Why the fuck would you say that if you mean it in good faith
The ad is the second one from a Democratic candidate in a swing state responding to an onslaught of anti-trans advertising.
I love in Ohio and all repub ads only talk about illegal immigrants and trans people. That's all they have, with a sprinkling of late term partial birth abortions.
I am frankly shocked that the trans stuff apparently works, well enough to be a main thrust of an ad campaign. Like I fully get there's a subset of Americans who are not comfortable with the concept, dislike trans people, think it's immoral or whatever. But it's such a big deal to you that we need a particular political party in charge so they can ban stuff? I just can't relate to that. But it's common enough that they run these ads, it's either firing up true believers or actually converting people. Somehow.
As opposed to transgender mechanical men.
Praise the Omnissiah!
Where do daleks and Cyber-men fit in?
You belong to us.
You will be like us.
Daleks are clearly "transgender mechanical enbys"
FROM THE MOMENT ...
::: spoiler The Advocate - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Advocate:
This language reinforces the narrative that transgender women are “biological men,”
What narrative? This is mostly true, and only untrue in cases of transgender women who are intersex AFAIK.
It's the framing of trans women as "biological men" as opposed to just calling them trans women. It gives ground to the right as trying to frame us trans folk as fakers as opposed to showing us as who we are, trans men and women.
I mean that's exactly what trans means, so they're just being redundant and perpetuating this weird fear mongering. Honestly some of them are just stupid, others seem to know a lot of constituents are stupid and appeal to it while knowingly preventing funding for education so future voters AREN'T stupid
That isn't what trans means. To be trans is to reject the gender assigned to you, which was informed by biology but less objective than something like the term "biological male" implies.
Oh shit, idk why that hadn't clicked for me before. I'm really sorry. Of course that makes sense
The framing being a fact check on a GOP claim, that a Dem is now being disparaged for including in their ad, that dispells the misinformation.
Lefties hurting themselves in their confusion is just classic.
I think the more important question is “why is that relevant?”
I don’t introduce myself with random facts about my past. “Hi, I once kissed a man on a dare”. That’s not relevant.
How was the kiss? Did you like it?
I was pretty drunk but it was okay ig
and the inclusion of a fact check stating it is “false” that Sherrod Brown “voted to let transgender biological men participate in women’s sports.”
It was relevant to the ad to clarify the politicians voting record and counter misinformation being spread by their opponent.
This is very simple and I'm concerned that so many are completely incapable of
Reading the article and
Comprehending it
Understanding that this 'narrative' line is targetting the Dem ad but it was from the GOP misinformation.
AFAIK
lol, turns out that's not very far
Reality disagrees with you lol
I mean, this is supposed to be where the distinction between sex and gender comes up. So it'd be incorrect to say trans women are men, but correct (I guess) to say they're male. I don't know, I might be behind the times.
Biology is not that cut and dry. If you medically transition you're somewhere in the middle, and that's important for your healthcare. As in, maybe you need breast cancer checks that you didn't need before, things like that.
Sure, but it's still important for a doctor to know that they're in the middle and weren't, say, born with a uterus. The distinction still matters.
It is important info for your doctor. But not for politicians, or strangers you avoid eye contact with in a public bathroom.
Of course it matters, if the doctor asks you about your period and you don't have one. But it's the same for AMAB or AFAB people that were born without a uterus, or had it taken out.
A lot of the distinction of sex and gender gets muddied because as scientific evidence mounted about how blurry the lines between the sexes actually were "gender" ( not as we understand it in a modern queer context) started out as a construct that played fast and loose with phenotype and form to create a scientific construct of sex. It's in part why gender is sometimes a synonym for sex because it was aiming to preserve a biological binary which was really falling apart.
However philosophy looked at that construct and elaborated on what they were seeing and realizing that we draw arbitrary cultural lines around these things so "gender performativity" theory tends to group gender as something you do.
However gender performativity theory doesn't really cover what trans people experience. Basically, a lot of gender dysphoria is actually closer to the original use of gender. It involves people reacting to their physical bodies sex characteristics not falling in line with a sort of internal compulsion...so for a severely compressed example if I feel like everytime I am reminded through language that I do not conform to the physical features typical of the male phenotype I feel depressed, anxious and like essentially life has denied me something essential to me then I can backwards engineer that series of reactions to "I am a man / male"... Man might be a cultural category but the lack of the cultural category isn't what is upsetting, it's the social construct of woman drawing attention to the real problem of existing in my own body.
