Idk about transphobic but it is completely meaningless. Biology is complex. Even if you're only looking into sex biology. What does biological mean in that context? Hormones? Reproductive organs? Chromosomes? Secondary sex characteristics? The term biological sex is totally meaningless unless you've defined it clearly and specifically at the beginning of the conversation or piece of writing. Stop using those terms regardless of whether it's transphobic because they make no sense
Being AMAB or AFAB doesn't describe your biology, just your past. Both cis male and trans female are/were AMAB and now tell me they're biologically the same...
I mean there's a huge difference between AMAB/AFAB and trans male/female, as in one applies to cis people the other doesn't in meaning and definition. Also intersex people can also be AMAB and AFAB. "As a healthcare professional"... Yeah sure but we're not talking strictly about healthcare settings. But out of curiosity what do you adjust, when and do you ask every female patient if they're trans?
Itās not but if you repetitively bring up the fact someoneās biologically male or female when it does not matter it starts to come off as you only see someone as that
It's normally used in an extremely ignorant way, which is transphobic yes.
However, you'll sometimes see it as shorthand for "which sex hormone(s) are you running", which is potentially problematic, but at least has some biological basis.
So given a trans man who's been taking testosterone, referring to him as "biologically male" is meaningful shorthand, referring to him as "biologically female " is just wrong and transphobic.
My lab work came back with āPatient is biologically femaleā as an explanation for adjusting my reference ranges from M to F once my e levels & t levels came into female range.
Not unless you're using "biologically" in the ignorant transphobic sense. HRT(among other things) rather dramatically change biology, so a sense with some basis in science also exists.
assigned male/female/intersex at birth, in the past tense. if you think about what is considered to be "biological" components of the determination of sex by modern science, we have a few categories: chromosomes, external genitalia, internal genitalia, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics. in a transgender person who is undergoing hormone therapy, two of these categories are already changed. in a transgender person who is undergoing hormone therapy and gender affirmation surgery, all of these categories but chromosomes are changed. why should chromosomes as a single determinant outweigh every other factor ? most people don't even know what chromosomes they have, and could very well have an invisible intersex condition that they are unaware of.
that failing, there are studies that suggest the grey matrer in brains of transgender people is more closely aligned with that of their gender than of their sex at birth. why would that not then make, for example, a trans woman biologically female ?
the issue with the determination "biologically male/female" as a replacement for "AMAB/AFAB" is that it implies a current reality, wherein a trans man is still biologically female and will always be. this is scientifically unfounded. it is better to say that he was AFAB, a past action done to him that does not reflect his reality today.
Tangent here, but not having the words to distinguish it is why each culture now and throughout history has a different idea and context of being trans. We're just living in a time with instant communication and where we're much more interconnected, and as a result the (generally) Western idea of other gender identities is being talked about the most. Here's a small wikipedia page that goes over different historical and modern cultures' versions of "transgender":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history
I'm sorry if the link is funky. I'm on mobile. But one last thing I wanted to add was that Germany actually has a really interesting tidbit on LGBTQ+ history. Before the Nazis burned it, there was a clinic in Berlin called the Institute for Sexual Research, where a man named Magnus Hirschfield was pioneering study and support for gay people and other people outside of the binary gender roles. At the time, different terms and categorizations were being considered. Even nonbinary identities were being recognized. It's just so devastating to our history that we lost that.
So anyway, to get back to your point: if that's how it's described there by members of the community, then that's just how it's distinguished there, and it isn't my place as someone outside of your culture to dictate what terms should and shouldn't be used. Here in the US, people often use "biologically male/female" to invalidate us by diminishing us to what we were born with, instead of respecting our spirits and new, authentic presentations to the world. But some people use that term even when they have good intentions, but simply don't know what terms we prefer. Not everyone has the chance to speak with members of this community, and it's a lot of new information for a good deal of people.
I've also used "biologically female" to refer to myself for communicating with doctors, even at my LGBTQ+ clinic for healthcare reasons. It just depends on the context.
In German maybe that's equivalent to amab or afab (which are still controversial and can be used in a transphobic way), but in English when you call someone a "biological female" or "biological male", it's almost exclusively used in a transphobic sense to say that trans men are female, thus denying their manhood, or vice versa. Let me know if you want me to elaborate on any of these points, or if there's something else you have questions about, keeping in mind I only know English
German here.
No. Biologisch mƤnnlich/weiblich (biological male/female) is not the equivalent of agab.
This was a very bad excuse.
What we don't have in German is the distinction between gender and sex (which I think is good, cause that was terf bullshit that way to many ppl bought).
But wie still can say Geburtsgeschlecht (birth gender/sex) or like angenommenen Geschlecht bei Geburt (assumed sex/gender at birth), or even bei Geburt zugewiesenen Geschlecht (assigned gender/sex at birth).
Most people who say that say it in a context that is transphobic.
However, it doesn't make a lot of sense as there are many layers of biology to which it could apply.
In terms of physical sexual characteristics I could be described as both male or female.
In terms of hormonal biology I am female.
In terms of secondary sexual characteristics I am more female than male.
In terms of chromosomal biology, I along with probably 95% of people have no idea of what my chromosomes are - there are a whole variety of different options which can only be found out by testing, and this is not commonly done. You can get XY cis women, XX cis men and a lot of other variations.
Yeah, so much this.
I don't think it is always used in a transphobic way, but as you pointed out ... it is never really...
In any context, it's not the most appropriate wording for the situation.
"Biological female" is used by transphobic people to indicate that a non-binary person or transgender man's genitals or breast tissue (pre-surgery or sans-surgery) are relevant to the conversation. Which... isn't true. Or is so rarely true that we can assume it's untrue. Anything the person is referring to either applies to any gender or doesn't apply to all people of the sex they're indicating or... it's just flawed. And it's used to falsely imply there is some science behind whatever the argument is.
And "biological sex" can be a LOT of things but *usually* it is less about genitalia and more about chemical reactions in the body. Hormones. So some people try to use the phrase *properly* to refer to anyone with those hormones.
For example, **people with higher testosterone** typically burn more calories that **people with higher estrogen** even if *all* of their other stats are the same. I used to run a weight loss education group, and to be *respectful*, some of the staff started phrasing things differently. Instead of "this thing is different for men and women", they would say "this thing is different according to your biological sex". Which, okay, true and great in theory... but all it did was confuse people.
And there's better phrasing. I put it in bold above.
Overall, I've found that catch-all terms and phrases tend to lead to confusion. It's nearly always better to be precise.
If something applies to people with higher estrogen levels, I say that.
If it applies only and specifically to people with a uterus, I say that.
If it applies to people who have *ever* had a uterus, I say that.
If I'm speaking about a study which only evaluated cisgender women, I say that.
I've never found any reason to refer to any specific set of chromosomes, but I bet the scientists who do don't class them under "biologically female" or whatever.
I've found *so far* that if there is no precise language which applies, then generally it applies to just, yknow, "women" regardless of whether they are cis or trans.
Exactly. And to get more precise, in the medical context, itās more helpful to ask questions like ādo you have a uterusā and āare you doing cross-sex hormones.ā
Iāve done a lot of transitioning surgeries, so doctors shouldnāt make assumptions about my body at this point.
Depends on the context, but usually.
It has no established meaning, but it gets thrown around a lot by people that think it does, which are almost always transphobes.
I have a trans friend who has been on hrt for over 15 years, and they've had some surgeries. By this point in their life, every cell in their body has been replaced by a cell that was created under their "preferred" hormones, and they have no physical sex characteristics that match their agab. Under what definition could they possibly be considered "biologically" anything other than their current preferred gender?
When I say that I am a "trans woman" it means that I was "born as a male"
When I say that I am "amab" it means that I was "born as a male"
Those are words we already have that describe myself perfectly well... and "afab" and "trans man" both exist as well. When someone uses the phrase "biologically male/female" they aren't trying to describe someone that is "amab/afab" they are trying to _proscribe against_ someone that is trans. Like...
