Gender and Gender Identity

[Shienvien]

From what I understand, sex is determined by chromosomes, and gender is a person's self-chosen identity. The distinction is important for medical purposes. Certain genetic disorders can only affect one sex or the other, and some medications.

In humans, it is more so just a couple of suppressor genes in the Y chromosome - XY females occur with notable frequency, for example. If I recall correctly, it mainly just required two specific things to occur simultaneously, each controlled by a single gene (just one resulting in very distincly masculine females and just the other - which basically just reduces the amount of testosterone produced - resulting in intersex, whereas both at once results in phenotypically normal, although usually infertile female). I am a bit too tired to recall the main suppressor hormone that typically makes males not grow to have the female characterics, though... Grnh.

[Pixxelation]

Whatever the biological function is that differentiates between the two, there is one, and it is important in medical science for reasons like the article I linked above.

[TCA]

If the sex component does make a difference medically, we do kinda need words for that since it matters for treatment. And since in probably most people, sex and gender match, it kinda makes sense that the labels for sex would most naturally turn out to be words that have gender connotations. I'm not saying it isn't harmful to trans people to use "biologically fe/male" in like, an everyday context, but I don't see reason to object to it in a medical context when it's something medical professionals already have associated with that set of biological characteristics, if that makes sense.

[Obscure_Trash]

A name is one thing, but endlessly creating 3+ new words and expecting people to use them in everyday speech when they are likely the only person or one of very few who use them? That gets silly. It's hard enough to learn conjugations and such in foreign language classes. Making people do that in their native tongues is excessive and unfair.

It's the same prefix with suffixes we already know/use. I also never see people get angry about other's forgetting their pronouns. People who use those pronouns get that it's a lot to keep track of. It's not that hard to put a little effort into it. Online, it's easy to look at easy to see places where people have conveniently listed them.

 

There is no need to say "biologically (fe)male" since there is only the biological (fe)male. There is no other kind.

 

However, female != woman. Not all women are female, and not all females are women.

 

And you generally don't have a business knowing whether a person is female or male (or intersex, although this typically gets "corrected" shortly after birth). The doctor or border toll might need to, since a penis and balls/vagina and ovaries and all that comes with either respectively are rather distinctive physical characteristics. You? None of your concern unless you're planning on dating that person or they decide to tell you.

 

From what I understand, sex is determined by chromosomes, and gender is a person's self-chosen identity. The distinction is important for medical purposes. Certain genetic disorders can only affect one sex or the other, and some medications affect the two sexes differently.

 

The way you are using female is synonymous with biologically female. My point stands exactly the same. Insisting on using "fe/male" to differentiate sex from gender iss transphobic. Your biology has nothing to do with your gender and society has intertwined sex with gender. The explanation of trans that differentiates sex from gender is a transphobic explanation that too greatly simplifies what trans actually is. It's a complex issue. I know it's hard for many to wrap their head around. Simplifying it to "sex =/= biology" was an unfair and inaccurate way to go about explaining what trans is/means.

 

I agree that someone's genitalia is nonya, though, which is also why I think it's really silly to NOT destroy the concept of "fe/male is biology" when it is only harmful and transphobic. Again, being more detailed would be better for doctors. Besides, there are plenty of people now who have great and understanding doctors who have put down their correct gender. When they go in and get asked standard questions, they simply correct the doctor (ex. a trans woman may let the doctor know questions about their period are unnecessary because they are trans), and the doctor goes about their way, giving actual medical help instead of getting caught up on outdated and transphobic terminology that doesn't even tell them anything particularly helpful.

[Pixxelation]

Your biology has nothing to do with your gender and society has intertwined sex with gender. The explanation of trans that differentiates sex from gender is a transphobic explanation that too greatly simplifies what trans actually is.

 

This confuses me because the first sentence says that sex should not be intertwined with gender, but the second says that they shouldn't be separated? I'm confused.

 

And those terms are vital for medical scenarios, as linked above. It isn't transphobic, but is actually necessary to prevent overdoses, car accidents, and ultimately save lives.

[Shienvien]

Insisting on using "fe/male" to differentiate sex from gender is transphobic. Your biology has nothing to do with your gender and society has intertwined sex with gender.

You're contradicting yourself here.

 

Society intertwining sex with gender is problematic. I agree.

