It’s the framing of trans women as “biological men” as opposed to just calling them trans women. It gives ground to the right as trying to frame us trans folk as fakers as opposed to showing us as who we are, trans men and women.
The problem is that “biological man/woman” is a nonsense pseudoscientific term. There’s multiple forms of sex determination: chromosomal, hormonal, and phenotypical, for example. And none of them necessarily reflect gender, which is about how the brain develops.
Chromosomal sex is what most people think of when they use terms like “biological man/woman” but the chromosomes themselves aren’t nearly as important as the SRY gene which, if present and active, triggers an embryo to develop hormonally and phenotypically male sex characters and male gender. But the SRY gene isn’t always where it’s supposed to be or working how it’s supposed to work, which can cause mismatches between sexual development and gender.
And that’s only one known potential cause due somebody to be transgender. There are more that we know of, and probably more that we don’t know of.
So yeah, “biological male/female” is a gross oversimplification to the point of being straight up bullshit.
This is spot on. At best, they could substitute “genotypic man/woman,” but “biological” is nonsense. It’s really only used to imply that gender identity is not biological, but of course it is.
I mean, this is supposed to be where the distinction between sex and gender comes up. So it’d be incorrect to say trans women are men, but correct (I guess) to say they’re male. I don’t know, I might be behind the times.
Biology is not that cut and dry. If you medically transition you’re somewhere in the middle, and that’s important for your healthcare. As in, maybe you need breast cancer checks that you didn’t need before, things like that.
OK, so you recognize intersex people. Good. Let’s start there. So we can have people who appear like men or women who actually have the genitals of the opposite (or both), right? OK, so what caused that development? Usually it’s related to chromosomes, but that isn’t actually the cause. The thing that creates the differentiation is what hormones they have. The chromosomes usually are what controls their output though, so it’s correlated.
OK, so we recognize that hormones are the thing that actually causes this. What happens when we artificially control what hormones are in the body? Does it matter what could have happened if we subvert that and control it manually? Which part is biologically deciding their gender? Isn’t it the thing actually being expressed? If that’s the case, then aren’t they biologically women?
There’s more to biology than you learned in your high school bio class (that you probably failed). “Basic biology” is, as the name implies, basic and not a full understanding. Anyone appealing to “basic biology” is admitting they don’t actually understand any more than that.
(Just FYI so you can know where I’m coming from, I’m a cisgendered straight white man. This doesn’t effect me directly, so I’m not arguing from self preservation. This shouldn’t matter, but some people would probably discount the opinions of trans people as “arguing from emotion” or some bullshit just to ignore them.)
If that’s the case, then aren’t they *biologically* women?
Biologically male or female would be more correct as gender is a social construct. Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.
that you probably failed
Sorry to disappoint you but I have never failed a subject and have completed higher education.
”basic biology”
You’re the only person here who has used that term.
Biologically male or female would be more correct as gender is a social construct.
I’m just using the term they used.
Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.
AFAB/AMAB is for the original status.
You’re the only person here who has used that term.
The logic you’re coming from is what’s taught in basic biology. You didn’t use the term, but you used the knowledge. I bet this politician has used the term though, but I’m not going to dig to find out because I don’t really care.
No, it’s not. What part makes someone “biologically” male or female? If their hormones are such that they are growing in the manner you’d expect for a male or female then they are biologically that sex, regardless of what they were at birth. Your chromosomes are not your biology. A(M/F)AB is unambiguous and clear. Biologically male or female could be referring to a number of biological processes in their body, many/most of which are associated with their chosen gender if they’re undergoing HRT.
Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.
We already have a far less problematic set of terms for that: Assigned Male at Birth (AMAB) and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB). “Biological male” is a scientifically misleading phrase that bigots invented to slander trans people and it should not be used by anyone.
Which biological process do you think that term refers to? If you can’t pinpoint a single specific one, and have that make sense and have every person agree with you, then it’s clearly not useful.
The only thing thats useful about it is it allows someone to be a bigot andact like they’re intellectually superior (while also managing to be less precise and generally incorrect).
So my answer must be simple, when discussing a complex topic, but you will circle back to claims of complexity to dismiss anything I say.
That is hardly a good faith response.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
It only needs to be simple if you say it should be simple. Biological male is a bad term because it implies some simple binary, which doesn’t exist. If it does exist, then you should be able to tell me specifically which biological process it refers to.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
Fine answer. OK, so when someone takes HRT they are modifying these biological processes to fit with their chosen gender, correct? So they are now biologically their chosen gender, according to your definition, right? They are not the gender assigned at birth anymore.
What narrative? This is mostly true, and only untrue in cases of transgender women who are intersex AFAIK.
It’s the framing of trans women as “biological men” as opposed to just calling them trans women. It gives ground to the right as trying to frame us trans folk as fakers as opposed to showing us as who we are, trans men and women.
The framing being a fact check on a GOP claim, that a Dem is now being disparaged for including in their ad, that dispells the misinformation.