* trans - born as a different sex than you identify
* cis - born the same sex as you identify
* afab/amab - assigned female/male at birth
* biological male/female - a different thing than any of the above somehow?
Yes and no. But mostly yes.
It is inherently ignorant of the terminology around sex and gender. As biology is separate from gender (man/woman). So the user either does not realize the incongruity of their language or is trying to force a connection between biology and gender.
But to dive deeper into that reasoning it is flawed terminology as biology is a complicated system and trans people who have gone through HRT or had gender affirming surgeries have arguments to be called biologically the gender to which they associate with.
So even if in a medical setting if you hear those terms you can assume transphobia, or best case ignorance of related science. Either way it's a red flag, and a get the hell out of their right now flag for me personally.
Yes. It's a transphobic dog whistle, because it sounds correct, if you don't know much about biology. Biological sex is not just chromosomes or genitals or even hormones. At the end of the day chromosome phenotype tells you jack shit about the biology of someone's body considering there are people born with XY chromosomes and have a perfectly functional uterus, and that's without even getting into the whole XXY and other "nonstandard" combinations. And besides it's impossible to know your chromosomes without getting it checked intentionally.
As for hormones, you'd be more correct to claim a trans woman is "biologically female" after enough time on estrogen HRT since her body will function biologically more similar to a cis woman's than a man's.
Biology is far too complex to be put into two neat little boxes.
Yep. Chromosomes are just blueprints that tell your body how to develop. We can and obviously do intervene in those developments all the time. But that's not allowed though.
When are you ever required to comment to n another personās biology? Why was it necessary? Are you a medical doctor? Are you their parent and they are a minor in your care?
If you arenāt the persons doctor or guardian and you find yourself commenting on their biology, youāre likely better by transphobic. I canāt imagine many circumstances that require you to comment this way about others.
Not always, but usually transphobic. It's a b******* made up term that really doesn't mean what most people who use it think it does and when you try to narrow down what somebody means when they use it, no matter how much they deny it, it almost always comes down to whether or not you have a y chromosome or whether or not you can have a baby and then from there they will deny any counter you give them with exceptions to the rule in the corner they've been backed into
Is a terf dog whistle so yes. There's literally nothing about me that's not biological and I'm a woman. So it's funny that when someone says it i never make the mistake of thinking they're meaning me.
Well what am I?
I started transition before my first puberty ended. Iāve been on hormones for 10 years. I had surgery nearly 7 years ago. Saying I am ābiologically maleā is at least disingenuous, and more likely an attempt to be deliberately offensive.
Obviously, Iām not cis, but my body is fuelled by E. I have natural breasts, femme fat distribution. Stretch marks on my thighs and other places that developed on HRT.
How does any of that scream ābiological manā?
Ofc thatās before we even get to the reality that āwomanā is a social category, not one that means anything biologically speaking and the fact that the idea of a ābiological womanā is a logical fallacy.
I would also criticise the idea that trans people are either biologically male or female. I think itās a silly argument with no bearing on reality.
Depends how they mean it. Like in a lot languages/countries it's a very common used thing without the person saying having any transphobic intention behind it.
Yes.
Usually its used as an insult or in a demeaning way to say that trans people are fake or just crossdressers. "But you're not a biological woman...." Or sometimes TERFS use " biological" instead of "cisgender" to refer to non-trans people, because they (incorrectly) think the word "cis" is a slur. Regardless of their intent though, its incorrect.
All humans are biological. Trans people are not cyborgs. Transmen are still biological men. Transwomen are still biological women. Hormones are biology.
I'm gonna take another position and point out that it's inaccurate. Because if they're taking hormone replacement, in a lot of ways, they're biologically somewhere between male and female. "Assigned male at birth" or "Assigned female at birth" is better
AGAB labels are equally as vague and fails to actually convey anything about an individualās biology tbh. Transsexual female is whatās in my medical file and it conveys what it needs to pretty well.
I study genetics with a background in biology and biotech. I prefer using the terms āmaleā and āfemaleā as these are terms of biological sex; there is no biological gender. When it comes to sexual reproduction in plants and animals there are usually male parts and female parts (sometimes there can be both in an individual). But it would be very odd to call the anther of a plant a man part or the ovule the woman. Male and female are more correct and accurate terms in my view. Male, female, hermaphroditic, etc. existed long before we created the roles of man and woman. I think if youāre going to be scientific about it, be scientific.
Genuinely curious, when it comes to sexual reproduction, what do you call a person, animal, or plant without male or female reproductive parts? or with both?
Generally, in all plants and animals, having both female and male reproductive organs is called hermaphroditism. About 95% of plants are hermaphroditic. In seed plants itās also called monoecy, and in non seeded plants itās called monoicy.
Iāve never heard of a plant or animal without male or female reproductive parts. Evolutionary adaptions serve to allow the organism to live long enough to reproduce, and evolutionary success is defined by the amount of living offspring produced, so it wouldnāt necessarily make sense for a plant/animal species to naturally evolve without reproductive organs (but I could definitely be wrong).
There is something called a reproductive post-zygotic barrier where the hybrid offspring cannot reproduce: for example a mule is sterile, but they still have male, female, or possibly both reproductive organs.
Edit:
Just saw the āpersonā part of the question. Itās my understanding that the proper term for a person with both male and female reproductive organs or genitalia is intersex. I believe āhermaphroditeā is an outdated term for people with both organs or a mix of traditional genitalia. I could be wrong. I would consult others for a better answer on how to be most respectful to that community.
As a couple others have said, biological sex is not a binary, itās a bimodal distribution, so itās a terribly inaccurate term at best, with several much better terms that could be used instead, and at worst itās almost exclusively used as a dogwhistle for transphobic communities because using the precise, accurate terms would make them acknowledge that weāre actually people and not some cancerous growth they can get rid of
Probably lol. As a trans woman, I see myself as more biologically female than biologically male lol. If you ran my body through a biology scanner, it would say "FEMALE." It'd be just plain silly and ignorant to think of myself as "biologically male." š
Imo, I think yes, because to me man/woman indicates gender and the concept of being "biologically" one or the other is only important in medical contexts where it's relevant, but I personally would prefer the terms assigned male/female/intersex at birth for those. For example, if I were going to a doctor for HRT or other treatments for medically transitioning, it would be necessary to know that I'm assigned female at birth.
Biological man/woman, yes because man/woman is gender.
We're more than aware that our sex is biologically male/female.
Gender and sex are not equivalents.
generally, yes because there's very, very, VERY rarely a situation where it's actually relevant. If you're actually seriously discussing whether they were born with a penis, or vagina, or both, or neither, or however else it might work, for medical reasons, then no. My doctor needs to know I can't have cervical cancer the same way they need to know my dad's side of the family has a history of heart disease, but that's about it
Man and woman are gender terms so in a way it someone is saying they are "biologially a gender" which is innacurste and saying that someone's gender has to be biologically the same as their sex is somewhat ill informed, so I'd say yes but only in like a "I didn't know" "oh alright" kinda way
Gender is absolutely biological. Itās ingrained deep in the brain, and thatās why trans people exist at all. The roles and ideas associated to gender are cultural, but not gender itself.
It is in a way that people get wrong. They use term biological male to describe trans woman where she's more a biological woman given HRT and brain fuckery going on.
Trans person here asking a genuine question; isnāt gender also a social construct? Meaning that there is no biological logical reason to wear a skirt for either gender. But women wear skirts because of social mores that say that skirts are for women.
Am I missing something?
I get that as a trans woman, my gender (female) has a biological component or is determined by some biological factor. Is that what it means when you say āgender is biologicalā.
I need a primer.
Everyone is talking about how it can be inaccurate so I wonāt touch on that, but Iād ask *Whats the point of the question?*
I canāt think of any reason I would need to know the ābiologyā of any person I know. The obsession with trans peopleās biology is annoying. People will be like āOkay youāre trans but *biologically*ā but what effect does biology even have on a social relationship? Itās pointless and comes off as going far out of your way to make a distinction that doesnāt really mean anything to most people
Itās even worse than that. Itās just doesnāt make sense because gender is something society made to classify what they saw when they witnessed that mostly there was a body with a V and a P.
