"Biologically male/female" - an outdated (and harmful) notion

besides jargon, english doesn't really have any layman words to describe trangender people. the best we can do is simply "male" or "female", but then we get people who refuse to call them M/F and instead call them he-she's or vice versa.

and also, what carp said.
 
I had honestly never considered that. Are you one of those people?

No. The same logic can be applied to almost all aspects of a person's personality/identity, really. If a part of who you are is seen as 'normal', you tend to just go along with it. But since there will be certain aspects that are 'unusual', or as not being 'the default', by necessity one has to consider those aspects of themselves much more in the context of society as a whole.

It's common for it to be said, "So what, just enjoy what you want to enjoy, it doesn't matter what sex you are" Not only will said person often not be telling the truth with such a statement (think about how much society ostracises the idea of a man wearing a dress or a skirt), but it also conflates the idea of 'gender identity' (an intrinsic sense of how you see yourself) and 'gender expression' (how 'masculine' or 'feminine' your mannerisms and behaviour are perceived to be). The latter is especially prone to change over time - a good modern example is the idea of pink being a girls' colour and blue being a boys' colour, when before the 1950s it was actually the other way round.

In fact, there's also the whole cultural idea that masculinity is superior to femininity, but I'm starting to veer off-topic a bit...


I don't know much about this subject, but I have to admit that for someone to cease to accept their biologically "assigned gender" and decide that their sex shouldn't dictate their identity takes a lot of courage.

Even on a simple level, a man who decides he should be a woman... Well, that takes balls.
...damn it, I knew I wouldn't be able to make a serious post without a bad pun.

Although being transgender certainly isn't easy for anyone, it's even harder on the whole for trans women because there's the whole misogynistic assumption that no one in their right mind would want to be considered a woman if they were 'born male'.

The vast majority of media representation of transgender people focuses on trans women (trans men and non-binary identities tend to be ignored), and most of it is negative. For some teenagers, their only knowledge of transgender issues might stem from something like South Park.

While many are of the opinion that sex dictates gender, I see it as the other way round - your gender dictates your sex.


besides jargon, english doesn't really have any layman words to describe trangender people. the best we can do is simply "male" or "female", but then we get people who refuse to call them M/F and instead call them he-she's or vice versa.

and also, what carp said.

This is very true. The English language is embedded with various such prejudices, and there's not much in the short-term that can be done to escape it. But language does evolve over time, so we'll have to see.

At the very least, the English language isn't nearly as gendered as many other languages are. In French, for instance, every single noun is either masculine or feminine - that must be even harder to circumvent linguistically speaking.
 
Male = member of a species that is capable of impregnating a female member of the same species and producing fertile offspring.
Female = member of a species that is capable of being impregnated by a male member of the same species and bearing fertile offspring.
Hermaphrodite = member of a species that is capable of both being impregnated by and impregnating another member of its species and producing fertile offspring.

Just because someone is born with fucked up genes or genitalia doesn't mean the rules should be changed, it just means they're an exception. You might as well try to argue that humans aren't bipeds because people can be born missing a leg.

Now if you want to argue about gender identity and expression that's a whole different can of worms.
 
Hermaphrodite = member of a species that is capable of both being impregnated by and impregnating another member of its species and producing fertile offspring.

Many intersex people don't have fully functional sexual organs.

While many are of the opinion that sex dictates gender, I see it as the other way round - your gender dictates your sex.

This implies that if some one becomes transgender, they're sex organs and/or chromosomes magically change.
 
Just because someone is born with fucked up genes or genitalia doesn't mean the rules should be changed, it just means they're an exception. You might as well try to argue that humans aren't bipeds because people can be born missing a leg.
So....being LGBT means you have a birth defect?
I heard an anthropologist pose his theory on "teh gay gene". He proposed that it's an evolutionary trait with social benefits. He noticed that gays are born at the same frequency of color-blind and left-handed people (about 1 in 9 to 1 in 12). He said that when we were hunter-gatherers our hunting parties typically consisted of 9 to 12 people too. Assuring that one person in the party would be either color-blind or left-handed. The benefit of a color-blind person in a hunting party was that camouflage doesn't work so well on the color-blind. So, it increased the chance of that party's success. A left-handed person was a benefit because he would be more accurate with a bow and arrow or spear against an animal who happens to run to the left. Apparently, animals tend to zig right. Continuing his line of reasoning he proposed that LGBT's were beneficial to tribes as well due to being able to go between gender roles in a tribe and help the males or the females depending on the task. Especially, while the hunters are away. Prolly a bunch of malarky. But, I thought it was interesting.
 
Male = member of a species that is capable of impregnating a female member of the same species and producing fertile offspring.
Female = member of a species that is capable of being impregnated by a male member of the same species and bearing fertile offspring.
Hermaphrodite = member of a species that is capable of both being impregnated by and impregnating another member of its species and producing fertile offspring.

And what about people who, for whatever reason, are infertile?



This implies that if some one becomes transgender, they're sex organs and/or chromosomes magically change.

It was a bit ambiguous, sorry.

