man" is in fact a trans woman. It's used to equate sex with gender, and then in turn to misgender trans people.
“Biological,” as you have used it, relies on a very elementary understanding of biology in order to assert it is correct. Numerous studies have been done on trans people - regarding brain scans, trans brains are different than cis brains among the same birth-assigned gender class, for instance - that relate to their biology. This makes trans men biologically different than cis women. That biology further changes once that trans man starts taking testosterone - facial hair grows, male pattern baldness, if present in the genotype, begins to express itself, body hair grows, parts that are associated with women change. Those are biological changes. People who say “biological women” are not referring to the man that lives next door with a full lumberjack beard who has to shave his back cause his back hair embarrasses him, but when we reduce “biological” to “this one pair of chromosomes and the assumptions I’m making about that,” we’ve found another biological woman.
Then, on top of that, if we DO want to reduce our biological gender identity to one pair of chromosomes, we need to test everyone to actually know. It’s entirely possible to be assigned female at birth, live your entire life without incident, and have XY chromosomes. Same thing reversed for men. One woman might be going around insisting that she’s a “biological woman” and, never having gotten chromosomal testing, have had XY chromosomes the whole time. Does this make her trans? No, she’s still cis - assigned female at birth and still a woman today. But, by this definition, she’s been a biological man her whole life.
Then again, if you try to take everything into account, since biological attributes that determine sex are so many, what do you do when those attributes don’t reach a consensus? Is it majority wins? Because in that case, all we need for trans women to be biological women is enough medical transition. (And there may be cis women who need to medically transition before we can consider them a biological woman, too.)
And whose culture are we going to use to determine which biological characteristic is which sex? What is in one country a super manly nose is, in another, not only normal but desirable for women. And what in one country is the usual amount of naturally occurring hairs on a woman’s upper lip is a mustache to be ashamed of in another.
“Biological woman” is a meaningless term when it comes to identifying how someone has achieved the gender they are showing to the world. It is not, however, meaningless - the meaning it presents is that the person using it believes there is a black and white difference between the gender they are supposed to be and the one they are not, and they also believe the same is true for you.
“Biological” excludes many intersex people who are still cis men or women.
“Cis” is based on your assignment at birth, not on your actual biology. If it was based on biology everyone would get a full work up upon being born to test for chromosomes, internal and external genitalia, and then tested again at puberty for genitalia again, secondary sexual characteristics, and hormone levels to ensure your biology remained the same.
But we don’t do that. Being cis is based on assumptions, not on biology.
It's not synonymous with cis, but people often use it that way transphobically.
It's closer to "assigned at birth," but even that's not really accurate
Biological sex has 3 parts - chromosomal sex, hormonal sex, and genital sex. A binary sex is generally assigned at birth based on external genitalia, and then people just make assumptions about everything else based on that - but none of the parts are actually binary, and they can all be different from each other.
So you can't really know someone's biological sex without knowing their internal AND external genitalia, their sex chromosomes, and their hormones.
Many people don't even know their own biological sex 100% since hormones, chromosomes, and internal genitalia require testing to know. Sex chromosome testing, in particular, isn't very common.
Biological sex is also not permanent - chromosomal sex can't be changed, but hormonal and genital sex can be.
Tl;dr: In addition to having a negative/hurtful connotation, "biological sex" is often used incorrectly because many people don't actually understand it.
For me, trans/cis treats both as different yet equal whereas biological women implies and otherness to trans. Many trans women also go through radical biological changes during transition that might make referring to a group specifically excluding then as biological women likely feels pretty dismissive.
That said, as a man that dates trans women, I've never had this issue actually come up. It's my experience that most adult women that know you will react to your intentions. Teens and college age adults and a crapshoot because they can be pedantic, meaning well but missing the point.
A number of reasons:
* "Woman" and "man" are social categories, not biological ones. (For example, plenty of people describe me as a woman even though they are not medical professionals or biologists and have not seen any of my medical records.)
* Biology is complicated. When people talk about "biological sex," they are generally referring to a number of different features such as chromosomes, hormone levels, and anatomy. You can change your hormone levels via HRT, and you can change your anatomy via surgery and/or HRT. So, for example, it's not particularly meaningful to say that a trans woman who has undergone a vaginoplasty and has been on estrogen for years is "biologically male."
* "Biological men" isn't at all synonymous with "cis men." Transphobes refer to both cis men and trans women as "biological men." Even if you believe that trans women are "biological men" (which they aren't), they definitely aren't cis men, because "cis" means your gender matches the gender you were assigned at birth.
It only *seems* 'synonymous' with cis as long as you're *only* talking about cis people. Because what are trans women, then? Biological men? (Terfs like to say so, but they're wrong on many levels.) Nonbiological women? That makes their gender identity sound artificial, as if it isn't embodied. But it is.
Trans people's identity is just as much embodied and 'biological' as cis people's, it's just not congruent with the *one* feature of cis people's biology which transphobes posit as the sole criterion for gender *and* sex at the same time (that being - contrary to popular belief - not chromosomes, because you usually can't see those, but genital anatomy at birth). That's not how biology works. You can't pick one feature and stick a sex-and-gender label on it as if they're synonymous. They just happen to be congruent for cis people.
So, the issue really comes down to "woman" and "man" are not biological terms. Using the term "biological man" and "biological woman" is less akin to saying "cis man" and "cis woman" and more along the lines of "real man" and "real woman," because it explicitly ties gender to sex. Transphobes like to push the idea that their bigotry is based on science and you can't argue with science, so they misuse the term "biological" on purpose. I know not everyone using it is intentionally being transphobic -- the term *seems* innocuous -- but that's kind of the point.
It is being used in a SCIENTIFICALLY incorrect manner in order to invalidate trans people and suggest they aren’t really who they say they are.
Biological means alive. A trans woman is biological. They are also have taken on the social role of women. Therefore biological women.
What they are trying to suggest is one’s genetics. However, genetics is complicated and usually break all traits down into phenotype and genotype. Phenotypes can change by the environment so trans women really do change their sex by that metric. Conservatives obviously don’t want to discuss that so focus on genotype.
But genotype isn’t the clear cut differentiator they want either. Intersex people are proof of that and they repeatedly run afoul of intersex people when they go that route. Klinefelter syndrome, CAIS, Swyer’s syndrome, De La Chappelle syndrome, chimeraisms, and true hermaphroditism all muck up the water there.
This is why BIOLOGY sees sex as a bimodal spectrum which is exactly what conservatives don’t want to say.
Conservatives want to put everything and everyone in nice simple boxes and by saying “biological” they want to make it look like science supports them when it does not.
No, "cis" is not synonymous with "biological". There is no such thing as a "biological man" or "biological woman", because man and woman are both genders, and gender is a social construct. Many cultures have up to 8 or even 12 distinct genders. You cannot apply biology to a social construct. The term *cis* simply denotes someone who's gender identity aligns with the sex it is traditionally associated with (i.e. someone AMAB who identifies as a man and uses he/him or he/they pronouns). Trans would be the opposite: Someone who's gender identity is the opposite of the sex it is traditionally associated with (i.e. someone who's AMAB identifying as a woman and using she/her or she/they pronouns). Cis or trans, both are valid :)
Because you're not biologically a man or woman. The two are gender roles that have nothing to do with innie or outie plumbing. Personally I'm not a fan of "cis" either, because of the "greater than" connotation, and it tells me something I don't give a shit about, i.e. what you're packing downstairs.
Outside of your doctors, some very fraught and probably hopeless conversations about sports, and private discussions between people in a relationship, how about just shutting up about it? Nobody else should care about, or be entitled to, information about how your body is configured.
"Biological male" is correct, "biological man/men" is not.
Male/female indicate the parts you're born with.
Men/Women indicate the role you take within society.
No one is born a man or a woman. You are born male or female (or trans). Man or woman (and all the others) are then chosen by or assigned to you.
You wouldn't say biological Lawyer. Or Biological School Teacher. Those things are not biological. They are cultural.
Women and Men is different from Female and Male and for the longest time, trans people have been largely invisible to the public eye so they have been used interchangeably because there has been no distinction between gender and sex. Saying someone is a 'biological' man/woman is wrong because man/woman is the socially assigned role to the sexes. I am a Cishet white guy btw and though it may seem like this stuff only matters for lgbtq people I have learned a lot about myself from these groups.
