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

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

You’re entitled to your opinion. However, you do understand that outside of the 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.

This here is a lie, people suffering from Gender Dysphoria make up a very very small portion of the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ community and there are not millions of them. Most so-called trans people usually work through or grow out of their gender dysphoria and live happy and healthy heterosexual and or homosexual lives. The very few who continue down the path towards self-mutilation and biological hacking end up committing suicide at high rates, 40% if not more.

TrackGirl wrote:

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.

Not only is Semenya XY, have internal testes but also lacks ovaries and a womb, he is a male eunuch, no penis with internal testes. But that truth doesn't fit the narrative they are pushing and trying to force you to believe.

The prompt appears to be a loaded question. Do you actually want to know the answer to what is essentially a semantic technicality, or is this really just an opportunity to try to refute some construct you already see as faulty. Since the former seems so trite, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter which means your inquiry is intellectually dishonest. You don't want to start a conversation on modern semantics and it's potential shortcomings in an evolving modern society. You essentially just wanted to say "this is why this aspect of transgenderism is wrong."

If I'm wrong and it's a true inquiry, then don't you have anything better to do?

Why aren't the women, who were born and developed as women, screaming bloody murder about trans runners joining their ranks? Until they more effectively gain their voice in these situations nothing will keep these other women from competing. Why don't I hear more, with more volume, from them?

Could it be because all of us become confused by the new 'rules' about who may speak, about what, and too often cower beneath the fist of the diversity PC mob that seems to dominate discourse these days? There have been several posts within this thread that assert that everyone who isn't 'with the program' need to shut up. They don't offer rational arguments, no opinions really, other than 'you shut the blank up'.

Chilling, this authoritarian mob rule thing.

When exactly did it become acceptable to blithely refer to others this way? This is a prominent feature of the authoritarian 'diversity mob' that has taken over much of the modern cultural discourse, that it is acceptable, even laudable, to smear white people, specifically white men, in discussion.

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?

WhyRegisterHere? wrote:

When exactly did it become acceptable to blithely refer to others this way? This is a prominent feature of the authoritarian 'diversity mob' that has taken over much of the modern cultural discourse, that it is acceptable, even laudable, to smear white people, specifically white men, in discussion.

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?

That one was too obvious. Diversified opinions = Something that makes FightFor15 happy.

I think it's a mistake to codify deception about transgender through PC language which is exactly what the uproar is about. We perceive each new June as wanting to be the first transgender who becomes "really female". That may not be June's intention all all, but it appears to be what many want to have happen.

Transgender female is a confusing and misleading term. To try to force everyone to call them women is also not constructive. Both are not accurate. It might work for Wall Street or Hollywood or other large media outlets, It might work for some in politics , but it wont work for people who don't want to be expected to believe that transgender= female when it doesn't.

It doesn't make sport fair, but there are also much more serious problems with the deception. Something like 50% of men who have murdered transgenders passing as females claimed that they did it because of deception. We shouldn't be fueling the false belief that many transgenders have that they are factually female and should be accepted as such by factual men. And we shouldn't go all salem witch trials on anyone male, as the extremists in the PC crown appears ready to do with white males.

Further more. It teaches society to tell kids that have gender dysphoria to take if further, no problem.

It potentially makes horrible nurturers worse. I know a mother who tells everybody she thinks her son is too beautiful to be a boy. He is an average looking kid . I am sure she is happy with the direction things are going. Maybe one day mandatory reporters will get to report stuff like that.

This is a serious question:

Did June Eastman have surgery (yet)?

I'm am so conflicted on this but if she follows the testosterone rules she should be able to compete (MHO).

Just as Semenya would be able to.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

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. .

I wonder how women--natural-born, XX-chromosomed women--feel about this.

We know how natural-born African Americans feel about Rachel Dolezal, who was born white but identifies herself as African American.

I'm struck by way in which the first transformational identity, trans female, is understood as something that should be universally embraced, so that only "un-woke" people would possibly object, while the second transformational identity, trans black (so to speak) is understood a kind of scandalous racist overreaching.