Keeping sex and gender separate which *is* saying that "your biology has nothing to do with your gender" - or more correctly, your biology is composed of many different components - is a way to solve it. Also teach people that what another person has in their pants is their personal business and some general human decency.

 

The labels female/male are *not* transphobic by any scientific means. They just define a body structure. That's it.

[Omega Entity]

Just because society has screwed up regarding terms for the sex (not gender) of males and females, doesn't negate the fact that they are accurate, biological terms when applied strictly to biology in regards to the human body.

 

It's not the terminology's fault that it's misused, and perhaps it should be considered that those who are transgender should strive to emphasize the intended, scientific meaning in a bid to take back the intended definitions, rather than waste time and energy on a convoluted, wordy approach that is likely to never catch on due to the general appeal of succintness to the population as a whole. There's a point, after all, where the attempt to be PC and not offend anyone goes too far. No matter what you do, someone's going to be offended.

[Obscure_Trash]

This confuses me because the first sentence says that sex should not be intertwined with gender, but the second says that they shouldn't be separated? I'm confused.

 

And those terms are vital for medical scenarios, as linked above. It isn't transphobic, but is actually necessary to prevent overdoses, car accidents, and ultimately save lives.

 

I said that your biology doesn't control your gender (or sex) and that there is not a difference between sex and gender. Your gender is your sex and your sex is your gender.

 

And as I explained, there are instances where simplifying your "medical info" down to "fe/male" is not only inaccurate but amazing simplistic and really tells you nothing. Again, there are better and more accurate ways to present the information. Providing actual detail would be much more medically helpful than "oooh fe/male!111!1! now i no eberything!11!1!"

 

You're contradicting yourself here.

 

Society intertwining sex with gender is problematic. I agree.

Keeping sex and gender separate which *is* saying that "your biology has nothing to do with your gender" - or more correctly, your biology is composed of many different components - is a way to solve it. Also teach people that what another person has in their pants is their personal business and some general human decency.

 

The labels female/male are *not* transphobic by any scientific means. They just define a body structure. That's it.

 

Nope. Explained above. I did not contradict myself.

 

I do NOT agree and I did not say it was problematic for society to intertwine sex and gender. What IS problematic is that we think reducing the complex human biologic system down to "fe/male" gives accurate or useful medical information when it absolutely does not at all in the slightest whatsoever.

 

Yes, they are transphobic. They may be okay to use for other animals, but not for humans because we have society and ideas and beliefs intertwined with that.

 

Just because society has screwed up regarding terms for the sex (not gender) of males and females, doesn't negate the fact that they are accurate, biological terms when applied strictly to biology in regards to the human body.

 

It's not the terminology's fault that it's misused, and perhaps it should be considered that those who are transgender should strive to emphasize the intended, scientific meaning in a bid to take back the intended definitions, rather than waste time and energy on a convoluted, wordy approach that is likely to never catch on due to the general appeal of succintness to the population as a whole. There's a point, after all, where the attempt to be PC and not offend anyone goes too far. No matter what you do, someone's going to be offended.

 

We are human. Society is natural. Why everyone wants to reject that and act like it's beneath science baffles me. Without society, we wouldn't even have any science. We absolutely cannot disconnect society from science. To do so is to disconnect our humanity from science and WHOA is there trouble down that road.

 

Trying to separate "sex" from "gender" is indeed problematic, transphobic, and harmful.

 

This isn't just about offense. It's about people's lives. Transphobia literally kills. A little common courtesy goes a long way. I am not for science without a conscience at all and I think trying to disconnect the two is incredibly irresponsible and hateful.

 

EDIT: Let me put it like this. If listing someone's "sex" was really helpful for medical reasons like everyone seems to be trying to tell me, there would be no mutilation of intersex babies and no assigning them into the cis binary. And no acting like their mutilation put them in the same exact medical column as the sex they are arbitrarily assigned.

Edited January 29, 2015 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Omega Entity]

Testicular cancer. Prostate cancer. Testicular torsion. All conditions associated with humans (and other animals) that carry a Y chromosome to go with the X - also know as what is scientifically male.

 

Ovarian cancer. Cervical cancer. Uterine cancer. All condition associated with humans (and other animals) that carry two X chromosomes - also known as what is scientifically female.