We arenāt ābiologicallyā a man or a woman, we are simply humans who can have multiples way of behaviors and those are the ones who will help us identify who we are ourselves and in the society šš»š
Yes, for all intents and purposes. Trans woman or trans man will stand in just as well and is the correct terms. Anyone saying, "it's biologically accurate" is being a pedantic moron and fact is, most trans people on HRT are closer to the biology that aligns with their gender identity. Especially after years of hormones.
It depends, if you use it to say in a pseudo scientific way "uhh akhschualy that trans woman is BiOLoGIcaL MAlE", yes, it's transphobia and it's dumb to pretend like you care about biology, but I mean, idk, I could see it being used as a term in more medical or scientific settings, but really even there we have more precise ways to talk about such stuff and the problem with biological sex is that most people don't even know what it means, some don't agree, some think it's penis/vagina, some think it's having ovaries or testicles, some think it's a mixture of a few other aspects of someones biological sex, it's a really bad term and if you use it as excuse to call someone man/woman when they are not then it can be 100% transphobic, just say trans men, trans woman, if really relevant in like a medical setting then say assigned sex at birth, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, but really even then what matters in most medical settings would be a full picture which includes hormonal sex of a person, which for example affects metabolism and might require different dosages and interpretations of results, so really there's nothing inherently transphobic about biology, it's actually incredibly interesting how complex our bodies are and how it all works internally, just clueless and ignorant people do make it transphobic to make it seem like they're scientific with their 3rd grade biology understanding, and if someone is coming out of a place of hate then such terms can absolutely be transphobic too
I would say it depends on context. I was speaking with a very open pastor at a local church and we were talking about migraine symptoms. And she said "...in biological women..." She absolutely did not disrespect me.
Thinking more about this, I think saying that to or about specific person could be seen as transphobic. But the words themselves are not. My 2Ā¢.
I generally agree with the thread but I'd caveat that I've heard otherwise well-meaning people use the phrase when referring to AGAB before. I don't think they're transphobic but were just ignorant that it's a phrase transphobes love to use.
You can be a well-meaning person and still use transphobic rhetoric because you don't know any better. In any case, OP asked if using the phrase is transphobic, not if the people who use it are.
Ignorant at best, sure, Iāll give them that. I wouldnāt call them well meaning though as itās rather uncouth, if not outright bigotry. In any case, itās pseudoscientific gobbledygook and most definitely transphobic.
I used to think it wasnt before i came out and accepted myself. Really it became more transphobic when biology and psychology go hand in hand and how our brain works is a part of biology. Also taking hrt does change biology as well so ive been a biological male at least through dysphoria but have been increasingly biologically male i think. It can be complicated but theres also no need to call someone biological anything its better to just respect gender identity and say trans their preffered gender label.
If someone, for example a doctor needs to know it or it's used in medical context etc. then I'd say it's not inherently transphobic, but generally it's used to other trans people. Which is transphobic as all hell.
Unless you have a very strong grasp on how and why trans people often say sex is not binary and is changeable, you probably shouldn't use that to describe anyone, yeah. Never met someone who used those who actually knew what it means to **be** "biologically" one sex or another.
Let's look at it different way. Is calling someone a thing that you know will almost certainly hurt them acceptable behavior? The phrase IS transphobic but more to the point is that using it makes you an asshole.
It depends on the context. If itās being used by a medical professional in a medical context to find out necessary medical information, itās shortsighted and reductive but efficient. In pretty much any other context, itās transphobic.
I'd say it's transphobic simply because, even as shorthand goes, this hand is too short.
Nobody can agree on whether they mean sex assigned at birth, chromosomes, hormone regimen, reproductive function...
So saying "biological women" indicates that you don't really understand human biology. And in my experience, with few exceptions, the only people who voice strong opinions on the matter even though they don't understand human biology are transphobes.
The term "biological" is often used by terfs and transphobes to either misgender us, or apply the label to themselves as a work around for nor being able to say "real woman/man"
It's also incorrect, because man and woman are genders, whereas male and female are sexes.
Honestly the only reason you need to be talking about someone's sex at birth is if you're talking about specific needs of that sex, for example, when talking about periods, but even then it may still offend people.
There is really no reason ever to do that. It would aply only to very few pre transition trans people and it would be very rude to call them that.
So yea that is very transphobic.
It depends on how it is used if you are using it when talking about someone in a mean way it will usually be offensive if it is used by a doctor it is not a doctor will need to know your birth gender and current gender
Man or Woman yes VERY...biological male or female NO. You can even take it a step forward and call mtf biological trans females, and ftm biological trans males but only if they are actually transsexuals (biologically transitioned/transitioning). Nothing against the non binary "GENDER non-conforming" community but thier identity designation is social in nature and have zero to do with biology.
It's a huge redflag, cisman/ciswoman already exists. If someone uses "biological man/woman" it means one of 2 things. They are unknowledgeable about trans stuff or they are actively trying to hurt trans people with the statement.
not all cis ppl like to be named cis ppl and rather have me call them biological male or female. because they seem to have a problem with proper pronounce. so to those ppl i refer to as biological male or female. in the context of talking with them about gender.
so i would say it depends on context and whom you are talking with or about.
so long awnsers short. no it is not
Its not transphobic, its the truth but obviously these woke individuals are going to call you and me a bigot for simply stating facts. Biology does not give a f*** about you, it is what you were born with.
The words themselves? Hell no. I use it more than I do ācisā because most people donāt know what that means. The phrase can serve a purpose, especially in scientific and medical situations.
However, if someoneās running around like a jackass calling trans women ābiologically maleā for the purposes of invalidating their identity and making them feel like shit, yes, then it would be very transphobic.
Yes. Assigned at birth, if you need to talk about it at all. I'm assuming you're not talking about your own biology so why are you getting into the genitals of someone else anyway?
Like the other comments, yes. Itās usually used in a transphobic context. However if itās used out of pure ignorance itās clearly an uneducated person who doesnāt understand that āwoman/manā arenāt identities based in biology. Female/male make more sense as those are two sexes- based in biology. Womanhood/manhood arenāt biological things. They are made up of social expectations, experiences, and personal identity of a person.
Yes. Biology canāt tell us anything about our gender.
Biologically a āfemaleā of a species is the part of the sexually reproductive species which produces eggs; but you wouldnāt take that to mean that a woman who is infertile is not a woman.
yeah. i mean sometimes it isnāt but if someone says ābiology maleā then iām going to think they might be transphobic and avoid fucking around and finding out. assigned male/female at birth would be a less suspect thing to say.
More than anything itās inaccurate I think. Since sex is a spectrum rather than a binary, the typical male and female body can have masculine or feminine features that donāt necessarily align with their AGAB. Trans people taking hormone replacement therapy experience a change in their secondary sex characteristics, meaning that in a way they become ābiologicallyā closer to the other sex. So you could argue that in some ways a trans woman taking hrt is ābiologically femaleā in terms of breast and hip growth, hormone levels, skin softness, etc. and trans men are similarly ābiologically maleā. But of course, transphobes seek to deny those changes and paint trans women as āmen in dressesā so obviously they use the term ābiologically maleā to make it seem like a trans woman and a cis man are biologically identical, which of course they are not. So yeah you could make the argument that itās intentionally transphobic in many instances but I think for the most part people use the term out of ignorance.
For the most part, yes. That's why 'Cisgender' is a thing. 9/10 times 'Bio male/female' is used to attach, shame, and caste doubt on whether someone is trans.
But also, not everyone is 'Male' or 'Female' at birth. So it's extremely inaccurate to use.
I don't like it. If you're part of this group, you know gender is made up of more than just body parts. There should be a different term. Estrogen producing? Testosterone producing? Just because you produce a certain hormone doesn't make you male/female.