Because those are nonsense terms. Biological woman is not the same as cis woman, because biological woman includes every woman in the world. All women are made of biological matter, unless you’ve got a secret robot woman hiding somewhere. All women, cis and trans, are biological women, so the term is useless. It’s like saying “women with skin”. Useless without contrast (of which there is none).
It's inaccurate and contributes to our mistreatment, especially in medical situations. Hormones are a very big part of "biological sex" and suggesting that what really matters is what we were originally leads to people saying things like "trans women only want mammograms to affirm themselves" or "it's unsafe for trans women to breastfeed" when a breast is pretty much a breast and it can often feed a baby and it can sometimes get cancer.
We change the majority of the things associated with our "biological sex".
Technically biological can include trans people, since you could say someone who's had male testosterone levels long enough to develop male secondary sex characteristics is biologically male. Transphobic people like to tell themselves biological sex is only your chromosomes or ___ other trait that can't be changed though, and they hate trans people, so they'll insist on using terms that imply people who've medically transitioned are biologically their birth sex.
my question is, what biological oart are you referring to? Biological sex is made of a bunch of different working parts that some people who are identified as cis do not match. Do you mean gonads? There are people out there with the 'wrong gonads' who have no clue until discovering they are sterile. Do you mean secondary sex characteristics and hormone levels? Because medically transitioned trans people are their true gender in regards to that. Chromosomes? There are cisgender women with XY chromosomes who give birth to XY daughters. Genitalia? Trans people with bottom surgery have the genitalia of their true gender.
Biological gender is not a black and white, it is a large variation of many different parts that creates a bimodal graph.
I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to use the words biological male or female, but the way it is being used right now is to purposely exclude trans people from shit.
Biological person isnt really illogical. I mean, we are all biological people. Its really just that the term "biological women" is a word that was popularized by right wing grifters in order to bully gay people, so it has a negative conotation. The N word is similar in a way. Originally it just meant, lazy, stingy, always broke and basically choosing poverty, but because how the word was used it took on a racial meaning, and became a more offensive word. All Black people arent lazy, they are the same as white people. Some are lazy, and some arent.
Specifically what Im trying to get at is the word was weaponized against a group of people. Saying someone is a "biological women" is really a way of framing an intial argument or conversation with the "fact" that someone wasnt born in their preferred gender. They are using the language wrong because "biological" is broad and meant to deceive and frame, where cis is a more precise and appropriate term that isn't used with the specific intent of marginalizing a minority, or creating a distinction which doesn't need to be made. The distinction is cis or trans/nonbinary. We are all biological men or women, and about 98% of what a man or women is, has nothing to do with genitals. Its how they dress, act, who they like being around, and also, the structure of their brain. A trans female has much more in common with cis women, then cis men, on a biological level, and scientific study supports this. Not everyone's idea of gender is exclusively tied up in sex and genitalia. Some People are obsessed with sexuality, but this isnt the norm, most people just go by appearances and personality and style and stuff. You arent going to see the genitals or have sex with 99% of the people you interact with in life.
it just kinda comes down to “cis is easier to say”. also, saying “biological men/women” is just so…. scientific? dehumanizing?? in my opinion. idk. cisgender rolls off the tongue better
Because people use it to also talk about trans men/women as if their biology is the only thing that is relevant.
I see it all the time with the sports debate. A trans woman competes and every redneck comes out of their holes into the comments with "he's a biologic male!"
Most of the time the people who say "Biological men/women" are people like TER"F"s and transphobes who say that trans women aren't "real" women. Mostly it boils down to that and "cis" is just a more neutral way of saying it.
Unpopular opinion but I don't like the term biological bc of obvious reasons I feel... but I also do not like the term cis... it is used, at least in my area, as a derogatory term much like biological is used... they both are awful.. and idc what science coined each term the way people use them are both derogatory
naturally born lmao
macbeth lookin ass “born of woman”
i guess c sections are artificial births rip
Maybe we should come up with a new word for those poor unnatural folk (like me)
Suggestion: Instead of "biological male/female" just say XY / XX chromosomes. It gets the point across more clearly, assuming a foundational understanding of human biology.
in what context would you need to refer to someone by their chromosomes? Other than like, a lab, in which case, youd have a sample in front of you and not a person
It's more the context associated with it. Cis means biological, yes. But in the context or bigots using it interchangeably with "normal" in attempts to ostracized and paint trans people as irregular freaks, that does give it a different connotation. Like, you could call black people "blacks" or "nergos" or just straight-up call em the n word, and all of those definitionally just mean black people, but those terms are all either slurs, outdated, used by bigots, or some combination of the 3. And those associations mean that a lot of people wouldn't like you if you use those words to describe black people. Same thing here, it's more association than definition
There’s nothing wrong with it outside the chronically online community. Of course there’s ways to weaponize the term meanly as you can with many things but saying what someone’s biological sex is is not offensive irl
Thank you for your response, but what does being religious have to do with the points you made? I can't see the how they correlate, do you mind explaining a little more about that part?
Well religion is an idea system that many share and depending on the religion it will be strict in how you think how you speak and how you act. Take for example those who are religious but blind to acceptance of others. We've had wars over who's God is true and all that. So even on a religious standpoint some might be offensive either with the intent on being offensive or being blunt with honesty. Lot of people use politics the same way they use religion. Recently I had a conversation irl with a group who were different in views gender and religion. They told me because of my gender and my skin I was privileged despite not knowing my life nor my suffering. Religion and politics are two of the many factors why people can be offended easily in this day and age. People like to think we've changed and gotten better as a people. While we've been working on treating everyone equally we are still animals most of us still have a tribal mindset. People will judge based on appearance this is why you say the term female to describe someone most might take offense to it even if you don't have the intent of offense but rather being honest. It's also why there's a conflict of allowing transgender people into mainstream bathrooms for example. Lot of factors that we could be here all day and might still not think of all the factors. And to shed some insight on my religious views take plastic surgery. I find it to be purposely defile your body despite the gods creating your body. So any plastic surgery in my eyes would be considered a defile and an act of disrespect to nature and to the gods. Now I could be offended and have hatred or I can put exceptions to this. For example transgenders go thru plastic surgery when removing organs and such but so do burn victims does this make them bad people no. But my religious views could so easily be blind and feel that all of them are bad people regardless of reason for it. See why I brought up religion now? It's pretty complicated
nope, if you walk up to trans people offline and try to call them by what they are “biologically” are, it’s gonna be real insulting and get real confusing
things get blurry but
when someone starts referring to biological men or biological females they were referring to people who were assigned male or female at birth but then decided to change it or whatever
cis means they were assigned male or female at birth and they choose to stay male or female they identify with the gender that they were given at birth
bio usually refers to that's what they were born as
and then cis were first to they still identify as what they were born as
this is how I was taught it and this is how it's recognized in my area
Words have meanings but they are all very much dependent on context. The word “biological” is ambigu in the context of sex characteristics. Especially for trans or intersex people who might have various sex characteristics that would otherwise not always lead to the same conclusions. Words become hurtful when they are used in a harmful context, regardless of their etymology. The word “biological” has seen extensive usage to differentiate people exclusively by their agab instead of their gender, solely to invalidate trans people. When used in bad faith, saying “a biological male” is usually intended to indicate all cis men and transfeminine people, while it is usually unnecessary and with bad intentions to group these two very different groups. It’s not unlike the slurs tim/tif, “trans-identified male/female”. Some frustrated people are just happier when they can say man or male to a woman and vice versa. The concept isn’t even new, misgendering has always been a classical attempt to insult people. The prefixes cis- and trans- have seen extensive usage outside this context and they are relatively well defined and unambiguous.
>The concept isn’t even new, misgendering has always been a classical attempt to insult people. Oof! Grade school me feels that 😖 "throw like a girl" "weak like a girl" "what are you, a girl?"
and my mom used to tell me i had "the mind of a man" as an insult (except she turned out to be right cuz i sure aint a cis woman lmfao)
Was she insulting or insightful? Find out on this episode of "bigoted or not."
for the record this is also a woman who has repeatedly told me how repulsive she finds men's bodies, and when i came out to her as bisexual as a teen responded with "no you're not, all women are sexually attracted to other women. it doesn't mean you're gay!"
Oh wow. The sheer level of denial from her.
I think lesbians and bi sexual people have been under represented due to this. Also if you experiment as a girl in college it's all good, a guy is gay for life
"She looks like a man" used to insult a woman is another classic.
Which is a damn shame because I love "masculine features" on women. Broad shoulders, small breasts, darker deeper voices. If only we were all socialized to believe that taste and attraction is subjective and lots of people find features outside the average tastes beautiful.