So where this gets culturally sticky is if someone insisting I am "female" it really is no different then misgendering. What's often culturally happening is they are just trying to do it in a pseudo scientific way which is why people will call you out on it.... Here's where it gets complicated. Trans people are a group of people who are lay masters with personal experience of the malleable nature of physical sex and the science of sex. Since the people often trying to categorize us as "male and female" alone are not actually giving any kind of scientific specificity it's not actually correct in a scientific biology based context so when we say you are wrong we usually don't mean it on a strictly metaphysical axis. We mean, * that's not how science uses those words*.
If I have been on testosterone a while and a couple of surgeries / or if I never went through a feminizing puberty at all I am going to fit more aspects of the male phenotype than female. I might have female chromasomal make up... but chromasomal makeup is only one facet of sex. If you wanted to be actually scientifically correct in regard to the "biological sex" of a trans person then you are going to have to take us on as individuals and that answer is going to be a lot more complicated than just rendering it down to "male" or "female". From a strictly taxonomic perspective a lot of us have become intersex. We biologically fit a category that is beyond the male/ female binary... We just did so as a matter of using technology to achieve that end.
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
OK, so you recognize intersex people. Good. Let's start there. So we can have people who appear like men or women who actually have the genitals of the opposite (or both), right? OK, so what caused that development? Usually it's related to chromosomes, but that isn't actually the cause. The thing that creates the differentiation is what hormones they have. The chromosomes usually are what controls their output though, so it's correlated.
OK, so we recognize that hormones are the thing that actually causes this. What happens when we artificially control what hormones are in the body? Does it matter what could have happened if we subvert that and control it manually? Which part is biologically deciding their gender? Isn't it the thing actually being expressed? If that's the case, then aren't they biologically women?
There's more to biology than you learned in your high school bio class (that you probably failed). "Basic biology" is, as the name implies, basic and not a full understanding. Anyone appealing to "basic biology" is admitting they don't actually understand any more than that.
(Just FYI so you can know where I'm coming from, I'm a cisgendered straight white man. This doesn't effect me directly, so I'm not arguing from self preservation. This shouldn't matter, but some people would probably discount the opinions of trans people as "arguing from emotion" or some bullshit just to ignore them.)
If that's the case, then aren't they *biologically* women?
Biologically male or female would be more correct as gender is a social construct. Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.
that you probably failed
Sorry to disappoint you but I have never failed a subject and have completed higher education.
”basic biology”
You’re the only person here who has used that term.
Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.
We already have a far less problematic set of terms for that: Assigned Male at Birth (AMAB) and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB). "Biological male" is a scientifically misleading phrase that bigots invented to slander trans people and it should not be used by anyone.
“Biological male” is a scientifically misleading phrase
The phrase seems to be very clear in meaning, could you tell me what you find misleading about it?
Because it's a meaninglessly vague phrase that is just a mirror into what you already believe.
This was already explained to you earlier in the thread. "Male" and "female" are, biologically speaking, not distinct and mutually exclusive categories in humans. This is the case naturally, and the terms become even less useful once you account for those who modify parts of their biology, whether by surgery or by artificially triggering natural biological processes, to bring those parts into congruence with other parts of their biology.
"Biological male" is a slur. It has no basis in science. It's a term coined by bigots to misgender trans people with sciencey-sounding words so their abuse looks reasonable at a glance, in much the same way that proponents of Scientific Racism use pseudoscience in an attempt to legitimize white supremacy.
"Male" and "female" are, biologically speaking, not distinct and mutually exclusive categories in humans.
They are and you repeating a claim without evidence does nothing.
Sexual dimorphism is real and artificial means of changing or replicating some parts of sexual dimorphism does not invalidate the underlying biology at play.
Male and female are so indistinguishable that it’s possible to identify them by their pelvis alone.
It's a term coined by bigots to misgender trans people
Unfortunate origins aside male is jot a gender and therefore not misgendering. Biological man is misgendering.
What do you think will be the outcome of arguing that sex and gender are the same? That’s literally the side of the argument you have chosen.
Either they’re separate and gender can be changed or they’re the same… and you disagree with trans rights.
Which biological process do you think that term refers to? If you can't pinpoint a single specific one, and have that make sense and have every person agree with you, then it's clearly not useful.
