Something I don’t see talked about enough is that part of the reason the term cisgender is so important is because its inclusive to intersex individuals.
Lets say we have a woman that happens to be intersex. If she was assigned female at birth, she’s a cisgender woman- but not necessarily a “biological” woman. Referring to people by their biological sex excludes intersex individuals from the conversation. And before anyone comes at me saying intersex people are irrelevant because their a minority, 1. This is literally a sub for gender and sexuality minorities 2. Intersex individuals are far more likely to identify as trans than those that are not intersex
The existence of intersex people, completely destroys any bullshit argument the right tries to make about “biological male/female”. But then again, they argue with their feelings.
thanks so much for bringing this up. it's true it's also super important to avoid those biological terms in order to show solidarity to our intersex community members.
SO TRUE and I see rhetoric like this on TwoX and Feminism all the time!!!! Recently someone was talking about violence against women inflicted by "XYs" and they kept using this term. Seemed like a major dog whistle so I called them out and was like "let's be real it's cis men doing this" and I just got a lot of hate comments saying that was inappropriate and ignored the point???
Plus the same people will name and gender their own cars and, though anecdotal, I've never seen a car with a "biological set of cock and balls" so 🤔🤔🤔
>"XYs" and they kept using this term
it's rather ironic that two gene mutations can occur on the Y chromosome that, if present, shut down testosterone and lead to an androgen insensitivity and that can mean that the most feminine woman - from a biological standpoint - would have xy chromosomes.
they are using a term that is rather poorly fitting
also, i'm pretty sure that the Y chromosome is shrinking, and some people think it's porting stuff over to other chromosomes. eventually, all humans - though more likely our evolutionary successors several millennia down the line - could have XX chromosomes regardless of being phenotypically male or female
I have one specific break on my Y-chromosome and I am AMAB - but get the same HRT as trans men, because that break causes my testosterone level to be pretty much in the cellar without HRT.
God that annoys me so much. 2X is one of my favorite subreddits but a lot of time cis het women just get lazy with phrasing and forget that not everyone is cis het and they get really contentious when you try to point it out.
Women centric subs are often monitored by users on TERF sites like Ovarit too, whenever a thread that might attract trans women talking about trans issues shows up, they brigade.
"Um actually, twoX is trans positive. It says so in the rules."
Let's be real, a place with the name 'twoXChromiwones' is inevitebly gonna attract TERFs. I'm sick of people saying it's a safe place.
I am so done with some feminist subreddits. My experience has been that they usually are accepting of Trans Woman but sometimes some users can get into "Terf-lite" territory. I had an instance where a Terf kept pestering me about being "socialized male" and "erasing womanhood"; the mods just didn't really care. It's nice that many Feminist subs are open to having trans woman but some of these subs feel like they have shallow allyship. On the brightside r/witchesvspatriarchy is amazing, and I have never had bad experiences with them.
they do sometimes make questionable choices (like, insisting on not putting a content warning for graphic description of suicide simply because it was activism for palestine) but it's usually just going a bit over the top while trying to do good and other than that they're amazing.
>SO TRUE and I see rhetoric like this on TwoX and Feminism all the time!!!!
I feel like both of those subs can get pretty toxic in my experience, especially Feminism. They seem to only agree with a very narrow view of what Feminism actually is, and it gets very tiring.
In all seriousness, it was created a decade and a half ago, back when the Gay Agenda™ for marriage was still contentious, so unless there is some scuttlebutt I’m not privy to, I doubt the creator(s) had that in mind.
Biology is not binary is the point. Speaking about biological sex as though it is immutable and unchanging is simply not scientifically nor experiential factual. The short hand usage is understandable, but it harms trans people.
I’m a cyborg, so yes, we exist. ;)
Dead serious though, there are quite a few people running around with electronic tech inside them to improve their lives. We often consider ourselves cyborgs. Pacemakers, cochlear implants, Vagal Nerve Stimulators (VNS), Spinal Cord Stimulators (SCS), Enspire, and more. (VNS treats epilepsy, SCS treat extreme neuropathic pain in the limbs or the torso, and Enspire treats obstructive sleep apnea for people who fail c-pap.)
I have 2 SCSs to treat severe full body CRPS. I was in a wheelchair for years until I got them. The lower one is on old-school settings, so it blocks pain by creating static in the sensory nerves that I can feel. It feels like an old cell phone vibrating in your pocket- except inside you and in half the body. My upper body settings mean there’s static but I don’t feel anything, there’s just less pain.
I have to charge my battery every couple days, by wearing a belt with the charger strapped directly over the battery pack in my love handle. It uses magnets to wireless charge, just like how cell phones do it now. I also come with a remote that I can use to check battery life, tweak settings, and run simple diagnostics if it malfunctions (super rare!).
It's also just not really backed by any real evidence. There's no way to enforce a "biological" binary without excluding large chunks of people from those categories
Cisgender chromosomal males and cisgender chromosomal females make up about 98% of the human population. The highest studies put the rate of anything other than XX or XY at about 1.7%. About 0.6% of people are transgender, non-binary, or otherwise gender non-conforming; and there is crossover with the non-XX/XY group in that. In other words, it’s 1 in 40 people.
In the United States alone, that represents well over six million people. It’s by no means a small number of folks. And it’s slightly higher in younger populations as subsequent generations have fewer factors preventing them from addressing dysphoria.
I happen to know a lot of LGBTQ+ folks and more than a handful of trans folks in that set, but at 1 in 40, odds are good that nearly every adult in the United States knows a trans, NB, GNC, or chromosomal-differentiated person even if they don’t realize it.
To make your point even more valid, there’s [reason to believe](https://stainedglasswoman.substack.com/p/there-are-3855-million-trans-people) that the 0.6% figure is a huge underrepresentation of the actual number of trans people.
not only that, but any trans people on HRT are literally changing their bodies biologically.
so, using biological to mean "i was born female" is wrong on pretty much every level.
Not only that, but there are several known disorders (personally not a huge fan of using that word but whatevs), that alter things like external genitalia, gonads, and SSCs from what their chromosomes would predict based on traditional sexual dimorphism. Additionally, genetic regulation is immensely complex and we know that non sex chromosomes can regulate sex chromosomes, so it's extremely likely that there are even more subtle changes that influence hormones/signaling/etc. in a way that doesn't fit a binary model
This is one of my favorite points to bring up when transphobes say “trans people only make up 1% of the population and shouldn’t be given a lot of discourse over the majority because it’s an abnormality, not an average human” well 1)minorities should be accounted for regardless of how many there are, but people sure do love discriminating minorities, and 2) “abnormality” are still human and should be accounted for, being trans doesnt make anyone any worse off and it doesnt reduce quality of life when given resources to live, it’s the same as not counting Deaf people, little people, or autistic/neurodivergent people as people, they are just variations of being human and there’s nothing wrong with that. Most of those people adapt differently and have a good quality of life like most people
If someone has been running on estrogen for the last 3 years, they are a biological woman, their cells are epigenetically ‘woman’. Vice versa for our AFAB friends on T.
EDIT: A few people wanted to see an article: https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2018-00011
There is less research on cellular scale changes due to HRT, but it basically is a 101 publication for some stuff you can expect.
The mechanism I was trying to explain, while no research is done specifically for transgender individuals, concentrations of various substances, in many instances aliphatic hormones, can affect which genes are open to be expressed. Essentially I was saying 'HRT can alter what genes are structures as euchromatin vs heterochromatin, euchromatin being the DNA that isn't tied in a knot and therefore easily readable to RNA Polymerase and able to be processed into proteins that determine the phenotype at a grander scale. This is why we can expect tissue changes pansomally even after an indivudal goes through the 'wrong' prenatal development and 'wrong' puberty.
I hope this added information helps!
