Gender and Gender Identity

[Obscure_Trash]

Because if it's required to go by individual characteristics, you could be there all day describing what could be conveyed with a simple set of terms. Male/female are medical shorthand - an easy, simple way to convey the biological "norms", as it were (risks and illnesses related to the parts and body chemistry a person has, for instance), in regards to basic anatomy pertaining to those labels.

 

Using male/female to convey physical characteristics does not preclude one from expounding on those terms to describe aspects unique to the individual. It's not reducing a person to basic sex terminology, but rather gives a basic point of reference off of which to build.

Listing primary sex characteristics would be just as quick and short.

 

"Gender/sex (pronouns):

Sex characteristics:"

 

Would be as much shorthand and way less transphobic.

Edited March 19, 2015 by SockPuppet Strangler

[rabbithaver]

Listing primary sex characteristics would be just as quick and short.

 

"Gender/sex (pronouns):

Sex characteristics:"

 

Would be as much shorthand and way less transphobic.

I like this. This is fantastic.

[Shienvien]

It is the exact same as the

Gender:

Sex:

which I have been advocating. The rest is just semantics.

 

Likewise, if gender is more socially important (which just might be; I maintain it is commonly not people's business what sex someone else is), why just not list gender on most documents, instead of sex?

 

Sock, you keep throwing "transphobic" and "bigoted" around at every corner - which I don't agree with, the same as I actually find your approach to the matter more harmful and, shall we say, aggravating? It is hyperbolic - downright incorrect use of the terms, even -, offensive and alienating. Words having biological definitions isn't "bigotry". Saying that humans are animals isn't "bigotry", either. You may not agree to my specific approach to the matter - by all means, even the trans people speaking up have been on both sides -, and in parts I'd like to indeed take the distinction even farther than most, but it does not make it right to attack people and put them down by essentially calling them a hate group.

You're furthermore hurting the minority you're trying to "protect" by essentially attacking what they are, by now at least twice when the speaker *oneself* is trans - being harmful to the people you're speaking in the name of is a statement I don't use lightly, but sometimes I feel I have to. I think the last time I brought something like this up was in regards to some of the more radical branches of people who call themselves feminist.

Trans people have very well defined very physical reasons for being trans. It is not *just* what they identify as - it is something that can be with very high accuracy identified with a scan, without even asking them. Both gender and sex are equally "real".

I am not "transphobic", nor is any other whose standpoint simply differs from yours as long as they recognize that trans people exist and have nothing personal against them. I admit, at some points I've difficulties understanding where you're coming from, since you're very heavily conflicting in what you say, often by stating that something is wrong, and then saying the exact same thing in different words and calling it correct.

It is something that has, especially in this thread, been bothering me for a fairly wrong time; it is not a personal attack, but simple request from the "opposite" side to please refrain from attacking the people you're debating with. Thank you.

[rabbithaver]

I don't see how Sock has attacked anyone? At least not in the last few pages...

[hydrargyrum]

I see the argument that sex is needed as a different characteristic from gender a lot, particularly in the medical sense.... but I feel like even that doesn't really cover it? While some trans people may still be very similar physically to cis people who were assigned the same gender at birth, many may take hormones. I've heard these can have a very significant effect-not only in hormones in the body (which can definitely affect medical issues) but even with things like bone structure (I've heard that over a decade or so, bones do reform over time).

 

Basically, I think it is very likely that trans people have medical needs that are different from cis people even if they have the same parts. If a medical situation can't be bothered to get more information than "what parts do you have", then I don't think they're providing the necessary care. What parts someone has or was born with is hardly the only crucial information about a person, even in the strictly physical sense.

 

What I see is that even if not all trans people agree (they're a big group of people, of course they don't all agree), the majority say that the idea of "biological sex" hurts them, and it doesn't seem to be a necessary concept to me.

[rabbithaver]

While I agree with you for the most part, I should point out that not every trans person wants to transition, and is comfortable with their body as it is. For a long time, before I decided I wanted HRT and top surgery, I felt pretty okay with it. This was before I began to develop, though. I am really hesitant to ascribe transitioning as something true to all trans people because...it really isn't.