The only thing thats useful about it is it allows someone to be a bigot andact like they're intellectually superior (while also managing to be less precise and generally incorrect).
If you can't pinpoint a single specific one
So my answer must be simple, when discussing a complex topic, but you will circle back to claims of complexity to dismiss anything I say.
That is hardly a good faith response.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
It only needs to be simple if you say it should be simple. Biological male is a bad term because it implies some simple binary, which doesn't exist. If it does exist, then you should be able to tell me specifically which biological process it refers to.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
Fine answer. OK, so when someone takes HRT they are modifying these biological processes to fit with their chosen gender, correct? So they are now biologically their chosen gender, according to your definition, right? They are not the gender assigned at birth anymore.
HRT is gender affirming care and is not a ‘sex change’ which is outdated and offensive.
It’s odd that you’re trying to ‘debunk’ what you see as a bigoted term and you’ve come full circle to something even worse.
You should look up the difference between sex and gender before you continue arguing down this route.
I never said HRT was "sex change" though I would argue it potentially changes your sex, based on some definition of sex.
I did in another comment refer to a sex change surgery, which may be what you're referring to. Yeah, that has other names, but the point of that comment was the language is something we're working backwards to, and not something we should work forward from, unlike what you implied with your comment that was on. Whatever it's called, that's not an argument for what effect it has. We change the names of things as we evolve our understanding. We don't understand based on what things are called.
I know the difference between sex and gender. My point has been consistently that sex is hazy. It is not a binary, and calling someone "biologically male" who does not want to be called that is a snobby way to be an asshole, particularly because "biologically male" doesn't mean much, if anything. Assigned gender at birth is clear and there are no questions, so use that. If they're undergoing HRT and/or gender reassignment surgery, their biology is no longer that of their birth, so they are not "biologically male." Do you agree with this, or are you going to continue arguing that you were totally right the whole time? If you think you were right, which part of biology is the sex identifier? You haven't answered that.
If you think you were right, which part of biology is the sex identifier? You haven't answered that.
I have already very clearly articulated my answer to this. Go back up a couple of comments and read it again if you need to.
though I would argue it potentially changes your sex
Then you are arguing against the prevailing medical and scientific opinions, gender affirming care can assist with aligning secondary sex characteristics but does not change the patients sex.
It has long been an argument of the trans community that gender and sex are different, which Im not disputing at all but you are trying to make unclear.
Feminizing hormone therapy is used to make physical changes in the body that are caused by female hormones during puberty. Those changes are called secondary sex characteristics.
The sum of them does not make a binary definition of sex, nor does it make an unchanging one, as I've said before. If you want an unchanging binary definition you need to define what that would refer to.
It has long been an argument of the trans community that gender and sex are different, which Im not disputing at all but you are trying to make unclear.
I agree, gender is not sex. However, sex is not just something you're born with, as we've clearly seen with intersex characteristics and also being able to change the body with HRT.
I know the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics. I have said nothing that should indicate otherwise. You're just trying to be the "well actually..." person. Obviously primary sex characteristics are not the definition of sex. If they were then men males who have their testicals removed wouldn't be men males and women females who have their overies removed wouldn't be women females. You agree that's wrong, correct? (I know, asking these questions is pointless because you just ignore them, but hopefully they make you think.)
Sex is many things, which includes things effected by HRT and surgery. Saying "biological sex" to refer to sex assigned at birth is dismissive of this, right? (Not to mention it's totally wrong if we agree sex many characteristics.) If so, we should avoid the term, correct? It's not the same as gender assigned at birth, right?
Edit: men => males, women => females, because I could forsee the "technically..." coming.
Biologically male or female would be more correct as gender is a social construct.
I'm just using the term they used.
Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.
AFAB/AMAB is for the original status.
You’re the only person here who has used that term.
The logic you're coming from is what's taught in basic biology. You didn't use the term, but you used the knowledge. I bet this politician has used the term though, but I'm not going to dig to find out because I don't really care.
AFAB/AMAB is for the original status.
You're literally splitting hairs when the phrases mean the same thing.
No, it's not. What part makes someone "biologically" male or female? If their hormones are such that they are growing in the manner you'd expect for a male or female then they are biologically that sex, regardless of what they were at birth. Your chromosomes are not your biology. A(M/F)AB is unambiguous and clear. Biologically male or female could be referring to a number of biological processes in their body, many/most of which are associated with their chosen gender if they're undergoing HRT.
