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

Can ya'll stop it with stuff like this and get some training on sensitive topics so that you lead productive conversations instead of fueling hate? Take a step back. & delete the other thread that says in the title that men can identify as horses. Seriously instead of your white dude writers taking a stab at talking about this stuff can't you find a guest writer to come in with a thoughtful op-ed to bring some diversified opinions to this place?

So , is it something about my biology or theirs that makes trans - anybody not properly come across as what they transition to?

June will never come across as a biological female to my senses ,or to those of anyone being honest about it.

I know it's not just me either. They don't come across as what they transitioned to to anyone. Not yet anyway.

I don't know what to call them because my perception tells me MTF are not female and FTM are not male.

So , i guess that's kind of where the reluctance to play along comes from. Like we are being clowned and even groomed if you think about it. It's not in our DNA to be groomed to see these kinds of things that we really don't.

I know it comes across as crass and definitely not PC but it's the truth. HeShe or SheHe, which is I guess pretty derogatory is also seemingly honest. It's like believing in Santa Claus for the sake of the person who doesn't want to be who they were born as anymore. Even if there is a biological incentive to change ,why are the observers require to make this leap of faith that the change makes them a new sex or even gender?

I am pretty new to all this becoming a regular thing. I hope it makes people live more happily than if they had not gone through all this , so I guess it's where "non-binary" comes from. I'll try to get more informed on that because based on what i am guess it means, it sort of of fits these gender changers a lot more than Male of Female does.

FightFor15 wrote:get some training on sensitive topics

Like those re-education programs in the USSR? Think like us or else, right? The brojos don't need no re-education, the world has just gone insane.

FightFor15 wrote:

Can ya'll stop it with stuff like this and get some training on sensitive topics so that you lead productive conversations instead of fueling hate? Take a step back. & delete the other thread that says in the title that men can identify as horses. Seriously instead of your white dude writers taking a stab at talking about this stuff can't you find a guest writer to come in with a thoughtful op-ed to bring some diversified opinions to this place?

Seriously, how am I fueling hate by having this discussion? I contacted one of the leading experts on transgender sports in the world who is transgender herself and asked her what she thought on this. I published her comments.

I think this thread is very productive. We're seeing a range of opinions, some I bet you really disagree with and I do as well but I don't automatically assign bad motives to people I disagree with. I definitely don't see how this topic is "fueling hate".

I don't see the other thread you are referencing so I assume it is deleted.

BergLaufer wrote:

From a biological standpoint, I don't see anything wrong with it. Are they going try to ban people from recognizing reality?

Reality is "problematic." Have to muddy the waters by declaring it "complex."

Don't object to manipulation of language or you're a bigot.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

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

I believe she wants to be called "June".

Good point. That was sort of what we went with. Use scientific terms if we are trying to explain something. Don't mention her male name unless it's necessary out of respect but I don't really feel an obligation to avoid it.

Someone used the term FTM and MTF.

This topic did come up today. Should the proper term be MTF and FTM? They seems to be accepted but aren't "male" and "female" more associated with one's biological/chromosonal sex rather than gender?

The answer to OP's question is: not if you want to keep your Facebook account.

I don't know that I really care one way or the other whether you say "genetically XY" or "chromosomally male" or "biologically male" or "born male" or whatever. I DO know that it is necessary to indicate somehow that this is absolutely not a naturally-born, XX, female runner. They can legally change their name, apparently the NCAA will allow them to do basically whatever they want in terms of competition category, but a lady is always a lady, and a man is always a man. This must be indicated somehow or you're completely bankrupt journalistically.

Armstronglivs wrote:

zzzz wrote:

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

What is that but a transgender also undergoing hormone suppressant treatment (as prostate patients do)?

So call her transgender. Saying "biological male" does not add any information at all that "transgender" already tells you.

zzzz wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What is that but a transgender also undergoing hormone suppressant treatment (as prostate patients do)?

So call her transgender. Saying "biological male" does not add any information at all that "transgender" already tells you.