What I mean is that I don't see body parts as being 'male' or 'female', so to speak. And it's not just genitals and chromosomes. In fact, in day to day life we judge people's sex on various other characteristics - facial hair (or lack thereof), skeletal structure, muscle, voice etc.
 
To be honest I've never used any of these things to tell guys and girls apart. And I bet I'm not the only one.
Where I live, there are certain areas of town where you would be well advised to do so.
 
So....being LGBT means you have a birth defect?
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I'm gay but I'm pretty sure if I were to cum inside a woman I could get her pregnant. I just have no inclination to do so because vaginas are gross.

As for infertile people, they're usually born one gender and later become infertile due to external causes. If someone fails to develop functioning genitals for whatever reason, that falls under defect.

The point I'm trying to make is that gender isn't a triangle or some other polygon between male/female/intersex/whatever. It's just a line between male and female, and a normally developed human falls on either end of that line. Some of the unlucky ones get plopped somewhere in the middle, but it doesn't mean they're some magical third gender.
 
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I'm gay but I'm pretty sure if I were to cum inside a woman I could get her pregnant. I just have no inclination to do so because vaginas are gross.

As for infertile people, they're usually born one gender and later become infertile due to external causes. If someone fails to develop functioning genitals for whatever reason, that falls under defect.

The point I'm trying to make is that gender isn't a triangle or some other polygon between male/female/intersex/whatever. It's just a line between male and female, and a normally developed human falls on either end of that line. Some of the unlucky ones get plopped somewhere in the middle, but it doesn't mean they're some magical third gender.
I thought in an earlier post you were comparing being born gay with a birth defect. Obviously, I misunderstood. But we're only thinking in the perspective of our culture. There are other cultures that consider there to be at least 6 sexes. They even celebrate hermaphrodites. I think the western culture likes to over-simplify things into black and white.
 
Right, but he (or she, not specified by the user) is talking about "Biological" sex, which boils down to just male and female.
 
Right, but he (or she, not specified by the user) is talking about "Biological" sex, which boils down to just male and female.
I'm not convinced. If a person's biology doesn't make them gay, straight or in between what does?
 
I'm not convinced. If a person's biology doesn't make them gay, straight or in between what does?

That's a different debate, and perhaps it's best to leave that can of worms unopened for now, no?


To be honest I've never used any of these things to tell guys and girls apart. And I bet I'm not the only one.

It's not a conscious thing. You generally read most people as either male or female pretty much straight away. I'm trying to re-adjust my line of thought so that I don't do that anymore, but it isn't easy...


Right, but he (or she, not specified by the user) is talking about "Biological" sex, which boils down to just male and female.

The thing is, 'male' and 'female' sexes aren't all that different, in many respects. Yes, on average 'males' have more testosterone than 'females', but there's a MASSIVE range of hormone levels amongst both groups. And hormones affect countless secondary sex characteristics like facial features, body hair... That's just one example.

When you look at male and female external genitalia, at the end of the day they're actually very similar.
 
I'm not convinced. If a person's biology doesn't make them gay, straight or in between what does?
Sexuality, sex and sexual identity are completely different things. This argument has nothing to do with sexual orientation (gay, lesbian, etc), but rather with sexual identity and the way we identify people.

The thing is, 'male' and 'female' sexes aren't all that different, in many respects. Yes, on average 'males' have more testosterone than 'females', but there's a MASSIVE range of hormone levels amongst both groups. And hormones affect countless secondary sex characteristics like facial features, body hair... That's just one example..
Biological sex is either male (inserts his genetic material to a female) or female (stores genetic material from the male and combines it with hers to create a new organism). That's what biological sex is. It doesn't matter how much testosterone you make, if you can reproduce by insemination of a female then you're a male. If you have a vagina and can get impregnated, then you're a female. If your hormones or genes put you in the ambiguous middle between the two, they you're intersex. Some people are born infertile, That's all there is as far as biological sex (which not the same as sexual identity).

When you look at male and female external genitalia, at the end of the day they're actually very similar.
Yes the are.
 
Biological sex is either male (inserts his genetic material to a female) or female (stores genetic material from the male and combines it with hers to create a new organism). That's what biological sex is. It doesn't matter how much testosterone you make, if you can reproduce by insemination of a female then you're a male. If you have a vagina and can get impregnated, then you're a female. If your hormones or genes put you in the ambiguous middle between the two, they you're intersex. That's all there is as far as biological sex (which not the same as sexual identity).

Again, this definition relies on all people being able to procreate.
 
Again, this definition relies on all people being able to procreate.
You are right. I stand corrected.

Still. The line between male and female seems pretty clear to me. Even intersex people define themselves as either one.
 
You are right. I stand corrected.

Still. The line between male and female seems pretty clear to me. Even intersex people define themselves as either one.

Many do, but not necessarily all.

I find that pictures are often helpful when trying to get your point across, so here's a picture of different levels of androgen insensitivity syndrome:

Quigley_scale_for_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome.jpg


Now, at which point do you draw the line at male and female genitalia? And this is just one intersex condition among countless, which can lead to all sorts of genital configurations.

The reason this is a big deal is because medical surgery to 'correct' the condition can often severely harm the child in the long-term, and in most cases it isn't required to allow the patient to function normally.
 
Back