Just got this question in my Formspring account

[Sar]

"Why are you conflating socially constructed gender and biological gender? Does being a trans-man entail doing "manly" things, or does it entail existing as a biological male?"
What. The. Fuck. does that even mean?
[And I have a pretty good idea of who wrote it and it's our gay cis* president of my university's GSA club.]
[I'm tempted to put this down as my answer:
"By doing "manly" things [though I'm still not sure what you mean by that] I am helping to ensure that I am seen as a cis*male-p.s. that phrase-'biological male'? Kinda offensive."]

[Lady Jess]

Damn that sucks. That person fundamentally doesn't understand :\

[Psychopomp]

It sounds to me like he not only doesn't understand but is trying to discreetly attack you...

[Lyn Aven]

Obviously, the tone seems to imply that the questioner is a troll, not merely uninformed, but taking the question at face value I believe the question being asked is something along the lines of "does the desire for physical transition define being transsexual, or is the desire for social presentation sufficient?" For those of us who have been in the community for a while, the answer is pretty clear: Considering yourself socially a man is sufficient to be considered a transman. The question really shows that the asker knows enough about transgenderism to have separated the concept of gender from physical sex characteristics but doesn't understand the state of mind that accompanies transsexualism (specifically, the persistent feeling that one's body is wrong).

(As an aside, I know a lot of people consider "biologically male" offensive but I, for one, don't; it's not reasonable to expect someone not familiarized with the jargon of the TG community to know that the politically-correct term is "MAAB"/"FAAB" when referring to birth sex. Heck, I don't even know what the correct term for one's post-op physical sex characteristics would be if the context requires distinguishing it from a birth-assigned body. I use the term "biomale" to refer to myself with impunity. I dunno, maybe it's because I'm not in the TS part of the TG spectrum, but I (and my other TG friends) seriously don't find it offensive -- merely imprecise.)

[Sar]

It sounds to me like he not only doesn't understand but is trying to discreetly attack you...

That's what I've heard from other friends I'd asked about this.

The question really shows that the asker knows enough about transgenderism to have separated the concept of gender from physical sex characteristics but doesn't understand the state of mind that accompanies transsexualism (specifically, the persistent feeling that one's body is wrong).

Exactly. And that's a little hard to be able to put into words.

[Kladeos]

Do people really find "biologically male/female" offensive? It's the term I use - it gets the point across better than "assigned at birth," which is a phrase I associate more with intersexed people. I understand how, depending on the tone of voice, it can make one feel inferior to their cisgendered counterparts, but it does seem to be the more accurate term. Much better than "born a woman/man," in my opinion (ignoring the impossibility of being born a fully fledged, post-puberty adult).

[Saturday]

Do people really find "biologically male/female" offensive? It's the term I use - it gets the point across better than "assigned at birth," which is a phrase I associate more with intersexed people. I understand how, depending on the tone of voice, it can make one feel inferior to their cisgendered counterparts, but it does seem to be the more accurate term. Much better than "born a woman/man," in my opinion (ignoring the impossibility of being born a fully fledged, post-puberty adult).

I've kind of been thinking this myself. The MAAB/FAAB terms seem more appropriate in use when referring to intersexed people, and it's not something I've seen ANYONE outside of the trans community familiar with. Terms like biomale/biofemale, people get, though, and it's so much quicker to say than explaining "born in a female body", for example, or having to explain MAAB/FAAB to someone who is entirely unfamiliar with the term. Which...is going to be a majority of people.

I don't know, I don't quite get why 'biological male/female' is all that offensive. Perhaps 'genetically male/female' would be better, since it's more accurate and just as easy to understand?

[Kladeos]

I don't know, I don't quite get why 'biological male/female' is all that offensive. Perhaps 'genetically male/female' would be better, since it's more accurate and just as easy to understand?

Yeah, I like that term. Haven't heard it often enough for me to really notice until you pointed it out. I think I'll use that from now on if I remember. It is more accurate for people who have started or completed their physical transition.

[Sar]

I also prefer "genetically female/male" to "biologically male/female".

[EJA]

I fail to see the difference. Both mean you were born as that sex. How is it offensive? It's akin to a medical term.

[podunktown]

Bleh, I get this kind of flak from my mom all the time. She said, why do you have to go against nature? I said, what about my nature as a human being?

But about the term "biological male/female", I've heard people say it's offensive because they believe there's something biologically male about themselves when they're a trans man for example. And what's biological, anyway? Does it refer to anatomy, to genetics, to hormones? Gender is a self-identified status, not something we're born with.

[omelu]

Do people really find "biologically male/female" offensive? It's the term I use - it gets the point across better than "assigned at birth," which is a phrase I associate more with intersexed people.

the terms are tricky because you want to be as accurate and sensitive as possible but still be understood and often times that's impossible to do at the same time. "assigned at birth" does, to me, carry intersex connotations...if biomale and biofemale are offensive perhaps "socially assigned gender"? To me that sounds less specifically intersex. idk...