 

And at their base, humans are animals. I see no need to create 'special' combinations of words to describe biological meat bodies. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

Science is not transphobic, nor are words (outside of those that are outright hatespeech or used as insult). Society is transphobic. The attachment of an offensive connotation to what is, when referring to biology, strictly terms to describe carriers of the gametes that determine the sex person, isn't the fault of science or language, it's the person or people who do it. Improper use of a word doesn't automagically make it so that word is offensive in every use.

 

So yes, I would put science above society because science is neutral and unbiased. Society what makes it otherwise. Society can interpret data provided by science and skew it to suit whatever arguments it might try to make - data can be interpreted in many way, depending on the bias of the one looking at it. It doesn't make it any less relevant.

 

Reply to EDIT: No one is saying that mutilation of babies is okay - quite the opposite. And as I understand it, more and more it's becoming more common to leave infant genitalia alone until they themselves figure out what they are, mainly because of how much more intersex is becoming understood. But that, imo, is neither here. The mutilation and assignment of sex at birth is a separate issue, though related. I'd attribute that more to that humans are fickle creatures that like things to fit into neat little boxes.

 

Again, it's not the biological terms' fault that people are dumb.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Omega Entity

[FiveSix]

O_o This argument has me very confused.

 

My sex = what's in my underwear, the hormones in my blood etc

 

My gender = my identification as a person who is very decisively neither 'he' nor 'she'

 

I would like to keep those separate, because they don't match. One of them I'd like people to know so they can refer to me properly, one of them is no one's business but mine and my doctor's. Why is it is problem to separate them?

[Shienvien]

I would like to keep those separate, because they don't match. One of them I'd like people to know so they can refer to me properly, one of them is no one's business but mine and my doctor's. Why is it is problem to separate them?

^This. This is essentially what I've been trying to explain. And no, it is not wrong to separate those things.

 

(Granted, in my case those two do match, but that's besides the point. In return, I am a rather non-stereotypical representative of my respective sex and gender, even if I consider myself 100% woman and am also female. Cars, guns, computers, hard sciences, mountain climbing and biology coupled with dislike of fashion, cooking [liking food, though] and shopping, anyone? Will also stand firmly for behaviour != gender.)

 

Your gender is your sex and your sex is your gender.

Wrong. Sex != gender.

Humans are animals, too. Mammals with two binary sexes (intersex/hermaphroditic individuals occur rarely and are typically infertile).

 

By denying that sex and gender are different things, you're essentially telling me that trans people do not exist. Or worse, that individuals who experience actual physical dysphoria (sp?) from it are ... that it is suddenly a non-issue now, somehow?

No, it won't go away just because they wish their body were different hard enough, or convinced themselves to "be comfortable in their body". That is a real problem for some of them (some trans people are fine with their bodies and do not experience discomfort from the disparity) and if you keep denying it to them they might just take up trying to fix it with a kitchen knife.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Shienvien

[AquaTart]

I can tell myself that I am neither gender but when my body says I have PCOS I can't stop it... :/ There are race and sex specific illnesses and health issues. It is important to know what kind of issues may arise from the genetics that make up my body and my doctor needs to know. If I had sex reassignment surgery I would not feel attacked if I had to tell the doctor that I had been born female. Not to mention the effects of the hormones may also need to be kept in mind. It isn't bad until someone tries to use it against you and discriminate.

 

Most of the time I tell people I am genderfluid but I still have yet to figure out if I am truly genderfluid or just agender... It can get confusing since I sometimes feel ecstatic when someone calls me sir or miss with uncertainty.

 

Edit: And I mean it's confusing because I don't always care what I am referred to. It's just occasionally someone will call me sir and just the way they say it makes me happy or the way they say miss. People often tell me I have a feminine, quirky personality and yet my actions are rough and masculine so being defined as a girl simply because of how I look and speak can be annoying. Then any action or thought that I have that is defined as masculine is judged and ridiculed because it's not the norm. It's confusing and annoying since I don't care which way I go.

Edited January 29, 2015 by AquaTart

[Switch]

hello im back to say ive been over this i am absolutely 100% completely uncomfortable with the idea that im not allowed to call myself male and im ACTUALLY female because people totally all the time only use it ever to refer to sex amiright??

no no they dont i can throw 50 different dictionaries at you that include a definition of male to be "a man or a boy" which is what i am if im a boy im male if im male im a boy, usage of language evolves and people dont stick exclusively to that one rigid definition of male you keep tossing out

 

im male. it was decided by someone else when i was born that im female, but im not. we've been over this. im dfab. stop. please.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Switch

[Omega Entity]

Except that the societal definition (the one in the dictionary) isn't always the same as the biological one, and shouldn't be treated as the same thing. Scientifically they have meant, and will always mean, the carrier of chromosomes and reproductive organs that make an organism male or female.That isn't going to change, nor should it, though it'd be nice, albeit wishful thinking, for the societal definition to come in line with the scientific one.

