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

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

Imagine your horror when your narrow scope comes crashing down as this woman passes all look and feel tests.

What's "narrow" is cherry-picking the least obvious tenth of one percent of MTF transgenders, and then pretending that the ambiguity of a still photo would transfer to in-person interaction, and then pretending further that it would be any different than being fooled by a drag queen.

People figure this out quickly, nearly immediately. They go along with the pretense because they're forced to. They can even lose their jobs if they refuse the "preferred" pronoun. But they're not saying what they really think, and we all know it. How long will the charade continue, who knows.

Yeah. Ok alpha guy. I’m sure that with your vast experience with numerous women in the Niagara Falls area that you would know better than I would. (Breakfast Club reference for you).

You’re probably right. I’m probably wrong. What would I know.

mcguck wrote:

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.

Can't find the old Trevor Noah stand up on it, but back when it all started and Semenya came back to South Africa from WC Gold medal, the South African Sports Minister fronted the media and said:

Minister: "She is a womaaan!!"

Reporter: "Would you marry her?"

Minister: "Not that kind a womaan!"

I thought "male" and "female" were sex terms not gender. Or can they be both sex and gender?

Ok I feel better now. Treat people with respect don't be afraid to use a term you feel is correct. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs even within the transsexual/transgender community.

Wejo, I admit to not knowing for sure if this is the case (as many more who are posting on this thread should...), but it feels like someone found one person who gives a different opinion from the vast majority of the trans community and you’re using that to let yourself off the hook for having to further examine your website’s policies on how it discusses (and allows discussion of) this topic.

I applaud you for starting this thread, I applaud you for admitting you don’t have all the answers, and I applaud you for reaching out to an expert to try to get them. But the work doesn’t stop there. Keep going. Do the ongoing self-examination, research, and work to actually come up with (and then communicate) a LetsRun policy that leads to this issue being able to be covered by this site (and discussed on these boards) in a way that allows for respectful and fact-based disagreement.

Either that or gracefully bow out of covering this issue and cede the floor to another group, website, or journalist who is willing to do that work to be able to lead the discussion on this issue in a productive manner. Because otherwise what’s the point of writing on the issue (or allowing message board discussion on the issue) if no one has anything worthwhile to say?

I do check my facts because I wok in the field and what's posted on the mainstream isn't facts. These people with a psychological disorder are killing themselves at alarming rates but those facts don't fit the ideology.

What are you talking about here? There is some acceptable orthodoxy (defined by who exactly?) within which these issues may be discussed? That's not how open, freewheeling discussion works. How is it acceptable for you or anyone else to define the terms and conditions under which other people talk, about anything? We are trending toward a dystopian authoritarianism when we allow anyone to define what is acceptable in speech, thought, discussion. I reject your assertions outright. I especially love your conviction that you should be able to suggest how the operator of a discussion site conducts business. No way.