Should we refer to a transgender female undergoing hormone treatment as "biologically male"?

Chromosomally male or biologically male both seem fine, regardless of what you decide you will piss people off. Although I'm not strictly opposed to voluntary self mutilation, I will not give into their delusion and will refer to people as they were born.

DSD people/athletes are a completely different topic of course.

Instead of "biological male", a more straight forward approach would be referring to the transgender athlete as being "genetic XY" or "genetic XX".

This might be where the overall definitions gender end up. As the lines of binary male/female syntax and he/she pronouns get to shades of grey, there is no argument that genetically that you are either "XY", "XX", or "XXY", etc.

I agree that if you are a genetic XY and want to be call she, you deserve that right to be addressed as that. But there is no grey area of what exact chromosomes you possess.

Forgot to lock thread to registered users. Now it is locked.

From a biological standpoint, I don't see anything wrong with it. Are they going try to ban people from recognizing reality? I guess if they are going get upset about that, put XY female.

Your description, “transgender female undergoing hormone treatment” is appropriate, inoffensive and precise in this context.

Biological, in my opinion, refers to what the person is at birth.

Of course chromosomonally, the person will always be male.

Being totally honest, I get confused by a lot of this. Initially, to me, "transgender female" means you were born female and identify as a male. Hence, transgender female. But, your post makes me think I have it backwards.

I think the best solution is call June a woman. Straight forward and simple. She wants to be a woman, so be it. That said, I think it sounds ok to say she was/is biologically male. Or born male. In my opinion, transgender athletes should go full sex change in order to be labelled the gender they identify as. But, that's a little too harsh and expensive. So I think it's fair to call June a woman and move on. I can only think of a couple situations where the term biologically male would be necessary. One being if June goes and runs her 3:50 1500 PR or faster and sets the WR. Other than that, not sure why it would be necessary.

In general I would say defer to what the transgender community feels is most respectful. Having someone like Joanne is a great resource. I applaud you for doing your best with this and I should hope people will recognize a lot of us don't mean to say things that are disrespectful, but being largely uneducated means we will inadvertently do just that.

It has been interesting learning more about this, partially from a society at large standpoint, but also as a coach trying to better understand what makes us run faster.

Anyone born a male, with XY chromosomes is a male and always will be a male no matter how many hormones he takes or surgeries he has. He can say he’s a female, but he will always be a male and should be called a male. Describing them as a biological male would be accurate. That isn’t being intolerant or disrespectful, it is stating the truth.

We should refer to people as they prefer to be referred to. That's not an issue for anyone but bigots. Some people get overworked up when someone who doesn't know what to call them refers to them in a way they don't prefer, but if they can't accept an apology and move on they're probably not good people anyhow.

The issue is whether these people should be allowed to compete as women. I see little reason why its appropriate in today's political climate to discuss anything else about transgenders on letsrun.

Kvothe wrote:

We should refer to people as they prefer to be referred to. That's not an issue for anyone but bigots. Some people get overworked up when someone who doesn't know what to call them refers to them in a way they don't prefer, but if they can't accept an apology and move on they're probably not good people anyhow.

The issue is whether these people should be allowed to compete as women. I see little reason why its appropriate in today's political climate to discuss anything else about transgenders on letsrun.

If a white person decided they were black would you call them black because that is what they preferred?

You refer to June as she/her/etc.

If needed, you can have a paragraph like this:

June, born as a male name Jonathan, began hormone treatment DATE HERE.

That's all you need to do. I believe you can refer to a place such as the Associated Press, rather than refer to organizations favoring one side or another.

How about a "freshly minted female"?

I have a friend who is undergoing hormone treatment to suppress testosterone in response to a diagnosis of prostrate cancer. Does he cease to be "biologically male" because his hormones are being suppressed? Obviously not.

A person who is XY (as transgender are) is biologically male; it is a pointless distinction to argue that it is only "chromosomal", as chromosomes determine what we understand as biological maleness - reproductive organs, genitalia, muscle make-up, anatomical and bone structure, cardiovascular capacity, hormones etc, which are all different from XX females.

It is implicit in the term "transgender" that such a person is biologically male, although clearly their gender-identification is female. However it may only be appropriate or necessary to refer to their biological maleness in a context where it is relevant, which may include the issue of participation in female sports - as we see here - or with regard to appropriate medical treatment (which isn't an issue here), as obviously an XX female will not have prostrate issues, for example, and a transgender will not have many of the issues that specifically affect women's health.

Letsrun is probably the wrong place to ask this question :)

I think "biologically male" is probably not a useful term because "biology" can mean many things. The BBC writer might be trying to make a distinction between "chromosomal sex" and "gender"?

The question of naming is an interesting one... if you're trying to live your life by a new identity then I could see why you wouldn't want people to call you by your old name. If someone went up to Caitlyn Jenner and called her "Bruce" to her face, I think that would be pretty rude right?

I think the Wikipedia articles on Caitlyn Jenner or Renee Richards seem appropriately styled for the most part: it mentions their birth names in the beginning, uses the pronoun "her" or "Jenner/Richards" throughout, uses her current name, and only uses her birth name if it's specifically discussing her birth name, if it's a quote, or if it's the name of a company or organization or something. It talks about Jenner's performance before her transition, but doesn't use her birth name when discussing it (although quotes remain quotes and it specifies the men's decathlon).

Similarly, if there were an article about Martin Sheen, you'd use Sheen everywhere and not Estevez unless specifically referring to his birth name.

I think the only issue here is that "Bruce Jenner" was a household name and personal brand before she changed her name to Caitlyn.

My $.02...

Should we refer to a transgender female undergoing hormone treatment as "biologically male"?

I believe she wants to be called "June".

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Should we refer to a transgender female undergoing hormone treatment as "biologically male"?

I believe she wants to be called "June".

If the issue relates to participation in sports - then, yes. It is an area of unresolved and legitimate debate.

What are you trying to add with "biologically male" that isn't already covered by "transgender female"? It's redundant when if know the definition of transgender, and not completely accurate with regards to sport performance if those hormone treatments are being done.

What is more important is the hormone treatment details, if the testes are still there or not, and the levels of testosterone. Some of that might not be appropriate or necessary to share with the public.

zzzz wrote:

What are you trying to add with "biologically male" that isn't already covered by "transgender female"? It's redundant when if know the definition of transgender, and not completely accurate with regards to sport performance if those hormone treatments are being done.

What is more important is the hormone treatment details, if the testes are still there or not, and the levels of testosterone. Some of that might not be appropriate or necessary to share with the public.

Hormone treatments don't change the biological facts of maleness. Males with reduced testosterone still remain male - as those undergoing treatment for prostate cancer show.

Armstronglivs wrote:

zzzz wrote:

What are you trying to add with "biologically male" that isn't already covered by "transgender female"? It's redundant when if know the definition of transgender, and not completely accurate with regards to sport performance if those hormone treatments are being done.

What is more important is the hormone treatment details, if the testes are still there or not, and the levels of testosterone. Some of that might not be appropriate or necessary to share with the public.

Hormone treatments don't change the biological facts of maleness. Males with reduced testosterone still remain male - as those undergoing treatment for prostate cancer show.

I didn't say anything about males with reduced testosterone.