• 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.