If their hormones are such that they are growing in the manner you'd expect for a male or female then they are biologically that sex
Show me a research paper that makes this claim. It is called gender affirming care and not sex affirming care for a reason.
And we call it sex change surgery despite not changing your chromosomes (which is what 99.9% of the "biological sex" people refer to). If your point is the language is flawed, I agree. If your point is that the flawed language is accurate, I don't. What is sex? If your answer has anything that is modified by hormones then you agree that sex is much more complicated than a single binary, and biological sex is a misleading, oversimplified, and inaccurate term.
Why the fuck would you say that if you mean it in good faith
I love in Ohio and all repub ads only talk about illegal immigrants and trans people. That's all they have, with a sprinkling of late term partial birth abortions.
I am frankly shocked that the trans stuff apparently works, well enough to be a main thrust of an ad campaign. Like I fully get there's a subset of Americans who are not comfortable with the concept, dislike trans people, think it's immoral or whatever. But it's such a big deal to you that we need a particular political party in charge so they can ban stuff? I just can't relate to that. But it's common enough that they run these ads, it's either firing up true believers or actually converting people. Somehow.
As opposed to transgender mechanical men.
Praise the Omnissiah!
Where do daleks and Cyber-men fit in?
You belong to us.
You will be like us.
Daleks are clearly "transgender mechanical enbys"
FROM THE MOMENT ...
::: spoiler The Advocate - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for The Advocate:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.advocate.com/election/brown-ohio-ad-trans-rights ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
What narrative? This is mostly true, and only untrue in cases of transgender women who are intersex AFAIK.
It's the framing of trans women as "biological men" as opposed to just calling them trans women. It gives ground to the right as trying to frame us trans folk as fakers as opposed to showing us as who we are, trans men and women.
I mean that's exactly what trans means, so they're just being redundant and perpetuating this weird fear mongering. Honestly some of them are just stupid, others seem to know a lot of constituents are stupid and appeal to it while knowingly preventing funding for education so future voters AREN'T stupid
That isn't what trans means. To be trans is to reject the gender assigned to you, which was informed by biology but less objective than something like the term "biological male" implies.
Oh shit, idk why that hadn't clicked for me before. I'm really sorry. Of course that makes sense
The framing being a fact check on a GOP claim, that a Dem is now being disparaged for including in their ad, that dispells the misinformation.
Lefties hurting themselves in their confusion is just classic.
I think the more important question is “why is that relevant?”
I don’t introduce myself with random facts about my past. “Hi, I once kissed a man on a dare”. That’s not relevant.
How was the kiss? Did you like it?
I was pretty drunk but it was okay ig
It was relevant to the ad to clarify the politicians voting record and counter misinformation being spread by their opponent.
This is very simple and I'm concerned that so many are completely incapable of
lol, turns out that's not very far
Reality disagrees with you lol
I mean, this is supposed to be where the distinction between sex and gender comes up. So it'd be incorrect to say trans women are men, but correct (I guess) to say they're male. I don't know, I might be behind the times.
Biology is not that cut and dry. If you medically transition you're somewhere in the middle, and that's important for your healthcare. As in, maybe you need breast cancer checks that you didn't need before, things like that.
Sure, but it's still important for a doctor to know that they're in the middle and weren't, say, born with a uterus. The distinction still matters.
It is important info for your doctor. But not for politicians, or strangers you avoid eye contact with in a public bathroom.
Of course it matters, if the doctor asks you about your period and you don't have one. But it's the same for AMAB or AFAB people that were born without a uterus, or had it taken out.
A lot of the distinction of sex and gender gets muddied because as scientific evidence mounted about how blurry the lines between the sexes actually were "gender" ( not as we understand it in a modern queer context) started out as a construct that played fast and loose with phenotype and form to create a scientific construct of sex. It's in part why gender is sometimes a synonym for sex because it was aiming to preserve a biological binary which was really falling apart.
However philosophy looked at that construct and elaborated on what they were seeing and realizing that we draw arbitrary cultural lines around these things so "gender performativity" theory tends to group gender as something you do.
However gender performativity theory doesn't really cover what trans people experience. Basically, a lot of gender dysphoria is actually closer to the original use of gender. It involves people reacting to their physical bodies sex characteristics not falling in line with a sort of internal compulsion...so for a severely compressed example if I feel like everytime I am reminded through language that I do not conform to the physical features typical of the male phenotype I feel depressed, anxious and like essentially life has denied me something essential to me then I can backwards engineer that series of reactions to "I am a man / male"... Man might be a cultural category but the lack of the cultural category isn't what is upsetting, it's the social construct of woman drawing attention to the real problem of existing in my own body.