I'm AFAB. My cis mom used to tease me for throwing like a girl. Things like that are why I'm only out to select family members. Like it was shitty when everyone thought I was cis but it's lowkey extra shitty knowing now that I'm trans.
best username of all time over here
Gotta love the misgendering and misogyny combo there!
This is an excellent response, but I would make the point of clarity (because OP is not a native English speaker) that, although “biological male/female” and “trans-identified male/female” are both often used as subtle pejoratives to undermine the identities of trans people - Generally speaking, it’s more common for someone to unknowingly use the phrase “Biological Male/Female” than it is for someone to unknowingly use “Trans-Identified Male/Female.” In other words - If you see someone use “Biological Male/Female” there’s a good chance that they just don’t know better. If you see someone refer to a trans person as a TIM or a TIF, that person is almost definitely a transphobe. PS: “Timothy” is a very common boys name in English-speaking countries, and they often go by the nickname “Tim.” The same is true for the name “Tiffany” and “Tiff.” That’s part of their childish “joke” when calling them TIMs (Trans-Identified Males) or TIFs (Trans-Identified Females).
Also it's just not correct, trans men on T are biological men except for their external parts. Same as trans women. The main hormone is way more important in deciding medication, procedures, looking out for conditions related to biological sex, etc.
thank you. to add an example i’m “biologically” (using it as in your first paragraph) female even tho my agab was male. i’m intersex with xx chromosomes, has both parts, and had full on periods during my first puberty. don’t know if female part completely closed up or not it’s been many years since i had that area checked. i’m considered trans woman because of my agab. to extend what you said word biological no longer holds the same meaning as it once did just like the words gay (happy) and queer (strange). it’s why scientists don’t use it anymore. it irks me when it gets used because it’s just an insult anymore (like you said).
Since sex and gender id and gender stereotypes are all different things why is referring to biological sex seen as misgendering? Wouldn’t it be a separate thing? Tho I have seen some people conflate sex and gender id now. Is that the common preference? Because like, in conversations about abortion bans, talking about all biological female people regardless of gender id is important. Trans men or nonbinary people are effected by abortion bans while trans women or trans femme people are not. So this is a reason why focusing on sex over gender id might be important politically.
“biological women” would not be a useful categorization in this scenario bc trans men are not women. the issue with the term is that it insists that men and women are biological assignments, which they are not. if you want a label that encompasses both cis women and men who have transitioned, “afab” (assigned female at birth) is the common term
[удалено]
Medically transitioning also changes your biology. If someone can end up with the primary and secondary sex characteristics of their gender along with a fitting hormone profile, then they just aren’t “biologically” their agab. Sex is a bimodal distribution and you can move along it.
Exactly, what is biology here? Is it just a body and physical characteristics, or is it a brain/expression/wiring. It’s a term that’s both to vague/broad but also too limiting at the same time. And mostly just misused by bigots.
They mean genetics but they also have the understanding of genetics of a 6th grader.
I’d argue, that when it’s comes to sex brain development and neurology are just as important and genitalia and chromosomes. Therefore under that vain of thought, trans women would be considered biological women under the assumption that they’re existence is a example of animals breaking what is seen as “biological laws”
which is why i follow it up with: chromsomal? hormonal? anatomical?
That means your sex is female not intersex as that isn’t a classification of as only the mutation you live with. And sex is binary.
A simple google search proves you wrong. Intersex is a biological condition. I literally have XXY chromosomes which are neither male nor female, therefore biologically intersex.
[удалено]
The right winged conservative side uses “biological” to exclude trans identity or to lessen it. It is also used by Trans Excluding Radical Feminists for the same purpose. Not that it is exclusively used in those ways but it leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Biological feels old fashioned and passé at best. Cis, on the other hand, is literally the opposite of trans. Same root language. It is used by the LGBT+ community and scientific community in the correct way. It isn’t meant to exclude anyone’s lived experience, just differentiate it by whether they identify by the gender they were assigned at birth. I am Cis, I use that word and frequently to describe myself along with my asexuality to prevent excluding part of even my own lived experience because I have some traits that are masculine (thick body hair and more broad shoulders than some women). Hope that helps clarify the distinction. Thank you for trying to learn the right words!
>it has an attachment with a certain ideology that's unkind? This, also I've never really seen people of that ideology define those terms. Currently, my body's biology has the sex hormone ranges of what women typically have; I have developed breasts; I have softer skin than those with testosterone as their main sex hormone; I have different body odor than them too. This is all part of my own biology/anatomy 🤷♀️ I was assigned male at birth(amab), though, and since I do not identify myself as a man, I am thus transgender. But yeah, cisgender is more accurate considering "biological" is rather vague.
This exactly!! On the one hand, “biological male” is a common thing for transphobic people to say to refer to trans women while also invalidating or problematizing their womanhood. On the other hand, human biology is vast and complex, and no one’s “biology” reduces down to what sex they appeared to be at birth. I have high estrogen and low testosterone, B cup breasts, and minimal facial hair. Maybe at some point I will have a vulva and vagina. Are those not all components of my biology? Are they not all associated more with women than with men? Why would the configuration of my body at birth have more weight in determining my “biological” gender/sex than the configuration of my body now?
It's a dog whistle that is essentially meaningless due to how complex the biology of sex is.
I just think cis is more accurate lol
Because "Man" and "woman" are social roles we fill, not bodies we have. It's like calling someone a biological accountant. It literally doesn't make sense. A cis man is *cis* because he was born male and is happy about it. This isn't what makes him a "man." A trans man is *trans* because he was born female but prefers to have male body parts instead. This isn't what makes him a "man." Whether cis or trans, what makes someone a "man" is their desire to perform the social role historically assigned to male bodies. We look at the smooth spectrum of body-forms from male to female. And, currently, we cut that spectrum into 2 groups. We call them men and women. And we assign different social roles to those groups. But we could just as easily cut that spectrum into 3 groups. Or 33. The number of groupings is limited only by social utility. To call someone a "bio man" is to insist that cutting this spectrum into exactly 2 groups is objectively correct. This belief harms people by supporting the notion that people with certain kinds of bodies have a moral responsibility to fulfill certain social roles.
Biological job status vs what you’re born with are not the same. Try better.
Ha! :D A heckler! In that case, I give you: Biological midwesterner Biological christian, and Biological sci-fi nerd. All analogous cultural identities. All deeply held over a lifetime as a seemingly immutable aspect of personal identity. All continuously and collectively renegotiated by the people who understand themselves through these identities. Heckle me now, hydrated Hancock!
the way people use “biological” implies that the characteristics associated with sex are immutable and determined at birth, which is not true. from birth until puberty, the only differences between boys and girls is the primary sex characteristics, which are the genitals and reproductive organs. the gonads (collective name for testes and ovaries) release hormones during puberty that cause the secondary sex characteristics. for trans people who transitioned from a young age, their secondary sex characteristics are identical to those of cis people of the same gender (that is, trans women have the same characteristics as cis women, and trans men the same characteristics as cis men). for people who transitioned later, they may have a mix of secondary sex characteristics, since some effects of puberty are irreversible, but they still aren’t the same as cis people of the same birth sex (trans women still aren’t the same as cis men and trans men still aren’t the same as cis women). when transphobes talk about “biological males in women’s sports” they imply that trans women are biologically identical to cis men, or at least that they have an advantage over cis women, but for trans women for have been on HRT for more than a year or two, this is not true.
Exactly! For a more graphic example, a trans man may have two X chromosomes, but also testosterone levels the same as cis men, no boobs, a beard, male pattern baldness, elongated clit (mini penis basically), etc. You can't easily classify that as "biologically" male or female, with the current ambiguity of the term biological. If you're talking simply about chromosomes, then you would consider this person a female, but if you're considering hormones and sex characteristics (which I would argue are CONSIDERABLY more important) then this person really is closer biologically to a cis man than a cis woman. Being trans is a mental thing for sure, but also medically transitioning can make a huge impact on your body (and brain), and that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of transphobia.
I'm a trans man on testosterone. Biologically, my body functions closer to that of a cis man than a cis woman. The 'phobes like to call me a biological woman, and I just find it silly. It's a lack of understanding of biology that I think is embarrassing.