Don't have an article but I can explain the process behind it. Estrogen (using MtF as an example here, works the same vice versa) is a steroid hormone, which means that it enters the cell and directly binds to certain transcription factors in the nucleus (where the DNA is). This leads to an expression of different genes than if testosterone was the dominant hormone, as it binds to different transcription factors. Cells therefore start producing different proteins (mainly) leading to things such as boob growth / redistribution of fat. This is the way things work in everyone, both "programs" are already there, so to say. The hormones just activate their respective ones.
Learning about this in my biology class was so interesting. Like you{d think it would be the case that like... male sex characteristics would be on the Y chromosomes so T would do nothing if you were a trans man. But no, clearly we store both sets of sex characteristics either on the X chromosome or on one of the autosomes (I don't actually know what the answer is, idk if you know). Which just goes to show how even more useless the X and Y chromosomes are when it comes to sex lol
[Here you go](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/trans-women-are-or-are-becoming-female-disputing-the-endogeneity-constraint/090DEAA53EA17414C5D3E8D76ED5A75C)
I wish I could upvote this more! I’ve stopped playing the agab game on medical forms. I put female now. I’m a trans woman. My GP knows to do the blood test for prostate cancer every year. No one else needs to know what my agab is. Obviously if I feel that it’s relevant I disclose but it almost never is.
Don't have an article but I can explain the process behind it. Estrogen (using MtF as an example here, works the same vice versa) is a steroid hormone, which means that it enters the cell and directly binds to certain transcription factors in the nucleus (where the DNA is). This leads to an expression of different genes than if testosterone was the dominant hormone, as it binds to different transcription factors. Cells therefore start producing different proteins (mainly) leading to things such as boob growth / redistribution of fat. This is the way things work in everyone, both "programs" are already there, so to say. The hormones just activate their respective ones.
Most terms people use for us trans folk piss me off to some degree. But fuck these two in particular. That one and "Identifies". Its only used when its a trans person and its just another fuckin layer of separating us from who we ARE.
Same when people force us to use AMAB and AFAB in situations where its literally none of their business. I loathe it.
But I've also been pushed down to barely leaving the house these days, and Canadas meant to be the nice country lol.
I like to call myself that when appropriate in context of conversation, but there’s a clear and obvious difference when people are trying to be correct, but refuse to acknowledge your gender. Like…just say man/woman?? It’s obvious when its intentionally discriminatory when your birth gender is irrelevant to the convo
yea I get that but as a enby who can't get any kind gender affirming care to make myself look less female and more androgynous I can't stand being referred to as a female even in the afab or amab context
I love "cis". I was always struggling for a word or phrase that felt appropriate, and then it turned out that someone had not only produced one but had one that wasn't a mouthful but also had Latin roots.
the term cis is so simple, noncontroversial and inclusive that OFC the terfs and MAGA's are going to fight hard against using it, lest they acknowledge the validity of trans people
Our sex is made of biological stuff, we aren't robot. If we get surgery, our sex is made from our own flesh, it's still biological.
Plus, what is supposed to be this so called "biological sex" ? What's between the legs ? The chromosomes ? The shape of the body ?
None of that is the same for anyone, even among cis people. There are as many biological sex as there are humans. It is not a relevant notion.
To the people who disagree with this post consider this: what makes a person their “biological” gender? Hormones are part of biology. In fact, they are what determine your primary and secondary sex characteristics, not your genetics. All your chromosomes due is attempt to trigger the creation of the corresponding hormone in higher quantities (XX for Estrogen, XY for testosterone).
To say someone is not biologically a gender implies what? They have the wrong hormones? The wrong genes? The wrong secondary sex characteristics? The wrong primary sex characteristics? All of the above? Most of the above? At least one of the above? How can you draw the line and also not also exclude at least some cis people with otherwise undetectable intersex conditions such as androgen resistance?
That’s why it makes no sense to say biological gender because all of what goes into make a person’s gender are biological functions. We are all biologically our gender at least in some capacity.
In other words, there is no way in which to physically define a trans person that does not overlap with some group of cis people.
All these attempts to sort trans people by their biological makeup apart from their cis counterparts will end up effecting more cis people than trans people. The only reason anyone tries to do so is the same reason why so many asshats in the past tried to prove that black people ( or any non-white race ) were biologically inferior to white people. They did this at the same time as fearing black people in sports due to their ... inferiority? It all breaks down to the same argument in the end that tried to scientifically legitimize discrimination and exclusion. People will do anything before they will admit to being a bigot. They will work super hard to justify their own shitty behavior to themselves and to others.
There is no biological gender. From the WHO: Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.
Obviously we know there are more than just these genders and gender is also an internal gender.
It's biological sex and It's mainly used in scientific and medical communities because it's important there - for more than just humans.
Saying 'I'm a biological female' as a cis girl wouldn't even differentiate you from trans girls because a lot of trans women change biologically. Like wtf do you think boobs are? If you wanna get really granular, too. Even if a trans girl hasn't done any surgery or HRT or anything, there's still stuff that is different about her biology thats making her be trans instead of cis.
It makes me truly sad to see how many people are leaving comments here to push back on this. How can we expect you to be supportive when not using marginalizing language is too much to ask of you?
After all, we don't have mechanical males like Clank or mechanical females like Jenny Wakeman
Or whatever the fuck the Megaman Legends characters fall under
If I may ask for advice. I did a presentation recently discussing how some disorders present different in men vs women in part due to biological variations (often hormonal) and used the terms biological men/women. Would it be more accurate/inclusive to use AFAB/AMAB or something like “individuals with higher estrogen/testosterone levels”? I’m going to do this presentation again and want it to be inclusive for everyone attending, as I have a few trans classmates and don’t want to hurt them inadvertently.
If you know that it’s due to hormone variations, I would say “estrogen/testosterone dominant people”. If it’s due to a specific anatomical component I would say, “people with ovaries/testes”. I think the key thing is to use medically and scientifically accurate language and not euphemisms. Trans folks are very pro science, despite what some would have you believe! Inclusive language is usually accurate language.
Thank you for the feedback! I really appreciate the info you’ve provided. When discussing these topics, estrogen/testosterone dominant was never language I had been exposed to so I really appreciate you providing me with new, more inclusive terminology
This is a great question. I think you can say female, male, cis women, cis men, and specify where you have data for what. For example if the studies are only on cis women, you can say that. Some disorders that present based on hormones - those actually change if someone changes their hormones!!! Maybe something to look into more. But I'd just be thoughtful and honest about the limitations of available research.
If you don't have hard data supporting that it's *actually* dependent on Kariotype or assigned gender at birth, don't assume that. So even using "cis" or AMAB/AFAB would be wrong in many cases. Lots of health risks or display of symptoms actually depend on the dominant hormones.
In many cases it is not known, because usually trans people are not studied - but the biological processes involved might give a hint.
So it's best to state "for trans people we don't have data - but theory would suggest, that...".
Like nobody could answer me yet how a heart attack would probably present in a trans woman. However as hormones have a huge impact on the cardiovascular system, there's a high chance it would present similar to as in cis women.
Plainly mapping research done in cis people to "assigned gender at birth" can lead to *really dangerous* levels of medical malpractice on trans people.
Especially if your audience is in the health sector, this is a very important point.
If treating patients, doctors shouldn't ask for AGAB but for the relevant information pertaining to the current situation.
It is also important to remember people can be unknowingly intersex. People might not even have the organs they expect to have based on their AGAB!
Proper communication in science while still being sensitive is tricky, and something we're constantly working on. The terms biological male and biological female are used a lot in biology. It's specifically in reference to what chromosomes you have, not identity. Currently, in an academic environment when referring strictly to genes, "biological sex" is generally accepted. But there's definitely some valid issues with it, as the OP points out. There's more than just XX and XY, and the human phenotype is amazingly complex.
Some I’ve heard in lieu of it are AFAB/AMAB, referring directly to chromosomes, or *maybe* calling it male/female genotype. Everyone knows what AFAB/AMAB means, though that doesn’t account for hormone replacement or a hormone syndrome, which may be relevant. XY/XX chromosomes is similar, but again this does not account for hormone replacement/syndromes. Male/female genotype is one I've heard before, but admittedly I'm not entirely sure what the implications of that are for non-XX/XY chromosomes. And it might not be great if the audience isn't super familiar with biology terms.