Lefties hurting themselves in their confusion is just classic.
The problem is that “biological man/woman” is a nonsense pseudoscientific term. There’s multiple forms of sex determination: chromosomal, hormonal, and phenotypical, for example. And none of them necessarily reflect gender, which is about how the brain develops.
Chromosomal sex is what most people think of when they use terms like “biological man/woman” but the chromosomes themselves aren’t nearly as important as the SRY gene which, if present and active, triggers an embryo to develop hormonally and phenotypically male sex characters and male gender. But the SRY gene isn’t always where it’s supposed to be or working how it’s supposed to work, which can cause mismatches between sexual development and gender.
And that’s only one known potential cause due somebody to be transgender. There are more that we know of, and probably more that we don’t know of.
So yeah, “biological male/female” is a gross oversimplification to the point of being straight up bullshit.
This is spot on. At best, they could substitute “genotypic man/woman,” but “biological” is nonsense. It’s really only used to imply that gender identity is not biological, but of course it is.
I think the more important question is “why is that relevant?”
I don’t introduce myself with random facts about my past. “Hi, I once kissed a man on a dare”. That’s not relevant.
It was relevant to the ad to clarify the politicians voting record and counter misinformation being spread by their opponent.
This is very simple and I’m concerned that so many are completely incapable of
I mean, this is supposed to be where the distinction between sex and gender comes up. So it’d be incorrect to say trans women are men, but correct (I guess) to say they’re male. I don’t know, I might be behind the times.
Biology is not that cut and dry. If you medically transition you’re somewhere in the middle, and that’s important for your healthcare. As in, maybe you need breast cancer checks that you didn’t need before, things like that.
lol, turns out that’s not very far
OK, so you recognize intersex people. Good. Let’s start there. So we can have people who appear like men or women who actually have the genitals of the opposite (or both), right? OK, so what caused that development? Usually it’s related to chromosomes, but that isn’t actually the cause. The thing that creates the differentiation is what hormones they have. The chromosomes usually are what controls their output though, so it’s correlated.
OK, so we recognize that hormones are the thing that actually causes this. What happens when we artificially control what hormones are in the body? Does it matter what could have happened if we subvert that and control it manually? Which part is biologically deciding their gender? Isn’t it the thing actually being expressed? If that’s the case, then aren’t they biologically women?
There’s more to biology than you learned in your high school bio class (that you probably failed). “Basic biology” is, as the name implies, basic and not a full understanding. Anyone appealing to “basic biology” is admitting they don’t actually understand any more than that.
(Just FYI so you can know where I’m coming from, I’m a cisgendered straight white man. This doesn’t effect me directly, so I’m not arguing from self preservation. This shouldn’t matter, but some people would probably discount the opinions of trans people as “arguing from emotion” or some bullshit just to ignore them.)
Biologically male or female would be more correct as gender is a social construct. Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.
Sorry to disappoint you but I have never failed a subject and have completed higher education.
You’re the only person here who has used that term.
I’m just using the term they used.
AFAB/AMAB is for the original status.
The logic you’re coming from is what’s taught in basic biology. You didn’t use the term, but you used the knowledge. I bet this politician has used the term though, but I’m not going to dig to find out because I don’t really care.
You’re literally splitting hairs when the phrases mean the same thing.
No, it’s not. What part makes someone “biologically” male or female? If their hormones are such that they are growing in the manner you’d expect for a male or female then they are biologically that sex, regardless of what they were at birth. Your chromosomes are not your biology. A(M/F)AB is unambiguous and clear. Biologically male or female could be referring to a number of biological processes in their body, many/most of which are associated with their chosen gender if they’re undergoing HRT.
We already have a far less problematic set of terms for that: Assigned Male at Birth (AMAB) and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB). “Biological male” is a scientifically misleading phrase that bigots invented to slander trans people and it should not be used by anyone.
The phrase seems to be very clear in meaning, could you tell me what you find misleading about it?
Which biological process do you think that term refers to? If you can’t pinpoint a single specific one, and have that make sense and have every person agree with you, then it’s clearly not useful.
The only thing thats useful about it is it allows someone to be a bigot and act like they’re intellectually superior (while also managing to be less precise and generally incorrect).
So my answer must be simple, when discussing a complex topic, but you will circle back to claims of complexity to dismiss anything I say.
That is hardly a good faith response.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
It only needs to be simple if you say it should be simple. Biological male is a bad term because it implies some simple binary, which doesn’t exist. If it does exist, then you should be able to tell me specifically which biological process it refers to.
Fine answer. OK, so when someone takes HRT they are modifying these biological processes to fit with their chosen gender, correct? So they are now biologically their chosen gender, according to your definition, right? They are not the gender assigned at birth anymore.
HRT is gender affirming care and is not a ‘sex change’ which is outdated and offensive.
It’s odd that you’re trying to ‘debunk’ what you see as a bigoted term and you’ve come full circle to something even worse.
You should look up the difference between sex and gender before you continue arguing down this route.