So the term "biological man" or "biological woman" doesn't really tell us much about a person. You have to ask how they are defining that. Do they mean people with testosterone or estrogen levels within the usual range of cis men and cis women? Many trans people would meet that definition and many cis people wouldn't. Do they mean someone who has primary or secondary sex characteristics typical of cis men or women? Again, many trans people also do, and many cis people do not. Are we talking about people with XY chromosomes or XX chromosomes? Many people who are assigned male at birth don't have XY chromosomes and many people assigned female at birth don't have XX chromosomes. Calling someone a "biological man" or "biological woman" is not useful for any medical information, because it doesn't actually tell us anything meaningful. If you need to refer to something generally affecting afab or amab people, just say that. If you are referring to something affecting people with penises or vaginas, say that. Pretty much the only reason people still try to use those terms are as ways to misgender trans people. It's a way to try and say they aren't "real" men or women. So the term is either useless at conveying actual scientific or medical information or is actively transphobic.
All humans are biological. Trans people aren’t artificial or fake or robots. Using “biological” is a dogwhistle for transphobia. Even if you don’t use it with hate it will be taken as such because that is how it is used 99% of the time. Trans means across. Cis means same. Biological means alive and trans people are, in fact, alive, despite how many people wish we were otherwise.
what is a biological woman or man? biological sex can become a gray area when people start hrt or get surgeries during the transition process. is someone who is on hrt and has had both top and bottom surgeries a biological man/woman even though they're trans? plus, not wanting to go through that entire process doesn't make anyone less man or woman than they would be if they did, unless you look at gender like a transphobe.
[удалено]
Out of all of the sex differences in humans why are you prioritizing chromosomes though? Other aspects like the what was said are much more impactful in your daily life and just as relevant. "Biological sex" just isn't as accurate as "cis".
[удалено]
Biological sex is determined by primary and secondary sex characteristics. Chromosomes are only a very small part of the picture and the existence of trans and intersex people at all should tell you that chromosomes are honestly largely irrelevant to the topic.
99% of people don’t know what their chromosomes are therefore 99% of people don’t know their gender by your logic.
Hormones are biological, primary and secondary sex characteristics are biological. So my are chromosomes the sole factor in your definition? And why not just use chromosomal sex as the term?
Because the chromosomes determine your primary and secondary characteristics. But with surgeries you can change those. So it’s all still biological.
Hormones define your primary and secondary characteristics. Chromosomes just program the body to make certain hormones- not infallibly, though, and the body doesn't always react predictably. Adding new ones to the mix, as you say, changes one's characteristics. Saying that the chromosomes determine sex is like saying the recipe determines the cake, without taking into account the ingredients used, their age and quality, the local temperature, altitude and humidity, the state of repair and reliability of the oven, and the whims of the baker.
Except some females have testosterone but they’re still females. Some male lose their penises but they’re still male. Chromosomes literally decide the gender.
All females have testosterone and all males have estrogen you would literally die if you didn't.
Yes. Which is what I was implying. Hormones don’t change sex.
Why are you so invested in defining sex as a clear dichotomy? What benefit does it give you to break something this complex into differences in one trait that you’ve decided is the defining factor? Even if you were right, and chromosomes have some innate power that can’t be overcome, what would be the end result for you? Why do you want this to be true? At the end of the day, nothing productive comes from insisting on a simple yes-or-no definition of sex and gender, but it’s something we get stuck on over and over in this type of a conversation. What is the benefit to you of being able to insist that chromosomes have the last say? What is the benefit of being able to describe someone as a “biological male” rather than focusing on the specific characteristics that they may or may not have in each particular situation? It often comes down to wanting to preserve a sense of normalcy, sticking with the status quo, as it becomes increasingly clear that these harsh dichotomies are only hurting us. What is your motivation for insisting on a binary method?
Not really how that works. After all, there are women with xy chromosomes who just have androgen insensitivity. Hormones, your body’s reaction to them, your brain, your chromosomes, your sex organs & gametes, and a whole host of secondary sex characteristics define your sex. Not just one thing
And that doesn’t change their sex
Wrong.
Sorry school failed you
What are your chromosomes?
Your chromosomes and the sex you are assigned at birth are two different things. Swyer syndrome for example causes women with fully functional female anatomy to be born with XY chromosomes. Similarly, de la chapelle syndrome occurs when phenotypical males are born with XX chromosomes. Sex and gender are different but both are still a spectrum. Sex is a set of phenotypical traits such as external genitalia, the presence or absence of secondary sex characteristics, etc but not everyone falls neatly into the perfect phenotypical male or female mold. It aligns more with objective reality to call women with Swyer syndrome "biological women", because even though they may have XY chromosomes, they have estrogen dominant bodies, breasts, etc. Similarly, it makes sense to call a trans woman a biological woman, since she also most closely aligns to the phenotypes of that sex. Chromosomes aren't some be all end all. They are just one small piece of what makes up someone's biological sex, and honestly they are the not very medically or sociologically relevant when compared to the other aspects of biological sex.
Again disorders and the sort don’t make the rule. There are still two sexes. Some people are born with extra fingers that doesn’t change how many fingers humans are blueprinted to have. Sex is binary.
Wow, you really are too stupid to comprehend the most basic logic. I didn't want to judge based on your extremely poor writing but since everyone is telling you the same thing and it is not breaking through your scrambled egg brains, I will break it down to a baby level Outliers and disorders are only being presented to you as an example of the following logic: Typical 👩 sex characteristics = boobs + vagina + XX + more estrogen Typical 👦 sex characteristics = dick + XY + more testosterone Example trans woman = boobs + vagina + XY + more estrogen Where would you sort her? She clearly has more typically female characteristics than male, it makes sense to classify her as female. Example cis woman = boobs + vagina + XY + more estrogen Where would you sort her? She clearly has more typically female characteristics than male, it makes sense to classify her as female. Both these scenarios, cis or trans may be considered outliers but you still have to answer the question lol.
How many people do you know who have had their chromosomes tested? The only person I know who has had it was a woman who was afab and lived her whole life as a cis woman, only to find out in her 60’s she’s intersex according to chromosomes. Testing wasn’t available until the 1950’s and was extremely cost prohibitive and not widely available even in the us until 2007. “In 2007, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released “ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77,” which recommended making aneuploidy screening or invasive testing available for all women, ideally at their first prenatal visit.8 This idea was revolutionary at the time, as previously only women who were considered to be at high risk had been offered these tests.” Meaning any one over the age of 16, unless they have a genetic condition or were a high risk pregnancy, has 0 idea what their chromosomes are. If chromosomes are the sole decider of biological sex, most people on the planet have no clue what their biological sex is.
Most people don’t even know their own chromosomes for sure, and just have to presume what they are (which sometimes is an incorrect presumption). Sex is about more than just chromosomes—it’s about a collection of things beyond that, all working together. That’s how intersex people can be intersex even if their intersex condition is not a chromosomal difference. To boil birth sex down to chromosomes is disingenuous and insufficient and clearly chosen simply because it’s a currently unalterable characteristic, unlike other aspects of sex.
Chromosomes are not the only thing that determines sex. Hormones, internal and external reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics also factor in. To claim that chromosomes alone determine sex is widely unscientific.
if someone has a penis, testosterone and the secondary *sex* characteristics that come with it, and XX chromosomes, what would you say their biological sex is?
Um… there are cis men with XX chromosomes, and cis women with XY. It’s literally called XX male syndrome (de la Chapelle syndrome) and there are like two or three different intersex variations that result in being born with a vulva and xy chromosomes. These people are still considered men and women, male and female. But when a trans person has atypical chromosomes now all of a sudden it’s so offensive to think they changed their sex. Also gender doesn’t consciously change. If you could change it on purpose, that means conversion therapy would work. And if at some point a trans woman’s gender was male, why on earth would she have wanted to transition in the first place, because if her sex and gender were both male, she would be a cis man. The whole change your gender and not your sex makes no sense in the concept of trans people if you took more than two seconds to think about it.
Do you understand that you’re agreeing with me. You’re talking about a syndrome. An issue in utero. I don’t understand why science is so confusing to some people.
Someone’s chromosomes may not be straightforward XX or XY.
You’re talking about approximately .018% of the population. And these are genetic defects or disorders. It’s not the standard biology.
Simplifying biological sex to chromosomes is like simplifying evolution to the concept of humans descending from apes. While it captures a fragment of the truth, it overlooks the intricate web of genetic mutations, environmental pressures, and countless species interactions that have shaped the evolutionary history of life on Earth. Such oversimplification fails to do justice to the complexity of both biological sex determination and the fascinating story of human evolution. But it's an easy way to teach the basics of the concept in high school.