There are some here who clearly believe that a transgender person is a biological female. They are wrong in that. To say that a transgender person is a biological male is relevant if it is related to discussion of an issue like female sports participation (as we are discussing here), or specific medical practice.

In most other respects, to say a transgender person is a biological male is redundant. In that, we are likely in agreement. But where biological sex/gender is central to the discussion then biological terminology is entirely appropriate.

You’re entitled to your opinion. However, you do understand that outside of track, there’s a big wide world out there with millions of transgender people. The mainstream media does no such thing when they talk about transgendered people in other professions or areas. So you are not correct in implying they would be “journalistically bankrupt”. They would actually be adhering to industry standards.

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

You’re entitled to your opinion. However, you do understand that outside of track, there’s a big wide world out there with millions of transgender people. The mainstream media does no such thing when they talk about transgendered people in other professions or areas. So you are not correct in implying they would be “journalistically bankrupt”. They would actually be adhering to industry standards.

I'm not sure who you are replying to there, but I have never claimed that anyone is being "journalistically bankrupt". As I have said, the qualification about biological gender is only relevant when the discussion involves biology, as male participation in female sports requires.

Armstronglivs wrote:

zzzz wrote:

So call her transgender. Saying "biological male" does not add any information at all that "transgender" already tells you.

There are some here who clearly believe that a transgender person is a biological female. They are wrong in that. To say that a transgender person is a biological male is relevant if it is related to discussion of an issue like female sports participation (as we are discussing here), or specific medical practice.

In most other respects, to say a transgender person is a biological male is redundant. In that, we are likely in agreement. But where biological sex/gender is central to the discussion then biological terminology is entirely appropriate.

Who here or anywhere has said that a transgender person is a biological female? I haven't seen that mistake in any of these threads. By definition a transgender person is going from male to female or female to male. What's confusing about that? If someone is not getting the terminology quite right, or maybe confusing it with intersex conditions, that's no big deal. Everyone knows we are talking about dudes that become women, and everyone who is not dumb as a rock understands that there must be limitations to that transition.

zzzz wrote:

Everyone knows we are talking about dudes that become women, and everyone who is not dumb as a rock understands that there must be limitations to that transition.

Such as, like, maybe they don't actually become women, but are just dudes on estrogen and such?

It's understandable to be scared out of saying so, but I'm sure it's still what the overwhelming majority actually thinks.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Such as, like, maybe they don't actually become women, but are just dudes on estrogen and such?

It's understandable to be scared out of saying so, but I'm sure it's still what the overwhelming majority actually thinks.

Yes, crazy , crazy world...fasten the seat belts, it will only get crazier until the next mad dictator comes along

quickrunner789 wrote:

I don't know that I really care one way or the other whether you say "genetically XY" or "chromosomally male" or "biologically male" or "born male" or whatever. I DO know that it is necessary to indicate somehow that this is absolutely not a naturally-born, XX, female runner. They can legally change their name, apparently the NCAA will allow them to do basically whatever they want in terms of competition category, but a lady is always a lady, and a man is always a man. This must be indicated somehow or you're completely bankrupt journalistically.

Indeed.

Just like the MSM "forget" to tell in every story about Semenya that he is XY and has testes.

Well, some are apparently "dumb as a rock", because I have read comments in various threads on this topic where that confusion occurs and it is claimed that a "transitioned" transgender has become biologically female. But I reiterate, in a discussion involving biological issues it is precious to desist from using biological terms to avoid causing offence. And that appears to be your main objection. It doesn't wash.

MTF and FTM are correct. They lived as the first gender and are now living as the second gender.

Have a transgender daughter.

I'd say no, to the original question, because the term "biologically male" doesn't really help anyone understand anything here, so why use it ?

If you want to say XX/XY, because that's the actual issue being discussed and it needs something specific, then say that.

Say what the state of play is technically, if it's a technical context, otherwise call them she, them, or transgender female (or something else if they desire) if it's just in general reference.