 

Male = man and female = woman are societal constructs. The base, biological definitions, however, are still entirely intact, and therefore there's no reason they -shouldn't- be used to very specifically describe the meatsacks that fit into the basic binary that is most common.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Omega Entity

[FiveSix]

My position on female/male terminology is that I'll always assume some people will read it as sex and some will read it as gender. I avoid using it for humans at all (I like the 'biologically' qualifier, redundant as it may seem to some, because it make it clear when discussing biology in contexts where that's necessary with people who don't know more sensitive terminology that you're making no assumptions about gender) - there's plenty of more precise and less dehumanising synonyms if we're talking gender.

 

Has anyone else heard PFAB/PMAB? The P is for 'presumed', and I kinda like them better than DFAB/DMAB (for me at least), since it takes away the validity of the people doing the 'assigning' and in some ways better avoids stepping on the space of people who were surgically assigned at birth (which I understand has been a point of contention in the past).

[Fizzix]

I have XX primary and secondary sexual characteristics. I have a uterus that I loathe because it reminds me roughly once a month that I neglected to get it pregnant (whether it's supposed to or not, thanks BC), I have breasts that are inconvenient to support and inconvenient to ignore and are overall a waste of space/energy/etc. I have bits that are probably inappropriate to discuss even clinically on a board so inundated with impressionables. I have no desire to spawn. I have no desire to care for spawn. I do not need my primary sexual characteristics, but haven't decided to rip them out surgically yet 'cause of costs and stuff.

 

Within the last month, I've come to question what my gender is, and if I even have one. It's not a "phase". It's a "hey wait what if for 23 years I took it for granted that I was what I was told I was?" awakening. It's not the first "non-normal" part of me: I've been a "tomboy" my whole life; I've said I was ace for years, and probably was before I said that, since I was just not-interested without a particular term for it; I've realized that part of the "ace" might also be arom instead as of a few years ago.

 

So here I am, an XX, questioning person who doesn't know what gender, sexual, or romantic orientations apply, and has started avoiding using personal pronouns out of curiosity. I'm not really dysphoric so much as "ugh why this?" and would rather present androgynously. And yeah I've had thoughts about primary and secondary sexual characteristics that again I will not share because impressionables, but they're idle for the most part, not part of my self-definition.

[TCA]

Again, there are better and more accurate ways to present the information. Providing actual detail would be much more medically helpful than "oooh fe/male!111!1! now i no eberything!11!1!"

In probably most cases, though, "biologically male/female" DOES cover a fairly wide range of characteristics in literally two words. And if a person needs to be more specific due to some sort of intersex thing or any other conceivable reason, they can be more specific, but if they don't, why make them list out the entire specific set of characteristics?

 

I do think it'd be helpful to separate male and female from gender and use them as strictly biological terms. Because since those are extremely common sets of characteristics that have specific medical implications, it's handy to have a scientific shortcut term. Science loves having shortcut terms whenever possible, and while those can't be used by everyone why not use them where it makes sense?

Edited January 29, 2015 by TheCompleteAnimorph

[octopi]

Ovarian cancer is a serious problem. Who can get ovarian cancer? People with ovaries! And that's literally all there is to it. Telling your doctor that you have ovaries is much more useful than telling your doctor that you're "female", especially since biological sex is more ambiguous than just these chromosomes => these organs. Intersex people and other people with nonstandard sets of genitals do exist after all.

 

"Scientifically", words' connotations and meanings change as society evolves. People use the words male and female to describe their genders, therefore they are legitimate genders. That's always been how language worked.

[TCA]

Yeah, but let's say you have ovaries, breasts, and the genitalia currently associated with 'female' and aren't intersex and don't have nonstandard bits. And ANY of these could be relevant to your doctor, you're not just talking about ovarian cancer.

 

That particular set HAS a shortcut term and saying nobody can use the shortcut terms because not everyone can is like saying I can't call my dog a Cavalier Spaniel because there are mixed-breed dogs.