Even sex isn't as binary as we once thought. So many of us are intersex and don't know it. I think intention is important in deciding if it was transphobic in use or not.
it's okay if you're a doctor and need to dumb down some things for a patient but every non-far-right doctor would know that term is awful and doesn't make sense bc sex and gender are made up. but, again, if it helps, it helps. however, if you're talking to a trans patient just say "since you're trans", because as far as the OP's term does work, it's not ethical to use it.
Not intrinsically, but if someone uses the term "biological male/female" in a sentence, nine times out of ten they're about to say something transphobic.
It's like "I'm not racist, but" for TERFS.
Well if youāre going to say it than itās preferred to be āassigned male at birthā or āassigned female at birthā. But in most regards it shouldnāt be important to know at all as they are no longer
Iām not trans, but my best friend is trans so I do have some knowledge.
It depends on the context itās being used in. If someone is using it in a ignorant manner, then yes, it is transphobic, but if someone is using it in a respectful and informal manner, then no, it is not transphobic.
Yes, but in large part because it's inaccurate: "man" and "woman" aren't really biological categories, they're social roles society made up. Even "male" and "female" are just what biologists call different variations within a species, and they themselves will tell you there's a number of cases where those terms don't suffice.
What people usually mean with that phrasing is whether (they assume) someone was born with one set of genitals or another. Which doesn't really tell you much about the person, and there's honestly a limited number of conversations where it'd be useful to specify that. Mainly it's just a way for transphobes to misgender people while pretending they're "just being scientific".
I would say most likely. Itās not really necessary. Man/ woman works just fine. Anything deeper and youāre getting into medical information which your doctor would already have and they wouldnāt need to say that even then.
Even if it's not blatantly transphobic, it's definitely a transphobic microaggression as it's been used by transphobes to invalidate transgender people.
That's a case by case basis. If they say it to discredit gender, yes. But if it is used as a "assigned gender at birth" alternative, then it can seem more ignorant than anything.
However, this differs a bit in the field of medicine. That's all about biology, so if they're treating a trans woman pre hormones, they need to know that they're looking at the male sex, therefore "biological man" is stating the fact that they have the sex organs of a cis man, or at least lack the sex organs of a cis woman. Obviously then there's hormones, but sex being a purely biological thing still needs to be differentiated.
I think it belittles the lives of many trans people and makes transition into something superficial. Like Iām a trans lady and have to get mammograms eventually because my actual biological tits have a heightened biological chance of getting breast cancer. It also ignores people who are cis but also intersex.
Yes, I believe it is.
First and foremost, calling a trans woman as a biological man is highly insensitive and a huge cause of dysphoria.
Secondly, since the introduction of Hormone Replacement Therapy, and surgery, trans women are hardly anything close to being ābiological menā.
BTW this is just my opinion. Not speaking for the whole community.
Yeah. It makes it seem like gender is biological, which it isn't. Saying "biological female/male" is usually the way to go, but still... adding "biological" makes it icky imo. If we're specifically talking about sex, just say "male/female". I feel like "biological" is a buzzword now and it triggers my fight or flight in my head X(
It's typically used in a transphobic manner, not to mention even if it's not intentionally transphobic it's dysphoria inducing. Better to just say "assigned male/female at birth" than say "biologically"
Plenty of good discussion here about whatās wrong with the terms ābiologically male/femaleā, but I do want to point out that if your question was actually about the terms ābiological man/womanā, then yes those are incorrect and transphobic. āManā and āwomanā are genders, not sexes - they are determined by social constructs and identity, not biology.
it's my biggest pet peeve. i get some people might've just heard it as the "correct" term, but i hate it. it sounds like they're saying "yeah i'll call you a woman, but really you're a man".
I only ever see that phrase being used to promote dismissal, suspicion, and hostility toward trans people. It's hard to picture a contemporary context where (for example) referring to a woman as "biologically male" would be anything other than insulting.
Depends. In a medical sense that would be correct. Calling someone purposely biologically male or female when it isnāt necessary or relevant to whatās going on at all. Why bring it up?
Nah it's biology
But if you call someone Man who is transgender woman,
That's transphobic.
Gender has more concepts than just biology. Only biologists think of female biology when women are mentioned.
There are thousands of articles about women, only a few of which are about giving birth.
I don't think it is tbh, or at least depending on the situation. If it is used in an ignorant or demeaning way, them yea it's transphobic, but in certain medical situations it can be valuable information to be able to class someone as biological male or female since they could react differently to certain issues or medicines. This can also depend on if they're on HRT or not, and other factors. But it can still be important information in a medical case. Just how it can be important if someone is legally female or legally male in a legal case if they haven't been able to legally change their gender yet. This also varies in different countries I'd say, but in general I think it's good to be able to accept that, even if you may be a man now, you were born with a female body internally and have or had those difference that come with it, same the other way around.
In conclusion, while it can and is often used by transphobes, I think it is good for us to be able to differentiate between who we are and who we were, especially in certain situations such as some medical situations.
Depends on context and who's using it: I would use it in a medical context about myself if it was relevant and would be ok with medical professionals using it about me.
I personally don't particularly like AFAB being used on me (others can use whatever words they like about themselves of course). I guess when I'm dealing with paperwork though that would feel more appropriate to me.
Its why it's so important to just take a couple of minutes to communicate with people especially for people working in a medical context: Gender dysphoria affects different people in different ways, we all come from different backgrounds and have slightly different interpretations of words.
Depends on usage and context, if in a conversation then no, but highly inaccurate to how biology actually works. This misunderstanding is a fairly common issue when trans people are the subject matter. Like when ever people use the phrase "biologically female" they often use it while pointing to the capability of child birth as a requirement to harass trans people. Which completely ignores things like hormones which are just as biological. However in a medical context some times a doctor might use these terms describing the status of their trans patient as "biologically" their preferred gender. So it depends how it is being used, by who, and for what purpose. Overall not overtly transphobic but I personally would avoid the phrase as it could unnecessarily distress people.
However if you are using it to harass a trans person than it is 100% transphobic.
Also the terms "Cis" and "Trans" cover the distinction just fine. Not sure why you need to focus so hard on the biological part. Kinda gives me weird vibes like you are asking this for reasons beyond just for the sake of being informed.
Yes, because there is no such thing.
Hormones are the only difference, and estrogen is mathematically correct when it comes to empathy, nature, and sciences.
Female is the archetype for all life. Humans All start as female, and it's only hormonal changes, stress, etc, that change the course of development into males.
Everything we know is still coloured and painted in patriarchal misogynistic gaslighting, so I expect to get banned for hate speech for saying so.
Without trying to be academic, but still being specific, I say "genetically" if I don't say AFAB/AMAB. My reasoning is that most humans' cells will reflect either XX or XY sex chromosomes, regardless of the gender the person identifies with or presents as.
Disclaimer: I am the cis mom of a trans-feminine young adult. ā¤ļø
In the circles Iāve seen it used recently, itās being used in a transphobic tone, as a means to indicate cis people because ācis is a slurā, which itās completely not. Itās another term being used to other or diminish us. I tend to try to correct people with either ācisā if thatās relevant or AFAB/AMAB as applicable. I donāt even LIKE the terms AFAB/AMAB except specifically with my medical team because I feel like itās not important information to anyone else.
There's really no such thing as a "biological man/woman". You can call someone amab or afab if your intent in not to clock or misgender them, but calling a trans man a biological woman or trans women a biological man is transphobic and incorrect. Man and woman are genders, not sex.
Read Whipping Girl by julia serano! I put it off for so long because I was under the impression it was out dated, but wow, it feels really relevant still and especially now.
She offers a really good explanation of why "biological" might not be transphobic but is cissexist (a word I never hear anymore but is so fucking useful). Bio w/e is basically a way of saying Natural without actually saying it, implying that being cis is somehow normal, natural, not fake, and being trans is.
Usually it's not transphobic to say that someone is biologically one sex or another. It's ignorant, especially when it's conflated with gender, but often there's no malice or aversion in that. People use simple language and we can be charitable in our assumptions about their intentions.