[hydrargyrum]

While I agree with you for the most part, I should point out that not every trans person wants to transition, and is comfortable with their body as it is. For a long time, before I decided I wanted HRT and top surgery, I felt pretty okay with it. This was before I began to develop, though. I am really hesitant to ascribe transitioning as something true to all trans people because...it really isn't.

Ah, I'm very sorry if I came across as meaning I think all trans people transition. I know that there are plenty who don't! I'm just saying that there are ENOUGH trans people who transition that trying to describe trans people only by their gender as assigned at birth in medical contexts doesn't cover everything. (Enough, in this case, simply meaning a non-negligible percentage, not even necessarily a majority)

Edited March 19, 2015 by hydrargyrum

[rabbithaver]

Oh, okay. I misunderstood, no biggie! I personally prefer the AFAB/AMAB system, but it definitely does not work for everyone, which sucks butt.

[Pixxelation]

Because if it's required to go by individual characteristics, you could be there all day describing what could be conveyed with a simple set of terms. Male/female are medical shorthand - an easy, simple way to convey the biological "norms", as it were (risks and illnesses related to the parts and body chemistry a person has, for instance), in regards to basic anatomy pertaining to those labels.

 

Using male/female to convey physical characteristics does not preclude one from expounding on those terms to describe aspects unique to the individual. It's not reducing a person to basic sex terminology, but rather gives a basic point of reference off of which to build.

Really well-said. While you could simply list all the sexually dimorphic traits you knowingly have, it's much easier to use a single word, and possibly add more detail for any further traits. Much easier for the doctors to write down, too. I guess DFAB and DMAB work equally well, but there does need to be some distinction between sex and gender in at least the medical context so that doctors can provide the best care for their patients.

[Obscure_Trash]

I see the argument that sex is needed as a different characteristic from gender a lot, particularly in the medical sense.... but I feel like even that doesn't really cover it? While some trans people may still be very similar physically to cis people who were assigned the same gender at birth, many may take hormones. I've heard these can have a very significant effect-not only in hormones in the body (which can definitely affect medical issues) but even with things like bone structure (I've heard that over a decade or so, bones do reform over time).

 

Basically, I think it is very likely that trans people have medical needs that are different from cis people even if they have the same parts. If a medical situation can't be bothered to get more information than "what parts do you have", then I don't think they're providing the necessary care. What parts someone has or was born with is hardly the only crucial information about a person, even in the strictly physical sense.

 

What I see is that even if not all trans people agree (they're a big group of people, of course they don't all agree), the majority say that the idea of "biological sex" hurts them, and it doesn't seem to be a necessary concept to me.

I think all of this is really well said. Thanks. =3

 

Because if it's required to go by individual characteristics, you could be there all day describing what could be conveyed with a simple set of terms. Male/female are medical shorthand - an easy, simple way to convey the biological "norms", as it were (risks and illnesses related to the parts and body chemistry a person has, for instance), in regards to basic anatomy pertaining to those labels.

 

I'm not sure how: penis/vagina or even external/internal is that much harder to list than fe/male.

Edited March 19, 2015 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Pixxelation]

Like I said, there are more dimorphic traits than just the reproductive organs. Plus, trans people who have transitioned are able to have the parts that they weren't necessarily born with, so it's kind of a moot point. Remember, certain cancers have higher prevalence in different sexes, and other diseases occur only in one sex or the other. I can definitely see how it can lead to people being transphobic, so it's important to keep any sex/gender distinction between the person and doctor to lessen chances of discrimination, imo, but there does need to be some note of it in medical info, I think. Biology has always been male/female for creatures with an X and Y chromosome system, so I don't think it really makes sense to change it, since science doesn't really discriminate (except for when studies are made with pre-existing bias).

