• GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Sorry, but what’s so complicated about the biology that we don’t understand “biological male”? The mere fact a child had a penis at birth means that they’re a biological male; therefore, are then assigned male at birth. I’m confused, and need some clarification.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Is an intersex person biologically male and female then?

      Is a person with xy chromosomes and a vagina but no penis female?

      That’s the issue. Male and female sex assignments are a binary based in language, social relations, and the opinion of the Dr making the assignment based on the information they have. And a binary doesn’t allow for all of the variations we’re aware of, let alone the ones we’re not.

      Hence, assigned sex. Not biological sex.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        You are claiming that biological male and female has no use because of the edge cases where its not so clear, but its still useful most the time.

        Besides, assigned at birth is pretty clear too. Doesnt say assigned at birth and can never change or assigned at birth and we are super sure.

        You can’t just say people can’t use a bunch of words because transphobes have used it as an insult. The words are still meaningful, and hateful people will say literally anything. Why give them any power in the first place?

        If someone says some awful transphobic shit, then fuck their opinion and fuck them and move on with your day. They aren’t suddenly some messiah giving you gospel. Dont let them live rent free in your head.

        • treefrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          It’s not about it being an insult. It’s about being skeptical of the existence of trans people and using language to affect our very real material conditions, like access to healthcare or using bathrooms we feel safe in.

          Assigned sex at birth is both more accurate, and more inclusive.

          • nomous@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Hey look the firing squad is starting to bend in towards itself.

            We gotta make sure we use the right words before we can even begin to have a productive conversation, if those words change every 6 months that’s just too bad, use the current one or you’re a bigot.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      What about people with testis but no penis? What about people with XY chromosomes but a vagina? What about people with a penis and vagina?

      “Basic biology” is the problem. You think a high school course was enough for you to have a complete understanding of biology. Biology is complex and messy, which your class didn’t discuss. It taught rigid definitions, which don’t exist in nature. Hormones define biological development. Every individual has different levels of different hormones, and also things just happen strangely sometimes too.

      There’s also an issue with intersex people where some are born with both male and female genitals and the doctor (without consulting anyone else) may remove components the baby was born with to make them fit the rigid definition of male or female that they decided.

      Nature is complex. Not understanding the complexity is fine, as long as you don’t pretend to. If you insist that your understanding is complete though then you’re arrogant and ignorant. It’s best not to be that way because it prevents learning and improving yourself.

    • Fiona@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I haven’t even had bottom surgery yet, but thanks to HRT my metabolism is much more in line with that of a typical woman than that of a man. Meaning that it is much more accurate to refer to me as a biological woman than as a biological man. So saying I’m the later isn’t just insulting, it is even scientifically incorrect. A trans woman who has received bottom surgery is in fact for pretty much all intents and purposes the same as a cis woman who has received a radical hysterectomy. Unless you call that kind of cis woman a biological man, doing the same to the trans woman is just as nonsensical.

      And yes, this really affects pretty much everything: The treatment of things like brain tumors depends on biological sex and if you treat a trans woman like a man you are going to see the same bad outcomes that treating a cis woman like a man would have. Because again: Trans woman are (from a certain point in their transition onwards) biological women. Yes, it changes, get over it.

      The reason to talk about amab/afab is specifically because they are the only terms that are reasonably consistent in all edge cases, except clerical errors.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Amab and afab are equivalent to biological male or female, just less explicit I suppose.

        Would you still argue that you are more biologically female than male if you considered that your DNA in every bit of your body still has the male set of chromosome?

        I’m not arguing against you, more so arguing that the distinction doesnt much matter and could be argued either way. I’d rather just take someone’s word for it when they say who they are. Thats the whole point isnt it, acceptance?

        • treefrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Thats the whole point isnt it, acceptance?

          Right, and ‘biological sex’ is used as an exclusionary weapon that affects material policies.

          Would you still argue that you are more biologically female than male if you considered that your DNA in every bit of your body still has the male set of chromosome?

          There’s people assigned female at birth with those chromosomes. Are they ‘biologically male or female’? That’s a rhetorical question. The point is sex assigned at birth is a more accurate term for what is put on people’s birth certificates. Because sex assignment, and by proxy gender assignment, is based in sociology, not biology. And transphobes love using the argument from nature to justify real world policies and discrimination based on this sociological phenomenon.

          If you’re an ally, please listen to the folks living this and think critically about your own positions regarding these two terms. There’s a lot of excellent literature on the topic and right now more than ever we need solidarity, not more skepticism.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        There’s a lot of trans-medicalism in your post comrade.

        A trans woman is a woman, full stop.

        HRT and bottom surgery doesn’t define a person’s gender. Only affirm it.

        That said, I do like pointing out to transphobes that I have less testosterone and more estrogen than my afab girlfriend thanks to gender affirming care.

    • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Biological sex is not as cut and dry as you might think.

      Assigned male at birth is overall a better more descriptive term, as through medical transition trans people acquire different sexual characteristics.

      I’m not an expert in the field but this is how I’ve seen people more educated than me in biology describe it.