I understand why this is the case: LGBTQ identity and African American identity are both associated with long oppression and stigma. So what LGBTQ people and African Americans say weighs very heavily--particularly when somebody not part of the group tries to tell a member of the group what they can or can not do, or tries to claim group privileges.

But here's the problem: women, as a group, are long-oppressed. That should be so obvious as to need no argument. Women couldn't vote in America until 1920, for god's sake. And of course until Title IX came in, women's athletics barely existed as a thing in colleges and universities. In EEOC terms, women are still part of a "protected class."

And yet, in the current dispute between trans female athletes and natural-born female athletes, virtue is understood by progressive activists to fall wholly on one side.

I'm amused by the way in which a progressive white male journalist like Dave Zirin, for example, is supremely confident that his vindication of the rights of trans female athletes completely trumps the vindication of the rights of women. Female athletes--natural-born female athletes--who raise their hands and say, "Wait a minute, 'female athlete' is a protected category. Don't we have a right to some say in who belongs to it?" are transphobic, and thus ethically beyond the pale.

Loophole. you could always refer to them as ex-male. Although to me I will always think of someone as their birth sex.

I am waiting for the day when someone decides that they are an inanimate object. lol. " I have always been soda can or a tree" It is coming.

Actually there are millions of people with GD, it's more a matter of degree. 0.6% in the u.s identify as transgender, and that's those who are out, so that's a couple of million in the U.S alone, how many world wide....

You are also completely incorrect about the suicide rates. There are a few studies out there, but for example one has 29% attempting before transitioning, and only 5% if they had transitioned, another 29% before, and 1% after etc. You need to check your facts.

westsouthrunner wrote:

Loophole. you could always refer to them as ex-male. Although to me I will always think of someone as their birth sex.

I am waiting for the day when someone decides that they are an inanimate object. lol. " I have always been soda can or a tree" It is coming.

You don't think of someone as their birth sex, as most people you meet you don't know their birth sex. You just assume you do, because they look a certain way. What you really do is think of someone as how they look, unless you learn something different about them.

Is the medical and commonly used terminology not just 'male to female' (MTF) and vice versa? Much simpler than chromosomically male or whatever.

Forcing me to call a man a woman is like forcing me to tell you that 2+2=5. Did you ever read 1984?

You can't say the name he was gifted with by his parents, you can't say "he", you can't say "biologically male", you can't mention his male chromosomes... Everything offends them, you will never satisfy them.

Don't try to play their game. Just stick to the science, stick to the facts. Say it like it is.

Did you know that they have invented more than 100 genders?

Addressing a crowd by saying "dear ladies and gentlemen" is transphobic according to them.

They are waging a war on our language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR4uyMjUnDI

TrackGirl wrote:

Forcing me to call a man a woman is like forcing me to tell you that 2+2=5. Did you ever read 1984?

You can't say the name he was gifted with by his parents, you can't say "he", you can't say "biologically male", you can't mention his male chromosomes... Everything offends them, you will never satisfy them.

Don't try to play their game. Just stick to the science, stick to the facts. Say it like it is.

Where did anyone force you to do anything ? You can say whatever you want, just don't be surprised if people think you are of low intelligence is all.

If you know their chromosomes, they won't have an issue with it if you mention them. You obviously do though.

muumuu wrote:

westsouthrunner wrote:

Loophole. you could always refer to them as ex-male. Although to me I will always think of someone as their birth sex.

I am waiting for the day when someone decides that they are an inanimate object. lol. " I have always been soda can or a tree" It is coming.

You don't think of someone as their birth sex, as most people you meet you don't know their birth sex. You just assume you do, because they look a certain way. What you really do is think of someone as how they look, unless you learn something different about them.

I know what a man looks like lol

westsouthrunner wrote:

muumuu wrote:

You don't think of someone as their birth sex, as most people you meet you don't know their birth sex. You just assume you do, because they look a certain way. What you really do is think of someone as how they look, unless you learn something different about them.

I know what a man looks like lol

Do you?