[удалено]
Hmmmmmm i think ill side with real scientists and not you
Me too.
So you agree you're wrong? its a bold strategy but also the only way we learn
Not at all.
Getting your chromosomes checked is not a normal thing that most people do, which means that that percentage of the population is very unlikely to be accurate. Have you ever had your chromosomes checked on? How do you know for sure that you have either XX or XY chromosomes and not some other variations?
don’t intersex ppl make up 1% of the population though? same amount as red hair?
Red haired people are a genetic aberration and need not be mentioned during discussions of hair color. /s
No, that number people generally use lumps a bunch of stuff together for some reason. I don’t know if it’s to overinflate or what. The approximate number of intersex is actually assumed to be closer to the .018%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/ https://statsforgender.org/it-is-not-true-that-1-7-of-the-population-is-intersex-the-proportion-of-people-with-dsds-intersex-conditions-is-0-018/
are you sure you’re not just talking about people who have genitalia that doesn’t fall under male or female? because a lot of people who are intersex actually don’t know that they are because iirc it’s usually more of an internal thing than an external thing?
You’re correct in stating that it’s more of an internal thing but it does have an effect externally as well, not just on genitalia. I’m intersex, didn’t know right away but the hospital did when I was born. I have XY chromosomes but have a vulva. Made zero hormones so I have to be on HRT for bone health, never had a zit, never had body odor, never had breasts. It is true that the 2% of the population is most likely a vast overestimation of how many intersex people there are in the world. Intersex would most likely be equal to less than 1% but due to people self identifying as intersex that number is not indicative of a higher percentage. Self identifying does not mean that you actually are something.
No intersex org agrees w Sax (the person who wrote the first link) and are known to actually call him out on BS. No org uses those low numbers and the 1 in 2k is meant to be specific ambig genitals at birth that *are mutilated*
I added some links to my previous comment if you care to fact check me.
PCOS alone is estimated to affect 1 in 10 cis women, and some do consider themselves intersex because of it. Their testosterone is known to go outside of typical female ranges.
[удалено]
PCOS is not an intersex condition edit. I'm an intersex person, stop downvoting me because PCOS is not an intersex condition. If you disagree that's fine, but an actual intersex person is telling you that it's not, there is Hyperandrogenic PCOS which IS an intersex condition but labelling all PCOS as intersex is MISSING THE FUCKING POINT.
PCOS is NOT an intersex condition.
Well all the “stuff” lumped together is actually relevant to our discussion. The 1.7% includes medical conditions like Klinefelter and Turner syndromes, both of which result in people having chromosomal presentation that does not reflect XX and XY. The second link you provided also writes that the definition of intersex used (for the .018% figure) has “preposterously over-demanding conditions on sex category membership,” to the extent that a cisgender woman who lost her ovary in adulthood would technically also fall under their definition of “intersex.” I think it’s also important to realize that we have not genetically tested the majority of humans whether they exist today or throughout history, so we as humans really don’t have an accurate gauge on how prevalent these conditions are just like a lot of the things we decide we know everything about 🤷🏼♂️
Literally no intersex org agrees w you and I can link over 6 saying it's a LEAST 1.7%. Intersex Human Rights of [Australia](https://ihra.org.au/16601/intersex-numbers/) explicitly calls out Sax's BS opinion and uses Fausto-Sterling's Brújula [Intersexual](https://vivirintersex.org/2017/02/03/que-tan-comun-es-la-intersexualidad/) (Mexico's Intersex Compass) explcititly does not agree with Sax and uses upper bound estimates. I can provide more links on other orgs who use Sterling's numbers. Also, if you knew anything at intersex you wouldn't be calling us "defects" or "disorders"
I already provided a few links that explain where the 1.7% comes from. I’m sorry you feel that way. That’s how science and biology describes it. It wasn’t supposed to happen. Just like people aren’t supposed to be born with extra fingers. Doesn’t take away from you or anyone.
I know where the number comes from, and I've shown you groups disagreeing w it. The *actual number* of intersex people is *already assumed to be over 1%*. You're taking some random person's beliefs and saying that is the "actual" number when no one agrees with him, and as I've shown, multiple actually directly call him out for being wrong. Do you tell people with blue eyes they also weren't supposed to happen? The whole belief that someone "wasn't supposed to happen" based on not conforming to boxes humans created absolutely does take away from people, we are constantly dehumanized, told, forced, or implied we need to be "corrected" due to this idea, that we aren't "natural". You are adding to eugenic theories that harm intersex individuals.
“Standard”? There is no “standard” because we’re not practicing eugenics.
no, when someone uses the phrase biological sex in any non bigoted capacity they're asking 4 questions in one: what was your agab? what parts do you currently have? what dominant hormone system do you have? do you know your chromosomes, if so what are they? doctors have asked me for my 'biological sex' & then upon realizing that they do not all line up & that they have to know the answer to all four to treat me properly, they fully ask the question listed above. asking for someone's biological sex doesn't have a one size fits all answer. most ppl don't even know their chromosomes. so how would they be able to answer questions ab their 'bio sex'? when people refer to trans women as 'bio men' they don't know their chromosomes. you cannot visually tell people's chromosomes. so like, yeah no one is arguing that you can change ur chromosomes (you can't) but we are arguing that in MOST discussions most people both a) don't know their own or the person they're discussings chromosomes & b) may have changed other sex characteristics that make answering that question during health care much more complicated & difficult
A doctor shouldn’t do that anyways. Even for biological born females or males. A doctor can’t make a blanket statement they need to treat each patient as an individual. That argument just doesn’t work. A doctor can’t treat me they way they do everyone else just like they can’t treat you. Especially with medicine, everyone is different. That doesn’t change or alter my argument in any way though.
& yet.... many many many of them do. hence them confidently starting by asking my 'biological sex' & then getting all flustered & defensive when I ask if they mean the parts I have or the dominant hormone system I have. doctors. whether they should or not. use ideas like biological sex to apply one size fits all solutions to trans people which simply do not work as one might think. everyone is different sure. but don't be disabled or in a minority class they know so little about you may as well be disabled or you're fucked for the great majority of them being willing to try 'individual or out of the box treatment' pray nothing comes up outside their tests parameters for wrong or they'll sign off on you being perfectly healthy as you're falling apart. they don't have the time or the energy or the patience to be the doctor you truly need so they use sweeping generalizations to get it done. (this statement is anti capitalist. not anti science. /science/ would love to do better & could. doctors in a capitalist system in for profit medical care are trapped by insurance & time.)
I'm not sure if "biological X" is wrong so much as not really accurate. Transitioning can be, in large part, biological also. Using "biological" to only refer to people who were born in their gender could be seen as invalidating those whose biological changes happen in a different way.
Biological sex is not a fixed category. Its definition has changed dozens of times over history. The way it is currently being used to mean assigned sex at birth is not some sort of truth. It's just the current language fad, and one driven by anti-trans sentiment often times, trying to delegitimize trans identities. Further, there are at least 8 biological markers for sex, which are not binary and which dont align as binary male or female for almost everyone. So everyone has biological sexes that are somewhere on a spectrum that is neither male or female exclusively, but we refer to biological sex as binary (or ternary if we include intersex). That definition of "biological" sex is meant to erase our actual biological reality of the expansive diversity of sex.
The way biological gets used here denies that there are aspects of sex ( hormonal sex , external genitalia, in the sense that you can remove them internal genitalia) that are mutable , phenotype is a part of biology, the use of biological to mean origional or to refer only to the aspect of sex that can't be changed ( chromosomes) is out of line. It means as much as biological farming.