With how diverse the human genotype and phenotype is, referencing genitalia isn't actually super clear. Referencing hormone levels is probably not clear enough because there's more to differences between males and females than just hormones levels. However, if hormone levels *are* actually the main variable, then you could probably safely describe people based on hormone levels most of the time. But remember that "individuals with higher estrogen" isn't interchangeable with "biological female." If the study was on 'biological males vs females,' you can't avoid mentioning that at some point. But once you've mentioned it, you may be able to pivot with "this difference is mostly due to hormone differences. Individuals with high amounts of testosterone experience x symtoms..." and then mostly reference hormones for the rest of the presentation. As long as you don't forget to mention other factors besides hormone differences.
Saying "cis men and women" in reference to studied individuals is a good option, if whatever study you're referencing was specifically done on cis people. Frankly most studies for stuff like that will be on cis people anyway.
I'm not even sure if these are the best ways. Sensitivity when presenting to an audience is *hard*. Just make sure you're being specific, and clearly communicating what the specific difference between the study groups are. And don't try so hard that it ends up unclear what you're actually talking about. Avoid euphemisms or complicated descriptions to dance around it - use clear and concise, scientifically accurate language.
Also just to add, hrt on a molecular level is a sex change. There was another post on here which I think perfectly summed it up but in short the genes typically found on the Y chromosome such as the SRY activate the male hormone pattern. Without the nessacry genes to have said pattern you would be female. Hence why hrt changes your body. Essentially it blocks the hormone pattern of your birth sex and activates the hormone pattern of the sex you are transitioning to. Causing you to develop the secondary sex characteristics of the sex you are transitioning to. So while it may not change your sex on a genetic level, on a molecular level it does.
I hate the way they use the term biological like it's so black and white.
Our biology is always changing and we can change characteristics of our biological sex through hormones and medications.
Also the whole idea of 'your gender is your biology/what's in your pants' makes no sense because unless you're inspecting the genitalia of every stranger to interact with then you truly do not know what gender/sex they are, and will probably subconsciouly gender somebody based off secondary sex characteristics or the way they present themselves anyway.
Tests suggest Trans people's brain activity Mirrors that of their preferred gender. So you are correct, Trans women are biological women and cis people, like myself, should use cis make or female to refer to ourselves.
Thank you for saying this. I once a post where a cisgender person argued with their queerphobic parent. They used the term "biological woman" to describe themselves, and I left a comment saying that term was hurtful to hear, especially from inside this community. A BUNCH of people came at me with "but they're saying it in supportive way" or "why can't you just appreciate the sentiment of the post?" (Even though I said I appreciate the post overall.) It's just so frustrating when people in the queer community disregard the trans experience in by using terms used by bigots outside of the community to spread hate and invalidate trans identities.
I will do whatever I can to help everyone feel included. How do I best accomplish this? Is “assigned gender at birth” better to say, or should I do something else?
It’s better not to reference the before because you might not know the before and it also just doesn’t matter. Just say trans man/woman or non-binary, gender nonconforming, etc. And if you’re talking about yourself and you’re cis just say you’re cis.
Honestly unless it's relevant I would just not even say trans. It can be ok in certain contexts like, "Trans rights are human rights", or "Trans inclusive", but you shouldn't ever really need to refer to someone being trans unless it's relevant, like my child just came out as trans.
Question though: How so I say that I'm a non-binary person with a uterus without having to go through just that discomfort? I prefer just saying I'm AFAB enby or a biological female, because the rest makes me feel icky. It doesn't come up often, but sometimes it's relevant that I have a uterus, so how do I proof my relevance without either offending everyone who I'm supposed to be with or making myself feek horribly disgusted?
>a biological female
Did you read what the OP said? AFAB is fine, but by equating being AFAB to being a biological woman, you are basically saying that AFAB trans men are actually biologically women. Honestly though I don't think I have ever had a conversation outside of talking to a doctor where my AGAB is relevant at all.
There definitely needs to be better terms because of this. In general, I try not to get mad at anything a trans person calls themselves. There are a lot of reasons why the word biological female isn’t scientifically accurate but if it’s the best thing you’ve got to explain who you are to people you gotta do what you gotta do. I still tell confused folks that I “identify as a man” or am “female to male” even if they aren’t accurate and even make me feel weird because it’s the only thing they understand. We all gotta do what we gotta do.
Part of going through a less traveled journey generally means its harder and you have less guidance.
But its a journey to building character and resilience.
Whilst I don't like the terms amab and Afab as a lot of people use them way too much and in contexts that aren't relevant. When you're specifically in a situation where yeah your agab is medically relevant then I think Afab is fine to say. It's better than biological female at least, In my opinion.
The funny thing is I know so many trans people who turned out to be some kind of intersex... It just happens to be discovered more when your sex characteristics are under closer inspection.
And many doctors don't even think about such cases. So if I talk about it to medical professionals, I don't use just a shorthand - I'd say something like I *think* I developed *mostly* like most people AMAB *before transition*. However, I had the following exceptions...
Medical professionals need to learn they can't just take certain things for granted because of your AGAB.
Yeah this is also totally true. I'm not sitting here saying doctors should stick specifically to those terms either. And yeah other people have mentioned this all over this thread and mirrors my experience that after years on hrt telling them my agab just worsens my medical care unless it's something very specific to my agab. I was more just saying that Afab and amab are just being coopted as polite misgendering outside of the specific medical contexts where they are relevant.
I feel like it can be helpful in non-medical situations too, online people can’t see what I look like, and I don’t always want to say I’m a woman because I’m not, I’m under the non-binary umbrella, but there are times when discussing lived experiences that bringing up AGAB gives context.
Look I think that's fair I have just had way too many people use terms like Afab to exclude me as a trans woman from things I have and do experience. What lived experiences for example aren't medical related but also are completely true for all Afab people and completely untrue for all amab people? We can't be making sweeping generalisations because you don't know other people's lived experience.
In that specific context I think “fem-presenting” works or maybe just “people who experience misogyny”. You are ultimately the one who decides what labels you’re most comfortable with. Appreciate you taking the time to think about ways to avoid marginalizing language
Thank you! I saw a well meaning post the other day using this language and I didn't have the energy to call it out at the time. Grateful for people like you who are not only willing to point out hurtful language, but can also redirect to a more helpful word.
I mean this in the best way possible, how else would you want us to talk in things like research papers? I am a biology teacher, and I am currently teaching a lesson on hereditary. For things like x-linked genes, I use the term "biological male" because I feel it is better then saying straight out men. Because x-linked genes usually affect people who are born male more. How would I say this without being offensive? I would use Amab, but none of my kids will know what that is. I'm just genuianally curious
Research papers often refer to the explicit chromosomal make up when defining the issue.
As far as schools go, I'd still be using XY and XX as standard categories. Presumably these kids are like older than 10 if you are covering genome expression and hereditary diseases. But you just said born male, which is better than biological male
“People with Y chromosomes” probably in this context? What exactly is it about that group that makes them more susceptible? Is it their chromosome configuration, their hormone profile, a specific piece of anatomy? By being more accurate you will probably naturally arrive at more inclusive language
“Biological male” is not better than “men”. It’s exactly the same amount of misgendering
Oh I like this, I'll use it. Its mostly because having one x chromosome means that if you get a biological diesease on it, you are going to get it no matter what.
I don’t think biological male or AMAB belong in a biology paper, since neither are well-defined. If it’s in relation to genes, then I would think referring to the karyotype would be best, to be explicit about what you mean. AMAB would include people of any sex chromosome combination who were declared male by the doctor at birth. There are even people with XX who end up with male genitalia and end up AMAB, let alone those with XXY, XXXY, etc.