Much better than "born a woman/man," in my opinion (ignoring the impossibility of being born a fully fledged, post-puberty adult).

LOL! yeah, personally I born a baby, whatever assumptions people made about my gender.

[EJA]

But about the term "biological male/female", I've heard people say it's offensive because they believe there's something biologically male about themselves when they're a trans man for example. And what's biological, anyway? Does it refer to anatomy, to genetics, to hormones? Gender is a self-identified status, not something we're born with.

Okay, so they may feel that they're male, but physically they're female - or vice versa - until they switch. So biologically/genetically, they're not male.
Gender is self-identified, yet, but sex isn't. Your sex is what you're born as.

I view biological sex as the anatomy you're born with. If someone can correct me, feel free, but that's how I see it. I understand if someone used it in an offensive way, e.x., "you'll never be a biological male", or "you're not a biological male so you don't count", but otherwise...it's just a term.

Edit: I looked up biological. It's relating to blood/DNA - like, your biological sister, biological parents, etc. So yes, I'd say it is the proper term to use, synonymous to genetically, in the case of "biologically male or female".

[not_quite_pie]

I fail to see the difference. Both mean you were born as that gender. How is it offensive? It's akin to a medical term.

No, both mean you were born as that sex. I don't think infants have a detectable gender, but my psychology books are quite out of date.

I use biomale/female to refer to birth sex. I find 'biologically' to be superior to 'genetically' simply because it is more accurate on a real life scale -- most of us haven't been karyotyped. Many AIS people, for instance, reach adulthood before they ever know. I can't guarantee that I'm genetically female (although it's overwhelmingly likely) but I know that I'm biologically female. But that's just nitpicking, they should be synonymous in most cases.

[Sar]

[Wow this kinda exploded.]

I got a follow up question today.

"If the point of trans-surgery is to emulate a biological male, then why are you touting social gender constructs as a way to "pass"?"

*sigh* Any suggestions for answers?

[Saturday]

[Wow this kinda exploded.]

I got a follow up question today.

"If the point of trans-surgery is to emulate a biological male, then why are you touting social gender constructs as a way to "pass"?"

*sigh* Any suggestions for answers?

I'm still trying to untangle that question. Are they asking you why you're supporting socially accepted masculine 'norms' or what? This person is throwing phrases around in an order that doesn't seem to make sense. Yargh.

[Lyn Aven]

[Wow this kinda exploded.]

I got a follow up question today.

"If the point of trans-surgery is to emulate a biological male, then why are you touting social gender constructs as a way to "pass"?"

*sigh* Any suggestions for answers?

That's an easy one to answer.

Transsexualism is a persistent feeling that one's body is inconsistent with one's gender. Every time a transsexual looks in the mirror and sees the "wrong" sex, and even worse every time a transsexual is clocked in public, it feels worse. Physical surgery only goes so far in avoiding this; social gender constructs are much more powerful cues, and a transsexual is almost certainly going to have been raised being taught the cues and constructs for their birth-assigned sex, not their true gender. This requires conscious effort and re-training in order to associate with society.

[EJA]

I fail to see the difference. Both mean you were born as that gender. How is it offensive? It's akin to a medical term.

No, both mean you were born as that sex. I don't think infants have a detectable gender, but my psychology books are quite out of date.

I use biomale/female to refer to birth sex. I find 'biologically' to be superior to 'genetically' simply because it is more accurate on a real life scale -- most of us haven't been karyotyped. Many AIS people, for instance, reach adulthood before they ever know. I can't guarantee that I'm genetically female (although it's overwhelmingly likely) but I know that I'm biologically female. But that's just nitpicking, they should be synonymous in most cases.

Okay, sorry, sorry - I meant sex. Not gender. Sometimes I mix up the terms. I will edit my post accordingly.

[EJA]

[Wow this kinda exploded.]

I got a follow up question today.

"If the point of trans-surgery is to emulate a biological male, then why are you touting social gender constructs as a way to "pass"?"

*sigh* Any suggestions for answers?

You can go with an easy answer for that - just say you're doing what feels right for you. Assuming that that statement is true, there's absolutely nothing wrong about it and it'll be difficult to say anything against it.

[Sar]

I went with this:
"Because looking like a gender physically and not matching at least some of the social markers for that gender (or, worse, matching most of the social markers for the other gender) is a fairly reliable way of having people make you at the very least miserable for not matching their expectations of how the world is?

Because in society we rely on secondary gender markers to tell what gender someone is rather than pulling down heir pants.

Because every time a transsexual looks in the mirror and sees the "wrong" sex, and even worse every time a transsexual is clocked in public, it feels worse. Physical surgery only goes so far in avoiding this; social gender constructs are much more powerful cues, and a transsexual is almost certainly going to have been raised being taught the cues and constructs for their birth-assigned sex, not their true gender. This requires conscious effort and re-training in order to associate with society.

That is why."