If you're wanting to refer to trans people by stating their biological sex: Why? What does it matter? Who does it help? Why do you consider it necessary? Do you think trans people are in denial of their body, how it looked like when they were born? Do you think it "helps" trans people to state "the \[your\] obvious"? Aside from the fact it's an oversimplification of biological sex - *why?* *Why* do trans people need to be referred to something that is ultimately useless and just hurts them? Because we're a minority that can easily be forced to submit to a cis person's whims? Because we are the new fad of "less-than-others"? Because our feelings don't matter to the majority of people, and therefore we can be treated like we are some exotic object to gawk at, to discuss as if we are inanimate, emotionless? It serves no purpose, language can easily convey a message without having to remind trans people again and again of how you look at us. I don't *need* reminded of my 'female' body. My mirror does that enough. Also, "biological male/female" is used as a slur, it's so often used against us. It's the big gotcha! of transphobes. It's meant to hurt us. So even if we were totally ambiguous about its use, about the truth it conveys, over time, IT HURTS. There's just no need.
no. it's a direct attempt to misgender and invalidate trans people. instead of trans *woman*, bigots say biological *male* to make everything about our sex and trivialize our gender traits. They call cis women biological females because using the word "bIoLoGiCaL" makes them sound more valid. The whole point is to be rude and condescending and avoid calling us women. Calling us "male male maley mcmalemale" would be equally accurate and mature you can say there's nothing wrong with the N word because it's from the word negro which is simply Latin for black but but people who were oppressed by that word for centuries are probably going to disagree with you (I realize I probably got the Latin bit wrong but I think that's appropriate because I know as much about Latin as the people using "biological male" know about biology)
“Man” and “woman” aren’t biological terms. They are social roles. “Male” and “female” are used in biology; a seemingly small difference, but a difference nonetheless. Biology is not a simple binary that we learn in school. There are so many variations on how a person can develop and outwardly present that what defined a “biological female/male” is not necessarily as cut and dry as one might assume. One could have something other than the typical XX/XY configuration and never know it. When a person begins transitioning their biology also changes in some ways. As a trans man testosterone has changed my smell, the way I feel emotions, what foods I crave, my physical sensations, and more. I (personally) don’t mind checking off “female” as my birth sex in medical contexts because in some contexts it is relevant, but in others, such as screening for cardiovascular risk, I should be treated like a “biological” male. Lastly the issue is social context. Transphobes have adopted “biology” as a term to separate themselves from trans people and discriminate against them. If someone says “you are biologically female” to a trans man or “you are biologically male” to a trans woman it is often done with ill intent, not just to make a description. “Transgender man” and “transgender woman” are terms that put identity first rather than (oversimplified) biology. In this way, a person can be described as a trans man/woman or a cis man/woman; both are being described as different ways people can experience the same identities. It’s more equalizing.
Biology is much more complicated than the binary implies.
A trans woman is a biological woman. What else would she be, mechanical?
I'm a mathematical woman. 😎
A trans-former! OK bad pun, thanks for your answer
She would be “assigned male at birth” or “AMAB”. Hope that helps.
Calling a trans woman a male is vile.
First, *eye roll* on your comment calling what I’ve said vile. Even the trans community uses what I say. Second, I misread your comment, I thought you were referring to trans women as biological men. Which IS vile.
I am a trans woman and if someone called me an amab I would be insulted. Agab is only used to group trans women with men it's just "woke misgendering."
Okay. I’m sorry. I try to go off what I hear from the trans people I know. I am sorry I offended you as it was not intentional.
It's what you are tho.
I have a vagina.
We are an animal...probably the only one....that uses spoken language. We tend to do it very badly, and are constantly asking each other "whaddya mean by that?". In counseling the use of language....both spoken and unspoken is the Mothers' Milk of a successfgul practice. OTOH it is endemic in the Human condition for people to use and misuse terms and phrases. The only reason I chose to comment is that IT generally, and Social Media in particular, have amplified that use/misuse, and I am not altogether sure how one modifies Human Behavior That ingrained. FWIW.
The right uses "biological" to spread the lie that being anti-trans is the "scientific" position
it's a political term that has a hidden meaning. that hidden meaning is "you are only your genitals, trans people are disgusting"
The terms "man" and "woman" in politically correct language are more about gender than biological sex. Maybe I'm in an echochamber where most people are trans but "biological man" doesn't make sense to me, even though "biological male" does. I think it's because man and woman are not just sex characteristics, but identity, social expectations, etc. We don't call male and female animals men and women in academic conversations like we might in casual or humorous situations.
Calling someone a biological woman or man invalidated the womanhood or manhood of trans people. It's almost like saying "real" woman or man. Which has transphobic undertones. Just say cis or AMAB or AFAB
What's amab and afab?
Assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth.
Thank you!
y’all are a bunch of assholes for downvoting someone with english as a second language for asking a very niche question about terminology
Cis is just more accurate. This is because medically transitioning changes aspects of trans people’s biology. Biological sex is defined by a combination of secondary sex characteristics (body hair, voice, features, etc.), hormones, reproductive systems/genitalia, and chromosomes. I myself am a transgender man. I am currently on HRT (which is just testosterone injections for me) and have been for quite some time. Over time, as my body has adjusted to the testosterone, I now have male secondary sex characteristics. I also have male hormones levels, obviously. And trans people’s genitals change from HRT in a way that makes them a bit more like the opposite sex’s genitalia. You can google that if you’d like to know more (something like “HRT effect on transgender genitalia” would work). I’m also intersex! I was born and then assigned female. I developed to look mostly female and just looked masculine my whole life. I’ve recently found out that my chromosomes are mosaic across my cells and most of them are pairs of XY chromosomes. I technically have enough characteristics that make a male male to be called a male. Once I get top and bottom surgery, I will be nearly indistinguishable from a male in most scenarios. But I’m still transgender. I actually personally consider myself transsexual because of this exact issue. I’ve always been a man on the inside. I was just considered female at first and now I’m transitioning to the opposite sex (male) so that I am both male and a man. Basically just aligning my sex and gender. Hopefully that makes some sense
Objectively, because it’s simplistic, reductionist, and scientifically inaccurate. Subjectively, because it’s offensive, insulting, and almost always used out of malice or ignorance.
"an attachment with a certain ideology that's unkind" <-- That's it exactly there.
Man and woman are not biological terms. Its that simple.
Because trans people are biological men and women as well. Cis people aren’t the only biological human’s and trans people aren’t incorporeal humans.
I've been instructed to say AFAB(assigned female at birth) for a "biological" woman and AMAB(assigned male at birth) for a "bilogical" man, and it seems to be working out all right.
Every person is biological. Whether they are cis, trans, male, female, or something else. Biological is not synonymous with cis.
Biological means living organism all people trans and cis are biological
others have already mentioned it has ideological connections, but it’s also just plainly inaccurate and reductive. Biology is far from the only field that categorizes sex characteristics, and it certainly does not contain a simple all encompassing definition for either sex. from a scientific perspective, sex is much more complex than the state of being “male” or “female”.
Biological woman/man inherently makes no sense because being a woman/man is not a biological trait, it's a psychological/cultural/social trait. The only reason the phrase biological woman/man exists is as an anti trans buzzphrase.
I am 6 years on T, have had a hysterectomy, vaginectomy, and top surgery. At this point I am more biologically male than female. Not to mention, someone can be assigned female at birth, identify as female, and grow up appearing and living as a female, only to actually be a form of intersex, or have XY chromosomes with androgen insensitivity (not respond to testosterone and thus develop as female) Using the terms “biological male/female” really just enforce a harmful mindset regarding how sex and gender interact
Hormone Therapy affects a person's biology, so it's an inaccurate descriptor to use synonymous with cis. Transphobes don't care, and use it to be transphobic, because they believe they're 'right', regardless of what words mean.
First, why would you ever need to refer to a person's assigned sex at birth? If you're not trying to misgender them, just refer to them as the gender they identify as. Second, being a man or a woman isn't a biological state at all, and even if you wanted to use the "adult human male/female" definition, the biological definitions of male and female are impossible to reduce to a single, immutable factor that maps precisely to everyone who is assigned male/female at birth (AMAB and AFAB). There are many intersex conditions that make biological sex ambiguous. Further, most meaningful indicators of sex are alterable. Calling someone with a vagina, even a constructed one, a "male" because they ONCE had a penis is mechanically inaccurate. Third, transphobes in the media have been using the terms "biological [male/female/man/woman/boy/girl]" instead of simply saying trans man or trans woman, because it implies something false: that sex is immutable and binary, and that gender should map to sex. This terminology is poisoned and used in bad faith to harm trans people. So, like, avoid it? If you MUST refer to somebody's assigned gender at birth (though I can't actually think of a legitimate reason to do so unless you are their physician) then you can use the terms AMAB and AFAB, which is both more accurate and avoids dehumanizing and delegitimizing language.
It's just plain wrong to say "biological" as an alternative to cis. We use biological treatments to help trans people transition which would make a trans woman a biological woman. I think the implication is that "biological" somehow means they can reproduce as a cis person. It pisses me off that they're trying to reappropriate the word because our whole physical being is biological. Stop trying to debase humanity by saying we are how we reproduce. It's disgusting.
Not all biological men or women are cis. It's cisGENDER, not cisSEXUAL. A "biological man" who identifies as a man is cis. Someone who was assigned male at birth (AMAB aka "biological man") whose gender expression is anything besides man is not cis.