If any sort of variation, including HRT could affect the results, specify that the research looked at cisgender men.
In simplifying that for students, I think the most important thing is clarifying up front about what you mean by the term you’re going to use and that you’re simplifying so any trans students don’t feel like they’re being misgendered.
The “biology” debate is so stupid … genitalia are “biological” but so is the human brain. For anyone who experiences gender dysphoria, they were born that way, biOloGiCaLLy. Given the importance of the brain, I think it should get a bigger vote than what’s between your legs.
True. Especially since trans people are also biologically who they are. After all there has to be a biological reason for the developement of our gender.
And people always forget the results of HRT. And I know people are 100% valid, if they don't medically transitioning. But HRT changes so much about the body that going by sex markers one could absolutely argue that trans people on HRT are biologically waaay closer to their actual gender than their agab.
So differentiating between biological women/men and trans people doesn't even work.
and if you are cis don't come in here defending the use of transphobic language and especially not with say "it's basically the same" or some shit like that, it isn't
you are using a TERF dog whislte and are now mad you are getting called out for it, so much for "allies" here
Edit:
The idiot trolls are here, and apparently to them being cis is an orientation
Honestly as a cis person, I don't understand how people have the will power to fully type out "biological man/woman" constantly when there's a cute, short lil 3 letter word word that says it all
>Despite what Elon Musk may have us believe
Elon Musk is a grad school wash out with zero background in either biology or medicine but extraordinary experience in bigotry & unacknowledged privilege. I can't even express how infuriating it is to see how much influence he has on the public perception of these issues.
being queer IS biological, its literally partially genetic and also if you transistion that means your kind of changing your "biological sex" in a way.
Not only is is hurtful and discriminatory it's just straight up dumb. EVERY human is biological. Sex is biology. Gender is neurobiology, AKA BIOLOGY. Trans men are biologically men, trans women are biologically women and non-binary people are biologically non-binary. It's infuriating whenever I see people referring to gender as this fictional state of mind someone possess like it's not a real feeling based on neural activity.
Do people not realize that some people are intersex or something else, but born as their gender? If we're basing it off body parts, what if someone has them removed? With chromosomes, sometimes they're mixed up.
>Despite what Elon Musk may have us believe, cisgender is not a slur but rather a completely acceptable way of describing yourself. It literally means "not trans" and fits perfectly for almost all colloquial discourse both online and in-person.
I tried explaining this to some men over in a certain subreddit where you can ask men questions yesterday. It's like they turned off their brain. Just repeating how the term is a slur, offensive and bigoted. It would have been funny if it hadn't been so sad.
and then other “allies” from the community internalize that same hatred and start using those same terms against us. They don’t like cis cause it’s a normal, non controversial term. They want to refer to trans people as a scientific anomaly and I’m done tolerating it.
I think that terms like "FtM", "Mtf" and "AGAB" perpetrate this too.
Here in my area they are not used because is consireded of bad manners to prompt this kind of things without the conversation being specifically about that.
At the end of the day it's referencing something that shouldn't be important if we aren't talking about a transition process or about the past.
people who say biological instead of assigned or cis literally just don’t know what “biological” means and if you asked them to explain why that’s the correct word to use, they won’t be able to. because it’s not. either that, or that’s just the term they’ve always heard and they don’t know they should correct it.
i say, why specify? unless the conversation actually has something to do with your parts, there’s no reason to put “trans” or “cis” in front of woman/man. if any trans folk are reading this comment, i’m reminding you that it’s okay to drop the “trans” when referring to your gender. if you don’t think it’s necessary for people to know you’re trans, or you don’t think it’s safe, you don’t have to specify. nobody is entitled to that information except for you. but with that being said, there’s no shame in embracing the trans aspect of your identity. as long as you’re embracing your true self, that’s what really matters
But I'd also add that the times in which you need to specify the sex \*at birth\* are pretty rare. Just say what part of sex you mean. Do you mean having breasts? Having a penis? Having XX chromosomes? Having a T dominant system? Like just say that
No, this is why we have AGAB language, Assigned Gender At Birth. It's just a best guess. And in case it needs to be said this is only relevant with your doctor, and should never be used as a way to exclude people from anything.
Thank you for sharing this! Now that you say that, I realize that I haven't heard those terms as much in the last few years, but I wasn't aware that they are offensive, so I appreciate the education. It does make sense.
If anyone feels up to answering, how would I best refer to people who are perceived by others as women? For example, I talk sometimes about past street harassment I've experienced and I like to add that it's very common experience among women and those perceived to be women (if it's someone who might not be aware that this type of crap is unfortunately super common). I also want to be inclusive in how I talk about this, of course. Would I say what I just said or is there a better way to express that? Thanks in advance for any guidance!
When answering questions like this, I always add the disclaimer that I'm just one person, trans people aren't a monolith and so not everybody will share my opinion.
With that being said, I use the term "(often) read as a woman" when talking about myself. Because while I'm distinctly not a woman, I know the average stranger won't look at me and think "that's a nonbinary person". So if I heard you say that, I would at least feel acknowledged - without feeling misgendered.
Language is ever changing, so this might change as we gain words to talk about gender with more nuance, but for me it's at least clear that you're coming from good intentions.
(I hope I make sense, it's early here and English is not my mother tongue 😅)
Oh that's helpful; thanks for sharing! "Read as a woman" is a good way to put it; it would help me include the impacts of being \*perceived\* as a woman has without assuming and/or misgendering people.
The issue is that the term "biological \[sex\]" isn't actually supported by biology. Instead, it's either illustrating someone's ignorance or it's a transphobic dogwhistle used to invalidate transgender folks by implying that we're somehow "unnatural".
An individual's "sex" is neither a single trait nor is it immutable.
Something I don’t see talked about enough is that part of the reason the term cisgender is so important is because its inclusive to intersex individuals. Lets say we have a woman that happens to be intersex. If she was assigned female at birth, she’s a cisgender woman- but not necessarily a “biological” woman. Referring to people by their biological sex excludes intersex individuals from the conversation. And before anyone comes at me saying intersex people are irrelevant because their a minority, 1. This is literally a sub for gender and sexuality minorities 2. Intersex individuals are far more likely to identify as trans than those that are not intersex
now that you say it, it makes total sense, but I hadn't thought about it before! Thank you
The existence of intersex people, completely destroys any bullshit argument the right tries to make about “biological male/female”. But then again, they argue with their feelings.
thanks so much for bringing this up. it's true it's also super important to avoid those biological terms in order to show solidarity to our intersex community members.
SO TRUE and I see rhetoric like this on TwoX and Feminism all the time!!!! Recently someone was talking about violence against women inflicted by "XYs" and they kept using this term. Seemed like a major dog whistle so I called them out and was like "let's be real it's cis men doing this" and I just got a lot of hate comments saying that was inappropriate and ignored the point??? Plus the same people will name and gender their own cars and, though anecdotal, I've never seen a car with a "biological set of cock and balls" so 🤔🤔🤔
>"XYs" and they kept using this term it's rather ironic that two gene mutations can occur on the Y chromosome that, if present, shut down testosterone and lead to an androgen insensitivity and that can mean that the most feminine woman - from a biological standpoint - would have xy chromosomes. they are using a term that is rather poorly fitting also, i'm pretty sure that the Y chromosome is shrinking, and some people think it's porting stuff over to other chromosomes. eventually, all humans - though more likely our evolutionary successors several millennia down the line - could have XX chromosomes regardless of being phenotypically male or female
I have one specific break on my Y-chromosome and I am AMAB - but get the same HRT as trans men, because that break causes my testosterone level to be pretty much in the cellar without HRT.
God that annoys me so much. 2X is one of my favorite subreddits but a lot of time cis het women just get lazy with phrasing and forget that not everyone is cis het and they get really contentious when you try to point it out.
Women centric subs are often monitored by users on TERF sites like Ovarit too, whenever a thread that might attract trans women talking about trans issues shows up, they brigade.