So where this gets culturally sticky is if someone insisting I am "female" it really is no different then misgendering. What's often culturally happening is they are just trying to do it in a pseudo scientific way which is why people will call you out on it.... Here's where it gets complicated. Trans people are a group of people who are lay masters with personal experience of the malleable nature of physical sex and the science of sex. Since the people often trying to categorize us as "male and female" alone are not actually giving any kind of scientific specificity it's not actually correct in a scientific biology based context so when we say you are wrong we usually don't mean it on a strictly metaphysical axis. We mean, * that's not how science uses those words*.
If I have been on testosterone a while and a couple of surgeries / or if I never went through a feminizing puberty at all I am going to fit more aspects of the male phenotype than female. I might have female chromasomal make up... but chromasomal makeup is only one facet of sex. If you wanted to be actually scientifically correct in regard to the "biological sex" of a trans person then you are going to have to take us on as individuals and that answer is going to be a lot more complicated than just rendering it down to "male" or "female". From a strictly taxonomic perspective a lot of us have become intersex. We biologically fit a category that is beyond the male/ female binary... We just did so as a matter of using technology to achieve that end.
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
OK, so you recognize intersex people. Good. Let's start there. So we can have people who appear like men or women who actually have the genitals of the opposite (or both), right? OK, so what caused that development? Usually it's related to chromosomes, but that isn't actually the cause. The thing that creates the differentiation is what hormones they have. The chromosomes usually are what controls their output though, so it's correlated.
OK, so we recognize that hormones are the thing that actually causes this. What happens when we artificially control what hormones are in the body? Does it matter what could have happened if we subvert that and control it manually? Which part is biologically deciding their gender? Isn't it the thing actually being expressed? If that's the case, then aren't they biologically women?
There's more to biology than you learned in your high school bio class (that you probably failed). "Basic biology" is, as the name implies, basic and not a full understanding. Anyone appealing to "basic biology" is admitting they don't actually understand any more than that.
(Just FYI so you can know where I'm coming from, I'm a cisgendered straight white man. This doesn't effect me directly, so I'm not arguing from self preservation. This shouldn't matter, but some people would probably discount the opinions of trans people as "arguing from emotion" or some bullshit just to ignore them.)
Biologically male or female would be more correct as gender is a social construct. Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.
Sorry to disappoint you but I have never failed a subject and have completed higher education.
You’re the only person here who has used that term.
We already have a far less problematic set of terms for that: Assigned Male at Birth (AMAB) and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB). "Biological male" is a scientifically misleading phrase that bigots invented to slander trans people and it should not be used by anyone.
The phrase seems to be very clear in meaning, could you tell me what you find misleading about it?
Because it's a meaninglessly vague phrase that is just a mirror into what you already believe.
This was already explained to you earlier in the thread. "Male" and "female" are, biologically speaking, not distinct and mutually exclusive categories in humans. This is the case naturally, and the terms become even less useful once you account for those who modify parts of their biology, whether by surgery or by artificially triggering natural biological processes, to bring those parts into congruence with other parts of their biology.
"Biological male" is a slur. It has no basis in science. It's a term coined by bigots to misgender trans people with sciencey-sounding words so their abuse looks reasonable at a glance, in much the same way that proponents of Scientific Racism use pseudoscience in an attempt to legitimize white supremacy.
They are and you repeating a claim without evidence does nothing.
Sexual dimorphism is real and artificial means of changing or replicating some parts of sexual dimorphism does not invalidate the underlying biology at play.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
Male and female are so indistinguishable that it’s possible to identify them by their pelvis alone.
Unfortunate origins aside male is jot a gender and therefore not misgendering. Biological man is misgendering.
What do you think will be the outcome of arguing that sex and gender are the same? That’s literally the side of the argument you have chosen.
Either they’re separate and gender can be changed or they’re the same… and you disagree with trans rights.
Which biological process do you think that term refers to? If you can't pinpoint a single specific one, and have that make sense and have every person agree with you, then it's clearly not useful.
The only thing thats useful about it is it allows someone to be a bigot and act like they're intellectually superior (while also managing to be less precise and generally incorrect).