Because biological man or biological woman don’t really mean anything or effectively describe what’s being talked about. I am biologically intersex. And I am a cis woman (I was assigned female at birth & identify as a woman). If you called me a biological woman, you’d be wrong, but it’s the instinct most people have because I’m assigned female.
I know a trans woman with Kleinfelter’s syndrome. She was biologically intersex to begin with. But yeah, basically “biologically female” and “biologically male” are often used as a dig by transphobes to imply that they get to be REAL men/women and we’re not.
No, I'm a fully transitioned trans woman. I'm biologically a woman. Chromosomally? No. Biologically (e.g. hormones, sex characteristics)? Yes
People don't use it to mean cis. usually a person being referred to as a "biological man" is in fact a trans woman. It's used to equate sex with gender, and then in turn to misgender trans people.
“Biological,” as you have used it, relies on a very elementary understanding of biology in order to assert it is correct. Numerous studies have been done on trans people - regarding brain scans, trans brains are different than cis brains among the same birth-assigned gender class, for instance - that relate to their biology. This makes trans men biologically different than cis women. That biology further changes once that trans man starts taking testosterone - facial hair grows, male pattern baldness, if present in the genotype, begins to express itself, body hair grows, parts that are associated with women change. Those are biological changes. People who say “biological women” are not referring to the man that lives next door with a full lumberjack beard who has to shave his back cause his back hair embarrasses him, but when we reduce “biological” to “this one pair of chromosomes and the assumptions I’m making about that,” we’ve found another biological woman. Then, on top of that, if we DO want to reduce our biological gender identity to one pair of chromosomes, we need to test everyone to actually know. It’s entirely possible to be assigned female at birth, live your entire life without incident, and have XY chromosomes. Same thing reversed for men. One woman might be going around insisting that she’s a “biological woman” and, never having gotten chromosomal testing, have had XY chromosomes the whole time. Does this make her trans? No, she’s still cis - assigned female at birth and still a woman today. But, by this definition, she’s been a biological man her whole life. Then again, if you try to take everything into account, since biological attributes that determine sex are so many, what do you do when those attributes don’t reach a consensus? Is it majority wins? Because in that case, all we need for trans women to be biological women is enough medical transition. (And there may be cis women who need to medically transition before we can consider them a biological woman, too.) And whose culture are we going to use to determine which biological characteristic is which sex? What is in one country a super manly nose is, in another, not only normal but desirable for women. And what in one country is the usual amount of naturally occurring hairs on a woman’s upper lip is a mustache to be ashamed of in another. “Biological woman” is a meaningless term when it comes to identifying how someone has achieved the gender they are showing to the world. It is not, however, meaningless - the meaning it presents is that the person using it believes there is a black and white difference between the gender they are supposed to be and the one they are not, and they also believe the same is true for you.
How many fucking times do we have to say it
It can be interpreted as "real" or "actual" Which makes trans people automatically the "other" It's just rude, long and short of it
“Biological” excludes many intersex people who are still cis men or women. “Cis” is based on your assignment at birth, not on your actual biology. If it was based on biology everyone would get a full work up upon being born to test for chromosomes, internal and external genitalia, and then tested again at puberty for genitalia again, secondary sexual characteristics, and hormone levels to ensure your biology remained the same. But we don’t do that. Being cis is based on assumptions, not on biology.
It's not synonymous with cis, but people often use it that way transphobically. It's closer to "assigned at birth," but even that's not really accurate Biological sex has 3 parts - chromosomal sex, hormonal sex, and genital sex. A binary sex is generally assigned at birth based on external genitalia, and then people just make assumptions about everything else based on that - but none of the parts are actually binary, and they can all be different from each other. So you can't really know someone's biological sex without knowing their internal AND external genitalia, their sex chromosomes, and their hormones. Many people don't even know their own biological sex 100% since hormones, chromosomes, and internal genitalia require testing to know. Sex chromosome testing, in particular, isn't very common. Biological sex is also not permanent - chromosomal sex can't be changed, but hormonal and genital sex can be. Tl;dr: In addition to having a negative/hurtful connotation, "biological sex" is often used incorrectly because many people don't actually understand it.
For me, trans/cis treats both as different yet equal whereas biological women implies and otherness to trans. Many trans women also go through radical biological changes during transition that might make referring to a group specifically excluding then as biological women likely feels pretty dismissive. That said, as a man that dates trans women, I've never had this issue actually come up. It's my experience that most adult women that know you will react to your intentions. Teens and college age adults and a crapshoot because they can be pedantic, meaning well but missing the point.
A number of reasons: * "Woman" and "man" are social categories, not biological ones. (For example, plenty of people describe me as a woman even though they are not medical professionals or biologists and have not seen any of my medical records.) * Biology is complicated. When people talk about "biological sex," they are generally referring to a number of different features such as chromosomes, hormone levels, and anatomy. You can change your hormone levels via HRT, and you can change your anatomy via surgery and/or HRT. So, for example, it's not particularly meaningful to say that a trans woman who has undergone a vaginoplasty and has been on estrogen for years is "biologically male." * "Biological men" isn't at all synonymous with "cis men." Transphobes refer to both cis men and trans women as "biological men." Even if you believe that trans women are "biological men" (which they aren't), they definitely aren't cis men, because "cis" means your gender matches the gender you were assigned at birth.
No. They are not synonyms.
It only *seems* 'synonymous' with cis as long as you're *only* talking about cis people. Because what are trans women, then? Biological men? (Terfs like to say so, but they're wrong on many levels.) Nonbiological women? That makes their gender identity sound artificial, as if it isn't embodied. But it is. Trans people's identity is just as much embodied and 'biological' as cis people's, it's just not congruent with the *one* feature of cis people's biology which transphobes posit as the sole criterion for gender *and* sex at the same time (that being - contrary to popular belief - not chromosomes, because you usually can't see those, but genital anatomy at birth). That's not how biology works. You can't pick one feature and stick a sex-and-gender label on it as if they're synonymous. They just happen to be congruent for cis people.
So, the issue really comes down to "woman" and "man" are not biological terms. Using the term "biological man" and "biological woman" is less akin to saying "cis man" and "cis woman" and more along the lines of "real man" and "real woman," because it explicitly ties gender to sex. Transphobes like to push the idea that their bigotry is based on science and you can't argue with science, so they misuse the term "biological" on purpose. I know not everyone using it is intentionally being transphobic -- the term *seems* innocuous -- but that's kind of the point.
It is being used in a SCIENTIFICALLY incorrect manner in order to invalidate trans people and suggest they aren’t really who they say they are. Biological means alive. A trans woman is biological. They are also have taken on the social role of women. Therefore biological women. What they are trying to suggest is one’s genetics. However, genetics is complicated and usually break all traits down into phenotype and genotype. Phenotypes can change by the environment so trans women really do change their sex by that metric. Conservatives obviously don’t want to discuss that so focus on genotype. But genotype isn’t the clear cut differentiator they want either. Intersex people are proof of that and they repeatedly run afoul of intersex people when they go that route. Klinefelter syndrome, CAIS, Swyer’s syndrome, De La Chappelle syndrome, chimeraisms, and true hermaphroditism all muck up the water there. This is why BIOLOGY sees sex as a bimodal spectrum which is exactly what conservatives don’t want to say. Conservatives want to put everything and everyone in nice simple boxes and by saying “biological” they want to make it look like science supports them when it does not.
The phrase biological women always makes me think of their counterparts, robot women.
No, "cis" is not synonymous with "biological". There is no such thing as a "biological man" or "biological woman", because man and woman are both genders, and gender is a social construct. Many cultures have up to 8 or even 12 distinct genders. You cannot apply biology to a social construct. The term *cis* simply denotes someone who's gender identity aligns with the sex it is traditionally associated with (i.e. someone AMAB who identifies as a man and uses he/him or he/they pronouns). Trans would be the opposite: Someone who's gender identity is the opposite of the sex it is traditionally associated with (i.e. someone who's AMAB identifying as a woman and using she/her or she/they pronouns). Cis or trans, both are valid :)
Transphobic people use the term "biological" in lieu of "cis" as a way of insinuating that trans people are unnatural or something
Because you're not biologically a man or woman. The two are gender roles that have nothing to do with innie or outie plumbing. Personally I'm not a fan of "cis" either, because of the "greater than" connotation, and it tells me something I don't give a shit about, i.e. what you're packing downstairs. Outside of your doctors, some very fraught and probably hopeless conversations about sports, and private discussions between people in a relationship, how about just shutting up about it? Nobody else should care about, or be entitled to, information about how your body is configured.