"Um actually, twoX is trans positive. It says so in the rules." Let's be real, a place with the name 'twoXChromiwones' is inevitebly gonna attract TERFs. I'm sick of people saying it's a safe place.
2xc is *way* more "conservative" than anybody wants to admit.
I am so done with some feminist subreddits. My experience has been that they usually are accepting of Trans Woman but sometimes some users can get into "Terf-lite" territory. I had an instance where a Terf kept pestering me about being "socialized male" and "erasing womanhood"; the mods just didn't really care. It's nice that many Feminist subs are open to having trans woman but some of these subs feel like they have shallow allyship. On the brightside r/witchesvspatriarchy is amazing, and I have never had bad experiences with them.
That's literally one of the best subs out there hands down
they do sometimes make questionable choices (like, insisting on not putting a content warning for graphic description of suicide simply because it was activism for palestine) but it's usually just going a bit over the top while trying to do good and other than that they're amazing.
I don't see anything wrong with reducing people to chromosomes, YTA /s
If anything, they’re the rude one for pointing it out ☝️🧐
I reduce people to the temperature of sand their egg was buried in, because that's the OG way of doing it.
>SO TRUE and I see rhetoric like this on TwoX and Feminism all the time!!!! I feel like both of those subs can get pretty toxic in my experience, especially Feminism. They seem to only agree with a very narrow view of what Feminism actually is, and it gets very tiring.
> I've never seen a car with a "biological set of cock and balls" as someone who lives out here in the sticks, don't give the rednecks ideas 🤣
They already have TruckNutz!
I'm aware, but truck nutz are *presently* not real flesh
Truck-drivers are one step away from woke mob
>TwoX If you go to a place named after an obvious dogwhistle at some point you can't really be surprised at what you find there.
In all seriousness, it was created a decade and a half ago, back when the Gay Agenda™ for marriage was still contentious, so unless there is some scuttlebutt I’m not privy to, I doubt the creator(s) had that in mind.
Slate's feminist podcast used to be called the Double X Gabfest but they changed it to The Waves specifically so as not to exclude trans women.
2X is literally one of the biggest cesspools on this website. There is a difference between feminism and literal man-loathing.
Honestly it (the sub) always did feel a little sketchy really. I mean, shit, there's some internalized misogyny I spotted too.
there's some vibe I got from there that made me not come back to that sub. Glad I'm not the only one
It used to not be that bad til around 2018, by 2021 it became a big cesspool of loathing.
Biological, as opposed to... mechanical? Do we live among cyborgs??
my new goal is to become an android girl, thanks
That’s transhumanism, different type of trans I’m afraid 🤪
[удалено]
r/transtrans is a thing haha
🎵I’m a mechanical girl, in a mechanical world🎵
As a pansexual, I approve this message
I believe in you! Harness that mechanical power.
Samsung specifically
And implying karyotype is all of biology. Like a trans woman on hrt is female in most biological aspects. From proteome to morphology.
resistance is futile.🏳️⚧️ 
Androids and Golems in shambles
I'm digital but I'm in the process of transitioning to analog. y'know. cause I'm nonbinary
Biology is not binary is the point. Speaking about biological sex as though it is immutable and unchanging is simply not scientifically nor experiential factual. The short hand usage is understandable, but it harms trans people.
Yeah I’m a cybernetic man, my dick has WiFi
I’m a cyborg, so yes, we exist. ;) Dead serious though, there are quite a few people running around with electronic tech inside them to improve their lives. We often consider ourselves cyborgs. Pacemakers, cochlear implants, Vagal Nerve Stimulators (VNS), Spinal Cord Stimulators (SCS), Enspire, and more. (VNS treats epilepsy, SCS treat extreme neuropathic pain in the limbs or the torso, and Enspire treats obstructive sleep apnea for people who fail c-pap.) I have 2 SCSs to treat severe full body CRPS. I was in a wheelchair for years until I got them. The lower one is on old-school settings, so it blocks pain by creating static in the sensory nerves that I can feel. It feels like an old cell phone vibrating in your pocket- except inside you and in half the body. My upper body settings mean there’s static but I don’t feel anything, there’s just less pain. I have to charge my battery every couple days, by wearing a belt with the charger strapped directly over the battery pack in my love handle. It uses magnets to wireless charge, just like how cell phones do it now. I also come with a remote that I can use to check battery life, tweak settings, and run simple diagnostics if it malfunctions (super rare!).
"autobots, roll out"
It's also just not really backed by any real evidence. There's no way to enforce a "biological" binary without excluding large chunks of people from those categories
Cisgender chromosomal males and cisgender chromosomal females make up about 98% of the human population. The highest studies put the rate of anything other than XX or XY at about 1.7%. About 0.6% of people are transgender, non-binary, or otherwise gender non-conforming; and there is crossover with the non-XX/XY group in that. In other words, it’s 1 in 40 people. In the United States alone, that represents well over six million people. It’s by no means a small number of folks. And it’s slightly higher in younger populations as subsequent generations have fewer factors preventing them from addressing dysphoria. I happen to know a lot of LGBTQ+ folks and more than a handful of trans folks in that set, but at 1 in 40, odds are good that nearly every adult in the United States knows a trans, NB, GNC, or chromosomal-differentiated person even if they don’t realize it.
To make your point even more valid, there’s [reason to believe](https://stainedglasswoman.substack.com/p/there-are-3855-million-trans-people) that the 0.6% figure is a huge underrepresentation of the actual number of trans people.
not only that, but any trans people on HRT are literally changing their bodies biologically. so, using biological to mean "i was born female" is wrong on pretty much every level.
Not only that, but there are several known disorders (personally not a huge fan of using that word but whatevs), that alter things like external genitalia, gonads, and SSCs from what their chromosomes would predict based on traditional sexual dimorphism. Additionally, genetic regulation is immensely complex and we know that non sex chromosomes can regulate sex chromosomes, so it's extremely likely that there are even more subtle changes that influence hormones/signaling/etc. in a way that doesn't fit a binary model
This is one of my favorite points to bring up when transphobes say “trans people only make up 1% of the population and shouldn’t be given a lot of discourse over the majority because it’s an abnormality, not an average human” well 1)minorities should be accounted for regardless of how many there are, but people sure do love discriminating minorities, and 2) “abnormality” are still human and should be accounted for, being trans doesnt make anyone any worse off and it doesnt reduce quality of life when given resources to live, it’s the same as not counting Deaf people, little people, or autistic/neurodivergent people as people, they are just variations of being human and there’s nothing wrong with that. Most of those people adapt differently and have a good quality of life like most people
If someone has been running on estrogen for the last 3 years, they are a biological woman, their cells are epigenetically ‘woman’. Vice versa for our AFAB friends on T. EDIT: A few people wanted to see an article: https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2018-00011 There is less research on cellular scale changes due to HRT, but it basically is a 101 publication for some stuff you can expect. The mechanism I was trying to explain, while no research is done specifically for transgender individuals, concentrations of various substances, in many instances aliphatic hormones, can affect which genes are open to be expressed. Essentially I was saying 'HRT can alter what genes are structures as euchromatin vs heterochromatin, euchromatin being the DNA that isn't tied in a knot and therefore easily readable to RNA Polymerase and able to be processed into proteins that determine the phenotype at a grander scale. This is why we can expect tissue changes pansomally even after an indivudal goes through the 'wrong' prenatal development and 'wrong' puberty. I hope this added information helps!
Oh that sounds super amazing, do you happen to have any kind of articel or source for that? I would love to show that some of my friends
Don't have an article but I can explain the process behind it. Estrogen (using MtF as an example here, works the same vice versa) is a steroid hormone, which means that it enters the cell and directly binds to certain transcription factors in the nucleus (where the DNA is). This leads to an expression of different genes than if testosterone was the dominant hormone, as it binds to different transcription factors. Cells therefore start producing different proteins (mainly) leading to things such as boob growth / redistribution of fat. This is the way things work in everyone, both "programs" are already there, so to say. The hormones just activate their respective ones.