[Fizzix]

Yeah, but let's say you have ovaries, breasts, and the genitalia currently associated with 'female' and aren't intersex and don't have nonstandard bits. And ANY of these could be relevant to your doctor, you're not just talking about ovarian cancer.

 

That particular set HAS a shortcut term and saying nobody can use the shortcut terms because not everyone can is like saying I can't call my dog a Cavalier Spaniel because there are mixed-breed dogs.

If you want to be honest, using shortcuts that literally use the sex chromosomes when looking for primary (and secondary) sexual characteristics would be way faster than getting into this debate about whether female/woman male/man are sex or gender or both or neither.

 

XX, XY, XO (X0? I'm not familiar with which is used), XXY, XYY, etc. The abnormal chromosomal states will tell you more than just "male" or "female" on a form will.

 

But society says that forms with "sex" or "gender" or whatever are important. I'll select as appropriate to the context. This forum? The context is personal information and identification. "Not Telling" is as close as I can get since I can't even tell myself anymore.

[Omega Entity]

I have the feeling this is one of those 'agree to disagree topics' where either side thinks they're right, and can't be convinced otherwise. It would seem we're at an impasse.

[TCA]

Sure, why not use the sex chromosomes as shortcuts? I'd be down with that. I just think trying to get rid of shortcut terms because NOT EVERYONE CAN USE THEM SO EVERYBODY SHOULD LIST THEIR ENTIRE SET OF CHARACTERISTICS is silly. If using the sex chromosome configuration as the shortcut was widespread enough to be meaningful that would work just fine!

[Omega Entity]

Sure, why not use the sex chromosomes as shortcuts? I'd be down with that. I just think trying to get rid of shortcut terms because NOT EVERYONE CAN USE THEM SO EVERYBODY SHOULD LIST THEIR ENTIRE SET OF CHARACTERISTICS is silly. If using the sex chromosome configuration as the shortcut was widespread enough to be meaningful that would work just fine!

Oh, I'm completely in agreement with you, as should be evident by my previous posts. I'm just saying both sides are wasting their breath at this point.

[Shienvien]

Not particularly fond of PFAB/PFAB either... Not a thing I'd allow myself to be labeled. They do not associate with a specific hate group as strongly for me (even if it is still an obvious derivative), but it is still a weird, clumsy and scientifically nonsensical construct. I don't like the abbreviations, I do not.

 

Female/male are scientific - biological - terms with very well defined meanings. Barring the cases where there are the rare individuals who really are physically distinctly in between or neither, these are perfectly sufficient and are here to stay. And the society in general has no business knowing whether you are female or male unless you decide to tell them. Trying to ban the terms makes as much sense as banning the words 'respiratory system' or talking about your height. Or scars.

 

If you want to be honest, using shortcuts that literally use the sex chromosomes when looking for primary (and secondary) sexual characteristics would be way faster than getting into this debate about whether female/woman male/man are sex or gender or both or neither.

XY females are comparatively common, for instance, so it doesn't really tell as much...

Edited January 29, 2015 by Shienvien

[FiveSix]

If you want to be honest, using shortcuts that literally use the sex chromosomes when looking for primary (and secondary) sexual characteristics would be way faster than getting into this debate about whether female/woman male/man are sex or gender or both or neither.

 

XX, XY, XO (X0? I'm not familiar with which is used), XXY, XYY, etc. The abnormal chromosomal states will tell you more than just "male" or "female" on a form will.

 

But society says that forms with "sex" or "gender" or whatever are important. I'll select as appropriate to the context. This forum? The context is personal information and identification. "Not Telling" is as close as I can get since I can't even tell myself anymore.

The vast majority of people don't know their sex chromosome compliment - the Y chromosome in particular doesn't encode a whole lot of genes used in anything besides sex determination so sex chromosome translocations and fragmentations are some of the most survivable and phenotypically (what you see in the person when not looking at their DNA) invisible aneuploidies (i.e. when your chromosomes aren't exactly normal). They might result in for instance an XX person with a tiny fragment of Y being to all appearances and functions entirely XY (except likely infertile), and it's hard to estimate how common that is because most people aren't karyotyped to check unless they're showing 'symptoms'.

 

[/nerdery]

 

In short, chromosomes are nice in theory but if they were actually tested a lot of apparently very decisively binary-sexed people would find themselves in for big surprises. And for sex-linked diseases especially (like red-green colourblindess and a lot of far more serious conditions) just assuming chromosomes could be very dodgy.