So my answer must be simple, when discussing a complex topic, but you will circle back to claims of complexity to dismiss anything I say.
That is hardly a good faith response.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
It only needs to be simple if you say it should be simple. Biological male is a bad term because it implies some simple binary, which doesn't exist. If it does exist, then you should be able to tell me specifically which biological process it refers to.
Fine answer. OK, so when someone takes HRT they are modifying these biological processes to fit with their chosen gender, correct? So they are now biologically their chosen gender, according to your definition, right? They are not the gender assigned at birth anymore.
HRT is gender affirming care and is not a ‘sex change’ which is outdated and offensive.
It’s odd that you’re trying to ‘debunk’ what you see as a bigoted term and you’ve come full circle to something even worse.
You should look up the difference between sex and gender before you continue arguing down this route.
I never said HRT was "sex change" though I would argue it potentially changes your sex, based on some definition of sex.
I did in another comment refer to a sex change surgery, which may be what you're referring to. Yeah, that has other names, but the point of that comment was the language is something we're working backwards to, and not something we should work forward from, unlike what you implied with your comment that was on. Whatever it's called, that's not an argument for what effect it has. We change the names of things as we evolve our understanding. We don't understand based on what things are called.
I know the difference between sex and gender. My point has been consistently that sex is hazy. It is not a binary, and calling someone "biologically male" who does not want to be called that is a snobby way to be an asshole, particularly because "biologically male" doesn't mean much, if anything. Assigned gender at birth is clear and there are no questions, so use that. If they're undergoing HRT and/or gender reassignment surgery, their biology is no longer that of their birth, so they are not "biologically male." Do you agree with this, or are you going to continue arguing that you were totally right the whole time? If you think you were right, which part of biology is the sex identifier? You haven't answered that.
I have already very clearly articulated my answer to this. Go back up a couple of comments and read it again if you need to.
Then you are arguing against the prevailing medical and scientific opinions, gender affirming care can assist with aligning secondary sex characteristics but does not change the patients sex.
It has long been an argument of the trans community that gender and sex are different, which Im not disputing at all but you are trying to make unclear.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/feminizing-hormone-therapy/about/pac-20385096
For your convenience you can check the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_characteristics
The sum of them does not make a binary definition of sex, nor does it make an unchanging one, as I've said before. If you want an unchanging binary definition you need to define what that would refer to.
I agree, gender is not sex. However, sex is not just something you're born with, as we've clearly seen with intersex characteristics and also being able to change the body with HRT.
I know the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics. I have said nothing that should indicate otherwise. You're just trying to be the "well actually..." person. Obviously primary sex characteristics are not the definition of sex. If they were then
menmales who have their testicals removed wouldn't bemenmales andwomenfemales who have their overies removed wouldn't bewomenfemales. You agree that's wrong, correct? (I know, asking these questions is pointless because you just ignore them, but hopefully they make you think.)Sex is many things, which includes things effected by HRT and surgery. Saying "biological sex" to refer to sex assigned at birth is dismissive of this, right? (Not to mention it's totally wrong if we agree sex many characteristics.) If so, we should avoid the term, correct? It's not the same as gender assigned at birth, right?
Edit: men => males, women => females, because I could forsee the "technically..." coming.
I'm just using the term they used.
AFAB/AMAB is for the original status.
The logic you're coming from is what's taught in basic biology. You didn't use the term, but you used the knowledge. I bet this politician has used the term though, but I'm not going to dig to find out because I don't really care.
You're literally splitting hairs when the phrases mean the same thing.
No, it's not. What part makes someone "biologically" male or female? If their hormones are such that they are growing in the manner you'd expect for a male or female then they are biologically that sex, regardless of what they were at birth. Your chromosomes are not your biology. A(M/F)AB is unambiguous and clear. Biologically male or female could be referring to a number of biological processes in their body, many/most of which are associated with their chosen gender if they're undergoing HRT.
Show me a research paper that makes this claim. It is called gender affirming care and not sex affirming care for a reason.
And we call it sex change surgery despite not changing your chromosomes (which is what 99.9% of the "biological sex" people refer to). If your point is the language is flawed, I agree. If your point is that the flawed language is accurate, I don't. What is sex? If your answer has anything that is modified by hormones then you agree that sex is much more complicated than a single binary, and biological sex is a misleading, oversimplified, and inaccurate term.