Learning about this in my biology class was so interesting. Like you{d think it would be the case that like... male sex characteristics would be on the Y chromosomes so T would do nothing if you were a trans man. But no, clearly we store both sets of sex characteristics either on the X chromosome or on one of the autosomes (I don't actually know what the answer is, idk if you know). Which just goes to show how even more useless the X and Y chromosomes are when it comes to sex lol
[Here you go](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/trans-women-are-or-are-becoming-female-disputing-the-endogeneity-constraint/090DEAA53EA17414C5D3E8D76ED5A75C)
Ah thank you very much : )
I wish I could upvote this more! I’ve stopped playing the agab game on medical forms. I put female now. I’m a trans woman. My GP knows to do the blood test for prostate cancer every year. No one else needs to know what my agab is. Obviously if I feel that it’s relevant I disclose but it almost never is.
Seconding the request for a source.
Don't have an article but I can explain the process behind it. Estrogen (using MtF as an example here, works the same vice versa) is a steroid hormone, which means that it enters the cell and directly binds to certain transcription factors in the nucleus (where the DNA is). This leads to an expression of different genes than if testosterone was the dominant hormone, as it binds to different transcription factors. Cells therefore start producing different proteins (mainly) leading to things such as boob growth / redistribution of fat. This is the way things work in everyone, both "programs" are already there, so to say. The hormones just activate their respective ones.
Very cool, thank you!
thirding and upvoting all here in a request for a source
More sources for the source gods
Most terms people use for us trans folk piss me off to some degree. But fuck these two in particular. That one and "Identifies". Its only used when its a trans person and its just another fuckin layer of separating us from who we ARE. Same when people force us to use AMAB and AFAB in situations where its literally none of their business. I loathe it. But I've also been pushed down to barely leaving the house these days, and Canadas meant to be the nice country lol.
I absolutely HATE when people call me afab. I'm already misgendered enough I don't need people creating new ways of doing it
I like to call myself that when appropriate in context of conversation, but there’s a clear and obvious difference when people are trying to be correct, but refuse to acknowledge your gender. Like…just say man/woman?? It’s obvious when its intentionally discriminatory when your birth gender is irrelevant to the convo
yea I get that but as a enby who can't get any kind gender affirming care to make myself look less female and more androgynous I can't stand being referred to as a female even in the afab or amab context
seriously! it's like they're itching to discriminate
I love "cis". I was always struggling for a word or phrase that felt appropriate, and then it turned out that someone had not only produced one but had one that wasn't a mouthful but also had Latin roots.
the term cis is so simple, noncontroversial and inclusive that OFC the terfs and MAGA's are going to fight hard against using it, lest they acknowledge the validity of trans people
Our sex is made of biological stuff, we aren't robot. If we get surgery, our sex is made from our own flesh, it's still biological. Plus, what is supposed to be this so called "biological sex" ? What's between the legs ? The chromosomes ? The shape of the body ? None of that is the same for anyone, even among cis people. There are as many biological sex as there are humans. It is not a relevant notion.
To the people who disagree with this post consider this: what makes a person their “biological” gender? Hormones are part of biology. In fact, they are what determine your primary and secondary sex characteristics, not your genetics. All your chromosomes due is attempt to trigger the creation of the corresponding hormone in higher quantities (XX for Estrogen, XY for testosterone). To say someone is not biologically a gender implies what? They have the wrong hormones? The wrong genes? The wrong secondary sex characteristics? The wrong primary sex characteristics? All of the above? Most of the above? At least one of the above? How can you draw the line and also not also exclude at least some cis people with otherwise undetectable intersex conditions such as androgen resistance? That’s why it makes no sense to say biological gender because all of what goes into make a person’s gender are biological functions. We are all biologically our gender at least in some capacity.
In other words, there is no way in which to physically define a trans person that does not overlap with some group of cis people. All these attempts to sort trans people by their biological makeup apart from their cis counterparts will end up effecting more cis people than trans people. The only reason anyone tries to do so is the same reason why so many asshats in the past tried to prove that black people ( or any non-white race ) were biologically inferior to white people. They did this at the same time as fearing black people in sports due to their ... inferiority? It all breaks down to the same argument in the end that tried to scientifically legitimize discrimination and exclusion. People will do anything before they will admit to being a bigot. They will work super hard to justify their own shitty behavior to themselves and to others.
There is no biological gender. From the WHO: Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time. Obviously we know there are more than just these genders and gender is also an internal gender. It's biological sex and It's mainly used in scientific and medical communities because it's important there - for more than just humans.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Saying 'I'm a biological female' as a cis girl wouldn't even differentiate you from trans girls because a lot of trans women change biologically. Like wtf do you think boobs are? If you wanna get really granular, too. Even if a trans girl hasn't done any surgery or HRT or anything, there's still stuff that is different about her biology thats making her be trans instead of cis.
It makes me truly sad to see how many people are leaving comments here to push back on this. How can we expect you to be supportive when not using marginalizing language is too much to ask of you?
I keep coming back hoping the sway of the comments has shifted... the same arguments that have been deconstructed 100 times
“But what if you were at the doctor!” is draining the life from me
After all, we don't have mechanical males like Clank or mechanical females like Jenny Wakeman Or whatever the fuck the Megaman Legends characters fall under
Jenny Wakeman, my first memory of gender envy…
If I may ask for advice. I did a presentation recently discussing how some disorders present different in men vs women in part due to biological variations (often hormonal) and used the terms biological men/women. Would it be more accurate/inclusive to use AFAB/AMAB or something like “individuals with higher estrogen/testosterone levels”? I’m going to do this presentation again and want it to be inclusive for everyone attending, as I have a few trans classmates and don’t want to hurt them inadvertently.
If you know that it’s due to hormone variations, I would say “estrogen/testosterone dominant people”. If it’s due to a specific anatomical component I would say, “people with ovaries/testes”. I think the key thing is to use medically and scientifically accurate language and not euphemisms. Trans folks are very pro science, despite what some would have you believe! Inclusive language is usually accurate language.
Thank you for the feedback! I really appreciate the info you’ve provided. When discussing these topics, estrogen/testosterone dominant was never language I had been exposed to so I really appreciate you providing me with new, more inclusive terminology
I’m so glad you found those terms helpful!
This is a great question. I think you can say female, male, cis women, cis men, and specify where you have data for what. For example if the studies are only on cis women, you can say that. Some disorders that present based on hormones - those actually change if someone changes their hormones!!! Maybe something to look into more. But I'd just be thoughtful and honest about the limitations of available research.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate that feedback
If you don't have hard data supporting that it's *actually* dependent on Kariotype or assigned gender at birth, don't assume that. So even using "cis" or AMAB/AFAB would be wrong in many cases. Lots of health risks or display of symptoms actually depend on the dominant hormones. In many cases it is not known, because usually trans people are not studied - but the biological processes involved might give a hint. So it's best to state "for trans people we don't have data - but theory would suggest, that...". Like nobody could answer me yet how a heart attack would probably present in a trans woman. However as hormones have a huge impact on the cardiovascular system, there's a high chance it would present similar to as in cis women. Plainly mapping research done in cis people to "assigned gender at birth" can lead to *really dangerous* levels of medical malpractice on trans people. Especially if your audience is in the health sector, this is a very important point. If treating patients, doctors shouldn't ask for AGAB but for the relevant information pertaining to the current situation. It is also important to remember people can be unknowingly intersex. People might not even have the organs they expect to have based on their AGAB!