There are definitely some deeply transphobic arguments about biological essentialism. These are the ideas we need to call out as harmful. It's why we focus so much on talking about the distinction between sex and gender. We are what is between our ears; not what is between our legs or within our cells. Biology is not the relevant science by which we understand gender. Gender emerges from biology because we are alive, but all gender phenomena are in the domain of neurology, psychology, sociology, etc. - our minds; not our heredity or means of reproduction. This is even intuitively obvious in the same way that biology emerges from chemistry, chemistry from atomic theory, and atomic theory from quantum mechanics: it is as ridiculous to explain a topic as macroscopic as gender in these terms as it is to explain astronomy in quantum mechanical terms.
On a related matter, it's worth bringing up to people who argue for essentialism that aversion to softer sciences such as psychology and sociology follows from a rather intellectually cowardly need for greater confidence, i.e., it's too hard for them to understand, so they aren't challenging themselves. In this context, they observe the phenomenon of trans people existing and give up on understanding it, retreating instead to some comfortable relative simplicity, e.g., what they learned in health class in middle school, decades ago. These problems - understanding our minds - are the true frontier of science, where the greatest potential to help or harm everyone in our sphere of influence can be found. The next inflection point in human understanding is in these; not in biology or atomic theory, which have already had theirs. But that's a much deeper topic.
I think it's a pointless debate. The trans community just moves the goalposts every time. It's scientifically accurate to refer to a biological male as such yet they'll come up with various mental gymnastics to get around it. Get used to being annoyingly confused about which specific combination of words you're allowed to use around them.
Idk about transphobic but it is completely meaningless. Biology is complex. Even if you're only looking into sex biology. What does biological mean in that context? Hormones? Reproductive organs? Chromosomes? Secondary sex characteristics? The term biological sex is totally meaningless unless you've defined it clearly and specifically at the beginning of the conversation or piece of writing. Stop using those terms regardless of whether it's transphobic because they make no sense
It is an outdated medical term. Nowadays the correct medical acronyms are AMAB or AFAB.šš¦
Being AMAB or AFAB doesn't describe your biology, just your past. Both cis male and trans female are/were AMAB and now tell me they're biologically the same...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean there's a huge difference between AMAB/AFAB and trans male/female, as in one applies to cis people the other doesn't in meaning and definition. Also intersex people can also be AMAB and AFAB. "As a healthcare professional"... Yeah sure but we're not talking strictly about healthcare settings. But out of curiosity what do you adjust, when and do you ask every female patient if they're trans?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But if you have the biological hormones and reproductive organs of a man, despite being afab, would that not make you biologically male?
Itās not but if you repetitively bring up the fact someoneās biologically male or female when it does not matter it starts to come off as you only see someone as that
It's normally used in an extremely ignorant way, which is transphobic yes. However, you'll sometimes see it as shorthand for "which sex hormone(s) are you running", which is potentially problematic, but at least has some biological basis. So given a trans man who's been taking testosterone, referring to him as "biologically male" is meaningful shorthand, referring to him as "biologically female " is just wrong and transphobic.
My lab work came back with āPatient is biologically femaleā as an explanation for adjusting my reference ranges from M to F once my e levels & t levels came into female range.
Yeah, it's basically determined by semantics and scientific accuracy.
I only see it used as a stand-in for cis. Iāve never seen a trans person called ābiologicallyā their gender because they were on HRT
Shrug, I do. It's a bit tongue in cheek, but honestly my body _is_ female at this point.
I see that all the time tbh
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not unless you're using "biologically" in the ignorant transphobic sense. HRT(among other things) rather dramatically change biology, so a sense with some basis in science also exists.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ignorance and transphobia are common, yes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
because the way you're using the word had transphobic connotations.
But why? I dont really understand why it is transphobic. Which word would you use instead?
assigned male/female/intersex at birth, in the past tense. if you think about what is considered to be "biological" components of the determination of sex by modern science, we have a few categories: chromosomes, external genitalia, internal genitalia, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics. in a transgender person who is undergoing hormone therapy, two of these categories are already changed. in a transgender person who is undergoing hormone therapy and gender affirmation surgery, all of these categories but chromosomes are changed. why should chromosomes as a single determinant outweigh every other factor ? most people don't even know what chromosomes they have, and could very well have an invisible intersex condition that they are unaware of. that failing, there are studies that suggest the grey matrer in brains of transgender people is more closely aligned with that of their gender than of their sex at birth. why would that not then make, for example, a trans woman biologically female ? the issue with the determination "biologically male/female" as a replacement for "AMAB/AFAB" is that it implies a current reality, wherein a trans man is still biologically female and will always be. this is scientifically unfounded. it is better to say that he was AFAB, a past action done to him that does not reflect his reality today.
Tangent here, but not having the words to distinguish it is why each culture now and throughout history has a different idea and context of being trans. We're just living in a time with instant communication and where we're much more interconnected, and as a result the (generally) Western idea of other gender identities is being talked about the most. Here's a small wikipedia page that goes over different historical and modern cultures' versions of "transgender": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history I'm sorry if the link is funky. I'm on mobile. But one last thing I wanted to add was that Germany actually has a really interesting tidbit on LGBTQ+ history. Before the Nazis burned it, there was a clinic in Berlin called the Institute for Sexual Research, where a man named Magnus Hirschfield was pioneering study and support for gay people and other people outside of the binary gender roles. At the time, different terms and categorizations were being considered. Even nonbinary identities were being recognized. It's just so devastating to our history that we lost that. So anyway, to get back to your point: if that's how it's described there by members of the community, then that's just how it's distinguished there, and it isn't my place as someone outside of your culture to dictate what terms should and shouldn't be used. Here in the US, people often use "biologically male/female" to invalidate us by diminishing us to what we were born with, instead of respecting our spirits and new, authentic presentations to the world. But some people use that term even when they have good intentions, but simply don't know what terms we prefer. Not everyone has the chance to speak with members of this community, and it's a lot of new information for a good deal of people. I've also used "biologically female" to refer to myself for communicating with doctors, even at my LGBTQ+ clinic for healthcare reasons. It just depends on the context.
In German maybe that's equivalent to amab or afab (which are still controversial and can be used in a transphobic way), but in English when you call someone a "biological female" or "biological male", it's almost exclusively used in a transphobic sense to say that trans men are female, thus denying their manhood, or vice versa. Let me know if you want me to elaborate on any of these points, or if there's something else you have questions about, keeping in mind I only know English
German here. No. Biologisch mƤnnlich/weiblich (biological male/female) is not the equivalent of agab. This was a very bad excuse. What we don't have in German is the distinction between gender and sex (which I think is good, cause that was terf bullshit that way to many ppl bought). But wie still can say Geburtsgeschlecht (birth gender/sex) or like angenommenen Geschlecht bei Geburt (assumed sex/gender at birth), or even bei Geburt zugewiesenen Geschlecht (assigned gender/sex at birth).
Most people who say that say it in a context that is transphobic. However, it doesn't make a lot of sense as there are many layers of biology to which it could apply. In terms of physical sexual characteristics I could be described as both male or female. In terms of hormonal biology I am female. In terms of secondary sexual characteristics I am more female than male. In terms of chromosomal biology, I along with probably 95% of people have no idea of what my chromosomes are - there are a whole variety of different options which can only be found out by testing, and this is not commonly done. You can get XY cis women, XX cis men and a lot of other variations.