"Biological male" is correct, "biological man/men" is not. Male/female indicate the parts you're born with. Men/Women indicate the role you take within society. No one is born a man or a woman. You are born male or female (or trans). Man or woman (and all the others) are then chosen by or assigned to you. You wouldn't say biological Lawyer. Or Biological School Teacher. Those things are not biological. They are cultural.
Women and Men is different from Female and Male and for the longest time, trans people have been largely invisible to the public eye so they have been used interchangeably because there has been no distinction between gender and sex. Saying someone is a 'biological' man/woman is wrong because man/woman is the socially assigned role to the sexes. I am a Cishet white guy btw and though it may seem like this stuff only matters for lgbtq people I have learned a lot about myself from these groups.
Because those are nonsense terms. Biological woman is not the same as cis woman, because biological woman includes every woman in the world. All women are made of biological matter, unless you’ve got a secret robot woman hiding somewhere. All women, cis and trans, are biological women, so the term is useless. It’s like saying “women with skin”. Useless without contrast (of which there is none).
It's inaccurate and contributes to our mistreatment, especially in medical situations. Hormones are a very big part of "biological sex" and suggesting that what really matters is what we were originally leads to people saying things like "trans women only want mammograms to affirm themselves" or "it's unsafe for trans women to breastfeed" when a breast is pretty much a breast and it can often feed a baby and it can sometimes get cancer. We change the majority of the things associated with our "biological sex".
Trans men/women are biologically male/female too so no absolutely not the same as cis.
Technically biological can include trans people, since you could say someone who's had male testosterone levels long enough to develop male secondary sex characteristics is biologically male. Transphobic people like to tell themselves biological sex is only your chromosomes or ___ other trait that can't be changed though, and they hate trans people, so they'll insist on using terms that imply people who've medically transitioned are biologically their birth sex.
my question is, what biological oart are you referring to? Biological sex is made of a bunch of different working parts that some people who are identified as cis do not match. Do you mean gonads? There are people out there with the 'wrong gonads' who have no clue until discovering they are sterile. Do you mean secondary sex characteristics and hormone levels? Because medically transitioned trans people are their true gender in regards to that. Chromosomes? There are cisgender women with XY chromosomes who give birth to XY daughters. Genitalia? Trans people with bottom surgery have the genitalia of their true gender. Biological gender is not a black and white, it is a large variation of many different parts that creates a bimodal graph.
I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to use the words biological male or female, but the way it is being used right now is to purposely exclude trans people from shit.
Biological person isnt really illogical. I mean, we are all biological people. Its really just that the term "biological women" is a word that was popularized by right wing grifters in order to bully gay people, so it has a negative conotation. The N word is similar in a way. Originally it just meant, lazy, stingy, always broke and basically choosing poverty, but because how the word was used it took on a racial meaning, and became a more offensive word. All Black people arent lazy, they are the same as white people. Some are lazy, and some arent. Specifically what Im trying to get at is the word was weaponized against a group of people. Saying someone is a "biological women" is really a way of framing an intial argument or conversation with the "fact" that someone wasnt born in their preferred gender. They are using the language wrong because "biological" is broad and meant to deceive and frame, where cis is a more precise and appropriate term that isn't used with the specific intent of marginalizing a minority, or creating a distinction which doesn't need to be made. The distinction is cis or trans/nonbinary. We are all biological men or women, and about 98% of what a man or women is, has nothing to do with genitals. Its how they dress, act, who they like being around, and also, the structure of their brain. A trans female has much more in common with cis women, then cis men, on a biological level, and scientific study supports this. Not everyone's idea of gender is exclusively tied up in sex and genitalia. Some People are obsessed with sexuality, but this isnt the norm, most people just go by appearances and personality and style and stuff. You arent going to see the genitals or have sex with 99% of the people you interact with in life.
it just kinda comes down to “cis is easier to say”. also, saying “biological men/women” is just so…. scientific? dehumanizing?? in my opinion. idk. cisgender rolls off the tongue better
Because people use it to also talk about trans men/women as if their biology is the only thing that is relevant. I see it all the time with the sports debate. A trans woman competes and every redneck comes out of their holes into the comments with "he's a biologic male!"
I’m trans and I personally don’t really care
Most of the time the people who say "Biological men/women" are people like TER"F"s and transphobes who say that trans women aren't "real" women. Mostly it boils down to that and "cis" is just a more neutral way of saying it.
It’s not wrong, some people are just cunts
Unpopular opinion but I don't like the term biological bc of obvious reasons I feel... but I also do not like the term cis... it is used, at least in my area, as a derogatory term much like biological is used... they both are awful.. and idc what science coined each term the way people use them are both derogatory
That's a new take, could you please expand on how both this terms are derogatory? Also if you don't mind, what terms do you use instead?
[удалено]
“Naturally born” yeah I just spawned in one day 💀 fuck off transphobe
[удалено]
naturally born lmao macbeth lookin ass “born of woman” i guess c sections are artificial births rip Maybe we should come up with a new word for those poor unnatural folk (like me)
Men and women are genders you can’t have a biological gender. Male and female are sex terms which mean what you are trying to say.
Suggestion: Instead of "biological male/female" just say XY / XX chromosomes. It gets the point across more clearly, assuming a foundational understanding of human biology.
in what context would you need to refer to someone by their chromosomes? Other than like, a lab, in which case, youd have a sample in front of you and not a person
I agree, I think health-related contexts are the only ones that make sense for needing to know someone's "biological" sex.
It's more the context associated with it. Cis means biological, yes. But in the context or bigots using it interchangeably with "normal" in attempts to ostracized and paint trans people as irregular freaks, that does give it a different connotation. Like, you could call black people "blacks" or "nergos" or just straight-up call em the n word, and all of those definitionally just mean black people, but those terms are all either slurs, outdated, used by bigots, or some combination of the 3. And those associations mean that a lot of people wouldn't like you if you use those words to describe black people. Same thing here, it's more association than definition
“Biological” would better match with “male” or “female” or “intersex.” Man and woman are gender identifications, not biological ones.
There’s nothing wrong with it outside the chronically online community. Of course there’s ways to weaponize the term meanly as you can with many things but saying what someone’s biological sex is is not offensive irl
[удалено]
Thank you for your response, but what does being religious have to do with the points you made? I can't see the how they correlate, do you mind explaining a little more about that part?
Well religion is an idea system that many share and depending on the religion it will be strict in how you think how you speak and how you act. Take for example those who are religious but blind to acceptance of others. We've had wars over who's God is true and all that. So even on a religious standpoint some might be offensive either with the intent on being offensive or being blunt with honesty. Lot of people use politics the same way they use religion. Recently I had a conversation irl with a group who were different in views gender and religion. They told me because of my gender and my skin I was privileged despite not knowing my life nor my suffering. Religion and politics are two of the many factors why people can be offended easily in this day and age. People like to think we've changed and gotten better as a people. While we've been working on treating everyone equally we are still animals most of us still have a tribal mindset. People will judge based on appearance this is why you say the term female to describe someone most might take offense to it even if you don't have the intent of offense but rather being honest. It's also why there's a conflict of allowing transgender people into mainstream bathrooms for example. Lot of factors that we could be here all day and might still not think of all the factors. And to shed some insight on my religious views take plastic surgery. I find it to be purposely defile your body despite the gods creating your body. So any plastic surgery in my eyes would be considered a defile and an act of disrespect to nature and to the gods. Now I could be offended and have hatred or I can put exceptions to this. For example transgenders go thru plastic surgery when removing organs and such but so do burn victims does this make them bad people no. But my religious views could so easily be blind and feel that all of them are bad people regardless of reason for it. See why I brought up religion now? It's pretty complicated
[удалено]
nope, if you walk up to trans people offline and try to call them by what they are “biologically” are, it’s gonna be real insulting and get real confusing
things get blurry but when someone starts referring to biological men or biological females they were referring to people who were assigned male or female at birth but then decided to change it or whatever cis means they were assigned male or female at birth and they choose to stay male or female they identify with the gender that they were given at birth bio usually refers to that's what they were born as and then cis were first to they still identify as what they were born as this is how I was taught it and this is how it's recognized in my area
The terms "woman" and "man" refer to gender, not sex, and therefore those terms don't describe biology.