 

hydrargyrum: Interesting about bone structure changing post-transition. I'd never heard that before. What other changes occur once hormone treatment begins? I'm quite curious now :3

Edited March 20, 2015 by PieMaster

[Obscure_Trash]

Like I said, there are more dimorphic traits than just the reproductive organs. Plus, trans people who have transitioned are able to have the parts that they weren't necessarily born with, so it's kind of a moot point. Remember, certain cancers have higher prevalence in different sexes, and other diseases occur only in one sex or the other. I can definitely see how it can lead to people being transphobic, so it's important to keep any sex/gender distinction between the person and doctor to lessen chances of discrimination, imo, but there does need to be some note of it in medical info, I think. Biology has always been male/female for creatures with an X and Y chromosome system, so I don't think it really makes sense to change it, since science doesn't really discriminate (except for when studies are made with pre-existing bias).

So wouldn't listing that as relevant information be more medically accurate and helpful than boiling it down to "male" or "female"? Doctors don't list "trans" or "cis" or anything else when they take down that vague information. You seem to be arguing for what would be better for medicine, which is exactly what I'm arguing for. Boiling everything down to "male" or "female" isn't medically accurate or useful. It's vague and assuming.

 

Just because something is tradition doesn't make it right.

 

(Er - science itself may not be biased, but there is no science without humans and humans are certainly biased.)

[rabbithaver]

Also, point of interest: male and female have a distinct history of being gendered words. They are usually used to define someone who is feminine or masculine presenting as opposed to being restricted to genitalia and only genitalia. I think that might be why so many people are uncomfortable with it.

Edited March 20, 2015 by oddinomaly

[TCA]

I don't think Pie's saying that boiling things down to 'male' and 'female' should be a thing for everyone, because the two common sets don't cover everything and making everyone use them would be silly, but like, what if you got a medical form and it was like:

 

"What is your biological sex? Check boxes that apply.

 

-Male, no abnormalities

-Female, no abnormalities

-Check this if you have any conditions that affect physical sex characteristics and describe below"

 

That way, if you DO have, you know, one of the two very common sets of characteristics and all, you can just check a box and move on with your life; and if you are trans and on hormones, post-op, intersex, or literally anything else that could be medically relevant, you can put it down and everything is fine.

Edited March 20, 2015 by TheCompleteAnimorph

[Slater_C]

I'm not sure if this is even the argument here but I thought I'd chime in with how I feel about the subject of disclosing sex and gender to a medical professional:

 

I'm all for forms being changed to include other options, but until then, I think what it boils down to is that every individual should be open and honest with their doctor. By all means tell them what sex you biologically are and/or gender you identify with currently, but I agree with Pie: please PLEASE also tell them what you were born as, as well. To me this doesn't seem like a matter of pride and you shouldn't feel like you're undoing all that you've done to get to where you are today - rather it is pertinent information that a doctor needs to make proper diagnoses.

 

I just want everyone to be happy and healthy ;________;

Edited March 20, 2015 by Slater_C

[rabbithaver]

I'm not sure if this is even the argument here but I thought I'd chime in with how I feel about the subject of disclosing sex and gender to a medical professional:

 

I'm all for forms being changed to include other options, but until then, I think what it boils down to is that every individual should be open and honest with their doctor. By all means tell them what sex you biologically are and/or gender you identify with currently, but I agree with Pie: please PLEASE also tell them what you were born as, as well. To me this doesn't seem like a matter of pride and you shouldn't feel like you're undoing all that you've done to get to where you are today - rather it is pertinent information that a doctor needs to make proper diagnoses.

 

I just want everyone to be happy and healthy ;________;

Well, yeah, in the case of health it is of utmost importance that your doctor know your history. I don't think anyone has disputed that. The biggest issue is that medical professionals don't handle trans identities very well...at all.

[Slater_C]

Oh, lol. I thought it //was// being disputed because I feel like that was pretty much what Pie was saying but there seemed to be contentions ; 7 ; Of course, I'm prone to misinterpreting things (as well as others - it definitely feels like there are many misinterpretations in this thread and that was just the few pages I actually read ;; ).

 

And I'm sure there are a lot of medical professionals that just don't handle the issue well - but sadly that is the case about many people in any given profession when it comes to other issues as well :C I've certainly had my share of bouncing from insufficient doctor to doctor (for other issues, but even so), but I try to stay strong and seek the best help I can.