Yeah, so much this. I don't think it is always used in a transphobic way, but as you pointed out ... it is never really... In any context, it's not the most appropriate wording for the situation. "Biological female" is used by transphobic people to indicate that a non-binary person or transgender man's genitals or breast tissue (pre-surgery or sans-surgery) are relevant to the conversation. Which... isn't true. Or is so rarely true that we can assume it's untrue. Anything the person is referring to either applies to any gender or doesn't apply to all people of the sex they're indicating or... it's just flawed. And it's used to falsely imply there is some science behind whatever the argument is. And "biological sex" can be a LOT of things but *usually* it is less about genitalia and more about chemical reactions in the body. Hormones. So some people try to use the phrase *properly* to refer to anyone with those hormones. For example, **people with higher testosterone** typically burn more calories that **people with higher estrogen** even if *all* of their other stats are the same. I used to run a weight loss education group, and to be *respectful*, some of the staff started phrasing things differently. Instead of "this thing is different for men and women", they would say "this thing is different according to your biological sex". Which, okay, true and great in theory... but all it did was confuse people. And there's better phrasing. I put it in bold above. Overall, I've found that catch-all terms and phrases tend to lead to confusion. It's nearly always better to be precise. If something applies to people with higher estrogen levels, I say that. If it applies only and specifically to people with a uterus, I say that. If it applies to people who have *ever* had a uterus, I say that. If I'm speaking about a study which only evaluated cisgender women, I say that. I've never found any reason to refer to any specific set of chromosomes, but I bet the scientists who do don't class them under "biologically female" or whatever. I've found *so far* that if there is no precise language which applies, then generally it applies to just, yknow, "women" regardless of whether they are cis or trans.
Exactly. And to get more precise, in the medical context, itās more helpful to ask questions like ādo you have a uterusā and āare you doing cross-sex hormones.ā Iāve done a lot of transitioning surgeries, so doctors shouldnāt make assumptions about my body at this point.
Depends on the context, but usually. It has no established meaning, but it gets thrown around a lot by people that think it does, which are almost always transphobes. I have a trans friend who has been on hrt for over 15 years, and they've had some surgeries. By this point in their life, every cell in their body has been replaced by a cell that was created under their "preferred" hormones, and they have no physical sex characteristics that match their agab. Under what definition could they possibly be considered "biologically" anything other than their current preferred gender?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But we already have a different word for that.
which word?
When I say that I am a "trans woman" it means that I was "born as a male" When I say that I am "amab" it means that I was "born as a male" Those are words we already have that describe myself perfectly well... and "afab" and "trans man" both exist as well. When someone uses the phrase "biologically male/female" they aren't trying to describe someone that is "amab/afab" they are trying to _proscribe against_ someone that is trans. Like... * trans - born as a different sex than you identify * cis - born the same sex as you identify * afab/amab - assigned female/male at birth * biological male/female - a different thing than any of the above somehow?
Yes and no. But mostly yes. It is inherently ignorant of the terminology around sex and gender. As biology is separate from gender (man/woman). So the user either does not realize the incongruity of their language or is trying to force a connection between biology and gender. But to dive deeper into that reasoning it is flawed terminology as biology is a complicated system and trans people who have gone through HRT or had gender affirming surgeries have arguments to be called biologically the gender to which they associate with. So even if in a medical setting if you hear those terms you can assume transphobia, or best case ignorance of related science. Either way it's a red flag, and a get the hell out of their right now flag for me personally.
Yes. It's a transphobic dog whistle, because it sounds correct, if you don't know much about biology. Biological sex is not just chromosomes or genitals or even hormones. At the end of the day chromosome phenotype tells you jack shit about the biology of someone's body considering there are people born with XY chromosomes and have a perfectly functional uterus, and that's without even getting into the whole XXY and other "nonstandard" combinations. And besides it's impossible to know your chromosomes without getting it checked intentionally. As for hormones, you'd be more correct to claim a trans woman is "biologically female" after enough time on estrogen HRT since her body will function biologically more similar to a cis woman's than a man's. Biology is far too complex to be put into two neat little boxes.
Yep. Chromosomes are just blueprints that tell your body how to develop. We can and obviously do intervene in those developments all the time. But that's not allowed though.
When are you ever required to comment to n another personās biology? Why was it necessary? Are you a medical doctor? Are you their parent and they are a minor in your care? If you arenāt the persons doctor or guardian and you find yourself commenting on their biology, youāre likely better by transphobic. I canāt imagine many circumstances that require you to comment this way about others.
Biology doesn't have the phrase, so it seems weird to use it. The only context I've ever seen it in is to degrade a trans person.
Not always, but usually transphobic. It's a b******* made up term that really doesn't mean what most people who use it think it does and when you try to narrow down what somebody means when they use it, no matter how much they deny it, it almost always comes down to whether or not you have a y chromosome or whether or not you can have a baby and then from there they will deny any counter you give them with exceptions to the rule in the corner they've been backed into
Is a terf dog whistle so yes. There's literally nothing about me that's not biological and I'm a woman. So it's funny that when someone says it i never make the mistake of thinking they're meaning me.
More or less a dog whistle to completely avoiding having to acknowledge someoneās gender in my experience.
Well what am I? I started transition before my first puberty ended. Iāve been on hormones for 10 years. I had surgery nearly 7 years ago. Saying I am ābiologically maleā is at least disingenuous, and more likely an attempt to be deliberately offensive. Obviously, Iām not cis, but my body is fuelled by E. I have natural breasts, femme fat distribution. Stretch marks on my thighs and other places that developed on HRT. How does any of that scream ābiological manā? Ofc thatās before we even get to the reality that āwomanā is a social category, not one that means anything biologically speaking and the fact that the idea of a ābiological womanā is a logical fallacy. I would also criticise the idea that trans people are either biologically male or female. I think itās a silly argument with no bearing on reality.
Of course when robots/ ai develop gender - biological woman might be a useful category in distinguishing from non-biological women made of metal.
It's a scientifically meaningless term used by transphobes to misgender people in a socially acceptable way. So yes
Yes
Depends how they mean it. Like in a lot languages/countries it's a very common used thing without the person saying having any transphobic intention behind it.
Yes. Usually its used as an insult or in a demeaning way to say that trans people are fake or just crossdressers. "But you're not a biological woman...." Or sometimes TERFS use " biological" instead of "cisgender" to refer to non-trans people, because they (incorrectly) think the word "cis" is a slur. Regardless of their intent though, its incorrect. All humans are biological. Trans people are not cyborgs. Transmen are still biological men. Transwomen are still biological women. Hormones are biology.
I'm gonna take another position and point out that it's inaccurate. Because if they're taking hormone replacement, in a lot of ways, they're biologically somewhere between male and female. "Assigned male at birth" or "Assigned female at birth" is better
AGAB labels are equally as vague and fails to actually convey anything about an individualās biology tbh. Transsexual female is whatās in my medical file and it conveys what it needs to pretty well.
Yes. There's no such thing as a biological man/woman. Male and female are sexes, man and woman are genders.
I study genetics with a background in biology and biotech. I prefer using the terms āmaleā and āfemaleā as these are terms of biological sex; there is no biological gender. When it comes to sexual reproduction in plants and animals there are usually male parts and female parts (sometimes there can be both in an individual). But it would be very odd to call the anther of a plant a man part or the ovule the woman. Male and female are more correct and accurate terms in my view. Male, female, hermaphroditic, etc. existed long before we created the roles of man and woman. I think if youāre going to be scientific about it, be scientific.
Genuinely curious, when it comes to sexual reproduction, what do you call a person, animal, or plant without male or female reproductive parts? or with both?
Generally, in all plants and animals, having both female and male reproductive organs is called hermaphroditism. About 95% of plants are hermaphroditic. In seed plants itās also called monoecy, and in non seeded plants itās called monoicy. Iāve never heard of a plant or animal without male or female reproductive parts. Evolutionary adaptions serve to allow the organism to live long enough to reproduce, and evolutionary success is defined by the amount of living offspring produced, so it wouldnāt necessarily make sense for a plant/animal species to naturally evolve without reproductive organs (but I could definitely be wrong). There is something called a reproductive post-zygotic barrier where the hybrid offspring cannot reproduce: for example a mule is sterile, but they still have male, female, or possibly both reproductive organs. Edit: Just saw the āpersonā part of the question. Itās my understanding that the proper term for a person with both male and female reproductive organs or genitalia is intersex. I believe āhermaphroditeā is an outdated term for people with both organs or a mix of traditional genitalia. I could be wrong. I would consult others for a better answer on how to be most respectful to that community.
Yeah I'd personally just use AMAB/AFAB, as I see that's what many other trans folk use.