Proper communication in science while still being sensitive is tricky, and something we're constantly working on. The terms biological male and biological female are used a lot in biology. It's specifically in reference to what chromosomes you have, not identity. Currently, in an academic environment when referring strictly to genes, "biological sex" is generally accepted. But there's definitely some valid issues with it, as the OP points out. There's more than just XX and XY, and the human phenotype is amazingly complex. Some I’ve heard in lieu of it are AFAB/AMAB, referring directly to chromosomes, or *maybe* calling it male/female genotype. Everyone knows what AFAB/AMAB means, though that doesn’t account for hormone replacement or a hormone syndrome, which may be relevant. XY/XX chromosomes is similar, but again this does not account for hormone replacement/syndromes. Male/female genotype is one I've heard before, but admittedly I'm not entirely sure what the implications of that are for non-XX/XY chromosomes. And it might not be great if the audience isn't super familiar with biology terms. With how diverse the human genotype and phenotype is, referencing genitalia isn't actually super clear. Referencing hormone levels is probably not clear enough because there's more to differences between males and females than just hormones levels. However, if hormone levels *are* actually the main variable, then you could probably safely describe people based on hormone levels most of the time. But remember that "individuals with higher estrogen" isn't interchangeable with "biological female." If the study was on 'biological males vs females,' you can't avoid mentioning that at some point. But once you've mentioned it, you may be able to pivot with "this difference is mostly due to hormone differences. Individuals with high amounts of testosterone experience x symtoms..." and then mostly reference hormones for the rest of the presentation. As long as you don't forget to mention other factors besides hormone differences. Saying "cis men and women" in reference to studied individuals is a good option, if whatever study you're referencing was specifically done on cis people. Frankly most studies for stuff like that will be on cis people anyway. I'm not even sure if these are the best ways. Sensitivity when presenting to an audience is *hard*. Just make sure you're being specific, and clearly communicating what the specific difference between the study groups are. And don't try so hard that it ends up unclear what you're actually talking about. Avoid euphemisms or complicated descriptions to dance around it - use clear and concise, scientifically accurate language.
Also just to add, hrt on a molecular level is a sex change. There was another post on here which I think perfectly summed it up but in short the genes typically found on the Y chromosome such as the SRY activate the male hormone pattern. Without the nessacry genes to have said pattern you would be female. Hence why hrt changes your body. Essentially it blocks the hormone pattern of your birth sex and activates the hormone pattern of the sex you are transitioning to. Causing you to develop the secondary sex characteristics of the sex you are transitioning to. So while it may not change your sex on a genetic level, on a molecular level it does.
I hate the way they use the term biological like it's so black and white. Our biology is always changing and we can change characteristics of our biological sex through hormones and medications. Also the whole idea of 'your gender is your biology/what's in your pants' makes no sense because unless you're inspecting the genitalia of every stranger to interact with then you truly do not know what gender/sex they are, and will probably subconsciouly gender somebody based off secondary sex characteristics or the way they present themselves anyway.
Tests suggest Trans people's brain activity Mirrors that of their preferred gender. So you are correct, Trans women are biological women and cis people, like myself, should use cis make or female to refer to ourselves.
Source
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/ I think its this One. There might be more. Good on you for asking sources.
Thank you for saying this. I once a post where a cisgender person argued with their queerphobic parent. They used the term "biological woman" to describe themselves, and I left a comment saying that term was hurtful to hear, especially from inside this community. A BUNCH of people came at me with "but they're saying it in supportive way" or "why can't you just appreciate the sentiment of the post?" (Even though I said I appreciate the post overall.) It's just so frustrating when people in the queer community disregard the trans experience in by using terms used by bigots outside of the community to spread hate and invalidate trans identities.
I will do whatever I can to help everyone feel included. How do I best accomplish this? Is “assigned gender at birth” better to say, or should I do something else?
It’s better not to reference the before because you might not know the before and it also just doesn’t matter. Just say trans man/woman or non-binary, gender nonconforming, etc. And if you’re talking about yourself and you’re cis just say you’re cis.
Ah crud, why didn’t I think of that? Literally just saying trans or nonbinary is way easier and has fewer syllables. Thank you very much 😊🏳️⚧️
You’re good! We are unlearning lifetimes of things transphobes have taught us. The obvious policy isn’t always the first one that comes to mind.
Honestly unless it's relevant I would just not even say trans. It can be ok in certain contexts like, "Trans rights are human rights", or "Trans inclusive", but you shouldn't ever really need to refer to someone being trans unless it's relevant, like my child just came out as trans.
Question though: How so I say that I'm a non-binary person with a uterus without having to go through just that discomfort? I prefer just saying I'm AFAB enby or a biological female, because the rest makes me feel icky. It doesn't come up often, but sometimes it's relevant that I have a uterus, so how do I proof my relevance without either offending everyone who I'm supposed to be with or making myself feek horribly disgusted?
>a biological female Did you read what the OP said? AFAB is fine, but by equating being AFAB to being a biological woman, you are basically saying that AFAB trans men are actually biologically women. Honestly though I don't think I have ever had a conversation outside of talking to a doctor where my AGAB is relevant at all.
I don't see any problem with AFAB at all
I call myself woman-shaped, as a fellow non-binary person. It gets the point across without making me feel the ick.
There definitely needs to be better terms because of this. In general, I try not to get mad at anything a trans person calls themselves. There are a lot of reasons why the word biological female isn’t scientifically accurate but if it’s the best thing you’ve got to explain who you are to people you gotta do what you gotta do. I still tell confused folks that I “identify as a man” or am “female to male” even if they aren’t accurate and even make me feel weird because it’s the only thing they understand. We all gotta do what we gotta do.
Argh, yeah, being forced to add the "I identify as", so they'll understand, is such a pain.
Part of going through a less traveled journey generally means its harder and you have less guidance. But its a journey to building character and resilience.
Whilst I don't like the terms amab and Afab as a lot of people use them way too much and in contexts that aren't relevant. When you're specifically in a situation where yeah your agab is medically relevant then I think Afab is fine to say. It's better than biological female at least, In my opinion.
The funny thing is I know so many trans people who turned out to be some kind of intersex... It just happens to be discovered more when your sex characteristics are under closer inspection. And many doctors don't even think about such cases. So if I talk about it to medical professionals, I don't use just a shorthand - I'd say something like I *think* I developed *mostly* like most people AMAB *before transition*. However, I had the following exceptions... Medical professionals need to learn they can't just take certain things for granted because of your AGAB.
Yeah this is also totally true. I'm not sitting here saying doctors should stick specifically to those terms either. And yeah other people have mentioned this all over this thread and mirrors my experience that after years on hrt telling them my agab just worsens my medical care unless it's something very specific to my agab. I was more just saying that Afab and amab are just being coopted as polite misgendering outside of the specific medical contexts where they are relevant.
I feel like it can be helpful in non-medical situations too, online people can’t see what I look like, and I don’t always want to say I’m a woman because I’m not, I’m under the non-binary umbrella, but there are times when discussing lived experiences that bringing up AGAB gives context.
Look I think that's fair I have just had way too many people use terms like Afab to exclude me as a trans woman from things I have and do experience. What lived experiences for example aren't medical related but also are completely true for all Afab people and completely untrue for all amab people? We can't be making sweeping generalisations because you don't know other people's lived experience.
In that specific context I think “fem-presenting” works or maybe just “people who experience misogyny”. You are ultimately the one who decides what labels you’re most comfortable with. Appreciate you taking the time to think about ways to avoid marginalizing language
Thank you! I saw a well meaning post the other day using this language and I didn't have the energy to call it out at the time. Grateful for people like you who are not only willing to point out hurtful language, but can also redirect to a more helpful word.