[rabbithaver]

Well, medicine as a profession just doesn't treat trans people very well. I mean, there are laws in some states that say if you don't agree with your patient's gender or sexuality you can refuse to treat them...and even let them die. It's more a matter of discrimination than anything else.

[Shienvien]

I mean, there are laws in some states that say if you don't agree with your patient's gender or sexuality you can refuse to treat them...and even let them die. It's more a matter of discrimination than anything else.

That is just terrible, and I definitely don't agree with it. By all rights, something like this - discriminating people based on personal beliefs when their lives and/or health are in danger should be illegal on national level. (Meaning that if someone still refuses to treat people and doesn't fetch anyone who agrees to it, either, then it is professional malpractice and - should someone indeed die from it - manslaughter due to neglect.)

 

- The medicine in the US is a fair bit messed up on those grounds. The bloated costs, questionable healthcare which still does not quite work, and the support of discrimination... I've previously heard that discrimination based on ethnicity is allowed, too.

 

They are usually used to define someone who is feminine or masculine presenting as opposed to being restricted to genitalia and only genitalia.

As a person who has received a fair bit of harassment due to being, eh, "astereotypical" (mostly from foreigners and my mother's side of family), I personally tend to frown on "masculine" and "feminine" as describing anything but appearance, too. (In the rare occasions I've used it to explain stereotype mismatch I've always put it in quotation marks.) Edited March 20, 2015 by Shienvien

[rabbithaver]

You make an excellent point. I don't really know how else to describe it though? I mean, presentation.

[Pixxelation]

I don't think Pie's saying that boiling things down to 'male' and 'female' should be a thing for everyone, because the two common sets don't cover everything and making everyone use them would be silly, but like, what if you got a medical form and it was like:

 

"What is your biological sex? Check boxes that apply.

 

-Male, no abnormalities

-Female, no abnormalities

-Check this if you have any conditions that affect physical sex characteristics and describe below"

 

That way, if you DO have, you know, one of the two very common sets of characteristics and all, you can just check a box and move on with your life; and if you are trans and on hormones, post-op, intersex, or literally anything else that could be medically relevant, you can put it down and everything is fine.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks :3

 

~

 

Yes, laws such as those are completely disgusting :/ It's like the one that Arizona tried passing that would allow businesses to refuse service to LGBT people. Segregation, much?

[keijaidyyn]

I'm biologically female, but I'm mostly neutral in identity with some degree of fluidity. I have considered transitioning in the past, mostly when I was in my late teens, but I ended up coming to the conclusion after months of careful consideration that my identity isn't strongly male enough to justify it... and it doesn't help that I have a severe phobia of several types of medical equipment and procedures, some of which would be involved in a transition.

 

I live in South Carolina, so the local social demands on females is a big part of what once drove me to consider transitioning. It's exhausting to constantly alternate between feeling like a glorified sex object and a less-than-human entity depending on who happens to be nearby. I wish we could just leave the whole patriarchal society thing in the past and realize that both biological sexes can be just as capable and deserve the same amount of social respect.

 

EDIT: I don't mind which pronouns are used. As long as I'm aware I'm the intended reference, it's all fine.

Edited March 20, 2015 by keijaidyyn

[rabbithaver]

You might want to avoid phrases like "both biological sexes" because of the various types of genitalia that make up a collective third sex, called intersex. There's technically an uncountable number of sexes, depending on what terms on which you would define 'biological sex'. Which is another thing the medical community is not so fantastic with.

[EnderEcho]

Just one question,

If you did not know I was female, what gender would you think I was?

I really don't know what I am.

[Obscure_Trash]

Just one question,

If you did not know I was female, what gender would you think I was?

I really don't know what I am.

Since there's no way to know someone's gender without asking them, I would have no idea. If you are a girl, then everything you say and do is what a girl would do. If you are questioning or nonbinary, then everything you say and do is what a questioning or nonbinary person would do. Gender isn't actions or clothes or biology. It's a really difficult abstract concept. So I would not place any gender on you that you didn't tell me because I wouldn't want to assume.