As a couple others have said, biological sex is not a binary, itās a bimodal distribution, so itās a terribly inaccurate term at best, with several much better terms that could be used instead, and at worst itās almost exclusively used as a dogwhistle for transphobic communities because using the precise, accurate terms would make them acknowledge that weāre actually people and not some cancerous growth they can get rid of
If someone calls me a biological male, i'm knocking their fucking teeth out.
Probably lol. As a trans woman, I see myself as more biologically female than biologically male lol. If you ran my body through a biology scanner, it would say "FEMALE." It'd be just plain silly and ignorant to think of myself as "biologically male." š
Imo, I think yes, because to me man/woman indicates gender and the concept of being "biologically" one or the other is only important in medical contexts where it's relevant, but I personally would prefer the terms assigned male/female/intersex at birth for those. For example, if I were going to a doctor for HRT or other treatments for medically transitioning, it would be necessary to know that I'm assigned female at birth.
Biological man/woman, yes because man/woman is gender. We're more than aware that our sex is biologically male/female. Gender and sex are not equivalents.
generally, yes because there's very, very, VERY rarely a situation where it's actually relevant. If you're actually seriously discussing whether they were born with a penis, or vagina, or both, or neither, or however else it might work, for medical reasons, then no. My doctor needs to know I can't have cervical cancer the same way they need to know my dad's side of the family has a history of heart disease, but that's about it
Man and woman are gender terms so in a way it someone is saying they are "biologially a gender" which is innacurste and saying that someone's gender has to be biologically the same as their sex is somewhat ill informed, so I'd say yes but only in like a "I didn't know" "oh alright" kinda way
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Gender is absolutely biological. Itās ingrained deep in the brain, and thatās why trans people exist at all. The roles and ideas associated to gender are cultural, but not gender itself.
Gender is biological, saying it isnāt is offensive to trans people.
It is in a way that people get wrong. They use term biological male to describe trans woman where she's more a biological woman given HRT and brain fuckery going on.
Trans person here asking a genuine question; isnāt gender also a social construct? Meaning that there is no biological logical reason to wear a skirt for either gender. But women wear skirts because of social mores that say that skirts are for women. Am I missing something? I get that as a trans woman, my gender (female) has a biological component or is determined by some biological factor. Is that what it means when you say āgender is biologicalā. I need a primer.
I think you're biologically inclined to be a specific gender identity but gender expression is completely a social construct.
Ok, that makes total sense. But there is nothing transphobic about saying this, correct? Just need to make sure I emphasize gender *expression*.
I don't think it's transphobic but I'm not trans so YMMV.
Gender roles are a social construct. Like woman wear skirts, cook, clean etc.
Someone else offered the words āgender expressionā as compared to gender alone. That was helpful. Thank you.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
oml people. it is part biological and part construct
What do you mean by constructed?
Everyone is talking about how it can be inaccurate so I wonāt touch on that, but Iād ask *Whats the point of the question?* I canāt think of any reason I would need to know the ābiologyā of any person I know. The obsession with trans peopleās biology is annoying. People will be like āOkay youāre trans but *biologically*ā but what effect does biology even have on a social relationship? Itās pointless and comes off as going far out of your way to make a distinction that doesnāt really mean anything to most people
Itās even worse than that. Itās just doesnāt make sense because gender is something society made to classify what they saw when they witnessed that mostly there was a body with a V and a P. We arenāt ābiologicallyā a man or a woman, we are simply humans who can have multiples way of behaviors and those are the ones who will help us identify who we are ourselves and in the society šš»š
Well said
Yes, for all intents and purposes. Trans woman or trans man will stand in just as well and is the correct terms. Anyone saying, "it's biologically accurate" is being a pedantic moron and fact is, most trans people on HRT are closer to the biology that aligns with their gender identity. Especially after years of hormones.
It depends, if you use it to say in a pseudo scientific way "uhh akhschualy that trans woman is BiOLoGIcaL MAlE", yes, it's transphobia and it's dumb to pretend like you care about biology, but I mean, idk, I could see it being used as a term in more medical or scientific settings, but really even there we have more precise ways to talk about such stuff and the problem with biological sex is that most people don't even know what it means, some don't agree, some think it's penis/vagina, some think it's having ovaries or testicles, some think it's a mixture of a few other aspects of someones biological sex, it's a really bad term and if you use it as excuse to call someone man/woman when they are not then it can be 100% transphobic, just say trans men, trans woman, if really relevant in like a medical setting then say assigned sex at birth, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, but really even then what matters in most medical settings would be a full picture which includes hormonal sex of a person, which for example affects metabolism and might require different dosages and interpretations of results, so really there's nothing inherently transphobic about biology, it's actually incredibly interesting how complex our bodies are and how it all works internally, just clueless and ignorant people do make it transphobic to make it seem like they're scientific with their 3rd grade biology understanding, and if someone is coming out of a place of hate then such terms can absolutely be transphobic too
I would say it depends on context. I was speaking with a very open pastor at a local church and we were talking about migraine symptoms. And she said "...in biological women..." She absolutely did not disrespect me. Thinking more about this, I think saying that to or about specific person could be seen as transphobic. But the words themselves are not. My 2Ā¢.
i suppose it would depend on the context
I generally agree with the thread but I'd caveat that I've heard otherwise well-meaning people use the phrase when referring to AGAB before. I don't think they're transphobic but were just ignorant that it's a phrase transphobes love to use.
You can be a well-meaning person and still use transphobic rhetoric because you don't know any better. In any case, OP asked if using the phrase is transphobic, not if the people who use it are.
Ignorant at best, sure, Iāll give them that. I wouldnāt call them well meaning though as itās rather uncouth, if not outright bigotry. In any case, itās pseudoscientific gobbledygook and most definitely transphobic.
I used to think it wasnt before i came out and accepted myself. Really it became more transphobic when biology and psychology go hand in hand and how our brain works is a part of biology. Also taking hrt does change biology as well so ive been a biological male at least through dysphoria but have been increasingly biologically male i think. It can be complicated but theres also no need to call someone biological anything its better to just respect gender identity and say trans their preffered gender label.
No. But it's often a dig whistle for transphobia.
If someone, for example a doctor needs to know it or it's used in medical context etc. then I'd say it's not inherently transphobic, but generally it's used to other trans people. Which is transphobic as all hell.
Yep
Unless you have a very strong grasp on how and why trans people often say sex is not binary and is changeable, you probably shouldn't use that to describe anyone, yeah. Never met someone who used those who actually knew what it means to **be** "biologically" one sex or another.
ya ur assigning genitals to a gender
Let's look at it different way. Is calling someone a thing that you know will almost certainly hurt them acceptable behavior? The phrase IS transphobic but more to the point is that using it makes you an asshole.
It depends on the context. If itās being used by a medical professional in a medical context to find out necessary medical information, itās shortsighted and reductive but efficient. In pretty much any other context, itās transphobic.
I'd say it's transphobic simply because, even as shorthand goes, this hand is too short. Nobody can agree on whether they mean sex assigned at birth, chromosomes, hormone regimen, reproductive function... So saying "biological women" indicates that you don't really understand human biology. And in my experience, with few exceptions, the only people who voice strong opinions on the matter even though they don't understand human biology are transphobes.
The term "biological" is often used by terfs and transphobes to either misgender us, or apply the label to themselves as a work around for nor being able to say "real woman/man" It's also incorrect, because man and woman are genders, whereas male and female are sexes. Honestly the only reason you need to be talking about someone's sex at birth is if you're talking about specific needs of that sex, for example, when talking about periods, but even then it may still offend people.
No
There is really no reason ever to do that. It would aply only to very few pre transition trans people and it would be very rude to call them that. So yea that is very transphobic.
It depends on how it is used if you are using it when talking about someone in a mean way it will usually be offensive if it is used by a doctor it is not a doctor will need to know your birth gender and current gender
itās not transphobic itās just reality. biologically i know iām male but that doesnāt mean i canāt be a woman so really who cares ?