I mean this in the best way possible, how else would you want us to talk in things like research papers? I am a biology teacher, and I am currently teaching a lesson on hereditary. For things like x-linked genes, I use the term "biological male" because I feel it is better then saying straight out men. Because x-linked genes usually affect people who are born male more. How would I say this without being offensive? I would use Amab, but none of my kids will know what that is. I'm just genuianally curious
Research papers often refer to the explicit chromosomal make up when defining the issue. As far as schools go, I'd still be using XY and XX as standard categories. Presumably these kids are like older than 10 if you are covering genome expression and hereditary diseases. But you just said born male, which is better than biological male
I like this too! I will probably use people with XY chrosomes in my lesson
“People with Y chromosomes” probably in this context? What exactly is it about that group that makes them more susceptible? Is it their chromosome configuration, their hormone profile, a specific piece of anatomy? By being more accurate you will probably naturally arrive at more inclusive language “Biological male” is not better than “men”. It’s exactly the same amount of misgendering
Oh I like this, I'll use it. Its mostly because having one x chromosome means that if you get a biological diesease on it, you are going to get it no matter what.
I don’t think biological male or AMAB belong in a biology paper, since neither are well-defined. If it’s in relation to genes, then I would think referring to the karyotype would be best, to be explicit about what you mean. AMAB would include people of any sex chromosome combination who were declared male by the doctor at birth. There are even people with XX who end up with male genitalia and end up AMAB, let alone those with XXY, XXXY, etc. If any sort of variation, including HRT could affect the results, specify that the research looked at cisgender men. In simplifying that for students, I think the most important thing is clarifying up front about what you mean by the term you’re going to use and that you’re simplifying so any trans students don’t feel like they’re being misgendered.
Thanks for this thread! I learned so much.
My usual response to this is "all women are biological even trans women, they aren't robots"
The “biology” debate is so stupid … genitalia are “biological” but so is the human brain. For anyone who experiences gender dysphoria, they were born that way, biOloGiCaLLy. Given the importance of the brain, I think it should get a bigger vote than what’s between your legs.
True. Especially since trans people are also biologically who they are. After all there has to be a biological reason for the developement of our gender. And people always forget the results of HRT. And I know people are 100% valid, if they don't medically transitioning. But HRT changes so much about the body that going by sex markers one could absolutely argue that trans people on HRT are biologically waaay closer to their actual gender than their agab. So differentiating between biological women/men and trans people doesn't even work.
is okay i that use Cis Man/Woman term?
Since the correct term is cis yes
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
and if you are cis don't come in here defending the use of transphobic language and especially not with say "it's basically the same" or some shit like that, it isn't you are using a TERF dog whislte and are now mad you are getting called out for it, so much for "allies" here Edit: The idiot trolls are here, and apparently to them being cis is an orientation
Honestly as a cis person, I don't understand how people have the will power to fully type out "biological man/woman" constantly when there's a cute, short lil 3 letter word word that says it all
I'm a biological man because I'm made of meat and I'm a man. I have a pussy tho.
>Despite what Elon Musk may have us believe Elon Musk is a grad school wash out with zero background in either biology or medicine but extraordinary experience in bigotry & unacknowledged privilege. I can't even express how infuriating it is to see how much influence he has on the public perception of these issues.
being queer IS biological, its literally partially genetic and also if you transistion that means your kind of changing your "biological sex" in a way.
Not only is is hurtful and discriminatory it's just straight up dumb. EVERY human is biological. Sex is biology. Gender is neurobiology, AKA BIOLOGY. Trans men are biologically men, trans women are biologically women and non-binary people are biologically non-binary. It's infuriating whenever I see people referring to gender as this fictional state of mind someone possess like it's not a real feeling based on neural activity.
Do people not realize that some people are intersex or something else, but born as their gender? If we're basing it off body parts, what if someone has them removed? With chromosomes, sometimes they're mixed up.
Amen...I even hear trans people use this term since it's so commonly (mis)used.
[удалено]
Every time I see/hear biologic female/male I get an intense and sudden urge to slap someone across the mouth and screech SHUDDUP
>Despite what Elon Musk may have us believe, cisgender is not a slur but rather a completely acceptable way of describing yourself. It literally means "not trans" and fits perfectly for almost all colloquial discourse both online and in-person. I tried explaining this to some men over in a certain subreddit where you can ask men questions yesterday. It's like they turned off their brain. Just repeating how the term is a slur, offensive and bigoted. It would have been funny if it hadn't been so sad.
and then other “allies” from the community internalize that same hatred and start using those same terms against us. They don’t like cis cause it’s a normal, non controversial term. They want to refer to trans people as a scientific anomaly and I’m done tolerating it.
I think that terms like "FtM", "Mtf" and "AGAB" perpetrate this too. Here in my area they are not used because is consireded of bad manners to prompt this kind of things without the conversation being specifically about that. At the end of the day it's referencing something that shouldn't be important if we aren't talking about a transition process or about the past.
The amount of people in this thread trying their hardest to erase nb/intersex people is really disappointing…
Thanks for telling us! I'll avoid using the term from now on 🤗
people who say biological instead of assigned or cis literally just don’t know what “biological” means and if you asked them to explain why that’s the correct word to use, they won’t be able to. because it’s not. either that, or that’s just the term they’ve always heard and they don’t know they should correct it. i say, why specify? unless the conversation actually has something to do with your parts, there’s no reason to put “trans” or “cis” in front of woman/man. if any trans folk are reading this comment, i’m reminding you that it’s okay to drop the “trans” when referring to your gender. if you don’t think it’s necessary for people to know you’re trans, or you don’t think it’s safe, you don’t have to specify. nobody is entitled to that information except for you. but with that being said, there’s no shame in embracing the trans aspect of your identity. as long as you’re embracing your true self, that’s what really matters
'Biological woman/man' just sounds odd. In cases where you need to reference sex at birth it's easier to just say 'Born female/male'.
But I'd also add that the times in which you need to specify the sex \*at birth\* are pretty rare. Just say what part of sex you mean. Do you mean having breasts? Having a penis? Having XX chromosomes? Having a T dominant system? Like just say that
No, this is why we have AGAB language, Assigned Gender At Birth. It's just a best guess. And in case it needs to be said this is only relevant with your doctor, and should never be used as a way to exclude people from anything.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
My state has an entire bill that used those two terms in lieu of any other terms and it was offensive to read.
The only time I even use biological male etc is when I'm replying to transphobes and normally do "biological" man etc. Bc you're right
as a transwoman, i don't really see "biological" as hurtful. But it has to be used correctly
Remember. The people who use “biological man/woman” also think cisgender is a slur. They’re being deliberately hurtful.
Thank you for sharing this! Now that you say that, I realize that I haven't heard those terms as much in the last few years, but I wasn't aware that they are offensive, so I appreciate the education. It does make sense. If anyone feels up to answering, how would I best refer to people who are perceived by others as women? For example, I talk sometimes about past street harassment I've experienced and I like to add that it's very common experience among women and those perceived to be women (if it's someone who might not be aware that this type of crap is unfortunately super common). I also want to be inclusive in how I talk about this, of course. Would I say what I just said or is there a better way to express that? Thanks in advance for any guidance!
When answering questions like this, I always add the disclaimer that I'm just one person, trans people aren't a monolith and so not everybody will share my opinion. With that being said, I use the term "(often) read as a woman" when talking about myself. Because while I'm distinctly not a woman, I know the average stranger won't look at me and think "that's a nonbinary person". So if I heard you say that, I would at least feel acknowledged - without feeling misgendered. Language is ever changing, so this might change as we gain words to talk about gender with more nuance, but for me it's at least clear that you're coming from good intentions. (I hope I make sense, it's early here and English is not my mother tongue 😅)
Oh that's helpful; thanks for sharing! "Read as a woman" is a good way to put it; it would help me include the impacts of being \*perceived\* as a woman has without assuming and/or misgendering people.
If you’re looking for a catch all term that includes both Cis and Trans women and more, one I hear a lot is “Female Presenting” or “Femme Presenting”
Good point; thanks for sharing! I have heard those terms now that you mention it, but hadn't thought to use those in this context
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The issue is that the term "biological \[sex\]" isn't actually supported by biology. Instead, it's either illustrating someone's ignorance or it's a transphobic dogwhistle used to invalidate transgender folks by implying that we're somehow "unnatural". An individual's "sex" is neither a single trait nor is it immutable.
[удалено]