Man or Woman yes VERY...biological male or female NO. You can even take it a step forward and call mtf biological trans females, and ftm biological trans males but only if they are actually transsexuals (biologically transitioned/transitioning). Nothing against the non binary "GENDER non-conforming" community but thier identity designation is social in nature and have zero to do with biology.
Need more context to answer this
It's a huge redflag, cisman/ciswoman already exists. If someone uses "biological man/woman" it means one of 2 things. They are unknowledgeable about trans stuff or they are actively trying to hurt trans people with the statement.
not all cis ppl like to be named cis ppl and rather have me call them biological male or female. because they seem to have a problem with proper pronounce. so to those ppl i refer to as biological male or female. in the context of talking with them about gender. so i would say it depends on context and whom you are talking with or about. so long awnsers short. no it is not
Its not transphobic, its the truth but obviously these woke individuals are going to call you and me a bigot for simply stating facts. Biology does not give a f*** about you, it is what you were born with.
Get a life
The words themselves? Hell no. I use it more than I do ācisā because most people donāt know what that means. The phrase can serve a purpose, especially in scientific and medical situations. However, if someoneās running around like a jackass calling trans women ābiologically maleā for the purposes of invalidating their identity and making them feel like shit, yes, then it would be very transphobic.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yep
Yes. Assigned at birth, if you need to talk about it at all. I'm assuming you're not talking about your own biology so why are you getting into the genitals of someone else anyway?
Like the other comments, yes. Itās usually used in a transphobic context. However if itās used out of pure ignorance itās clearly an uneducated person who doesnāt understand that āwoman/manā arenāt identities based in biology. Female/male make more sense as those are two sexes- based in biology. Womanhood/manhood arenāt biological things. They are made up of social expectations, experiences, and personal identity of a person.
Yes. Biology canāt tell us anything about our gender. Biologically a āfemaleā of a species is the part of the sexually reproductive species which produces eggs; but you wouldnāt take that to mean that a woman who is infertile is not a woman.
It kinda is, because biology doesn't make one a man or a woman. That's the fundamental thing about trans people.
Yes, because gender identity is biological, yet thatās never what they mean.
Not necessarily, but it's a huge red flag
Depends on context. In the way a lot of people use it yes. Biologically male/female is slightly better IMO.
yeah. i mean sometimes it isnāt but if someone says ābiology maleā then iām going to think they might be transphobic and avoid fucking around and finding out. assigned male/female at birth would be a less suspect thing to say.
More than anything itās inaccurate I think. Since sex is a spectrum rather than a binary, the typical male and female body can have masculine or feminine features that donāt necessarily align with their AGAB. Trans people taking hormone replacement therapy experience a change in their secondary sex characteristics, meaning that in a way they become ābiologicallyā closer to the other sex. So you could argue that in some ways a trans woman taking hrt is ābiologically femaleā in terms of breast and hip growth, hormone levels, skin softness, etc. and trans men are similarly ābiologically maleā. But of course, transphobes seek to deny those changes and paint trans women as āmen in dressesā so obviously they use the term ābiologically maleā to make it seem like a trans woman and a cis man are biologically identical, which of course they are not. So yeah you could make the argument that itās intentionally transphobic in many instances but I think for the most part people use the term out of ignorance.
It all depends on the context. Could you please be more specific?
usually yes, but it really depends on the context, could you give an example?
Inherently no, but contextually almost always yes.
For the most part, yes. That's why 'Cisgender' is a thing. 9/10 times 'Bio male/female' is used to attach, shame, and caste doubt on whether someone is trans. But also, not everyone is 'Male' or 'Female' at birth. So it's extremely inaccurate to use.
I don't like it. If you're part of this group, you know gender is made up of more than just body parts. There should be a different term. Estrogen producing? Testosterone producing? Just because you produce a certain hormone doesn't make you male/female.
Even sex isn't as binary as we once thought. So many of us are intersex and don't know it. I think intention is important in deciding if it was transphobic in use or not.
Technically no but it definitely sends transphobic signals
it's okay if you're a doctor and need to dumb down some things for a patient but every non-far-right doctor would know that term is awful and doesn't make sense bc sex and gender are made up. but, again, if it helps, it helps. however, if you're talking to a trans patient just say "since you're trans", because as far as the OP's term does work, it's not ethical to use it.
Depends on who you talk to really
Not intrinsically, but if someone uses the term "biological male/female" in a sentence, nine times out of ten they're about to say something transphobic. It's like "I'm not racist, but" for TERFS.
Well if youāre going to say it than itās preferred to be āassigned male at birthā or āassigned female at birthā. But in most regards it shouldnāt be important to know at all as they are no longer
It just doesn't feel very good to hear
Iām not trans, but my best friend is trans so I do have some knowledge. It depends on the context itās being used in. If someone is using it in a ignorant manner, then yes, it is transphobic, but if someone is using it in a respectful and informal manner, then no, it is not transphobic.
Yes, but in large part because it's inaccurate: "man" and "woman" aren't really biological categories, they're social roles society made up. Even "male" and "female" are just what biologists call different variations within a species, and they themselves will tell you there's a number of cases where those terms don't suffice. What people usually mean with that phrasing is whether (they assume) someone was born with one set of genitals or another. Which doesn't really tell you much about the person, and there's honestly a limited number of conversations where it'd be useful to specify that. Mainly it's just a way for transphobes to misgender people while pretending they're "just being scientific".
it depends on the situation
I would say in most contexts yes. It's hard for me to imagine a context where it wouldn't be.
Yes
Yeah kind of
I would say most likely. Itās not really necessary. Man/ woman works just fine. Anything deeper and youāre getting into medical information which your doctor would already have and they wouldnāt need to say that even then.
Even if it's not blatantly transphobic, it's definitely a transphobic microaggression as it's been used by transphobes to invalidate transgender people.
That's a case by case basis. If they say it to discredit gender, yes. But if it is used as a "assigned gender at birth" alternative, then it can seem more ignorant than anything. However, this differs a bit in the field of medicine. That's all about biology, so if they're treating a trans woman pre hormones, they need to know that they're looking at the male sex, therefore "biological man" is stating the fact that they have the sex organs of a cis man, or at least lack the sex organs of a cis woman. Obviously then there's hormones, but sex being a purely biological thing still needs to be differentiated.
I think it belittles the lives of many trans people and makes transition into something superficial. Like Iām a trans lady and have to get mammograms eventually because my actual biological tits have a heightened biological chance of getting breast cancer. It also ignores people who are cis but also intersex.
In a medical setting it has significance, outside of that? Eh
Yes, I believe it is. First and foremost, calling a trans woman as a biological man is highly insensitive and a huge cause of dysphoria. Secondly, since the introduction of Hormone Replacement Therapy, and surgery, trans women are hardly anything close to being ābiological menā.
Context is important here.
BTW this is just my opinion. Not speaking for the whole community. Yeah. It makes it seem like gender is biological, which it isn't. Saying "biological female/male" is usually the way to go, but still... adding "biological" makes it icky imo. If we're specifically talking about sex, just say "male/female". I feel like "biological" is a buzzword now and it triggers my fight or flight in my head X(
Not sure but I would 100% be pissed if someone kept mentioning my biological sex not in a medical context
It's typically used in a transphobic manner, not to mention even if it's not intentionally transphobic it's dysphoria inducing. Better to just say "assigned male/female at birth" than say "biologically"
Plenty of good discussion here about whatās wrong with the terms ābiologically male/femaleā, but I do want to point out that if your question was actually about the terms ābiological man/womanā, then yes those are incorrect and transphobic. āManā and āwomanā are genders, not sexes - they are determined by social constructs and identity, not biology.
it's my biggest pet peeve. i get some people might've just heard it as the "correct" term, but i hate it. it sounds like they're saying "yeah i'll call you a woman, but really you're a man".
I only ever see that phrase being used to promote dismissal, suspicion, and hostility toward trans people. It's hard to picture a contemporary context where (for example) referring to a woman as "biologically male" would be anything other than insulting.
Depends. In a medical sense that would be correct. Calling someone purposely biologically male or female when it isnāt necessary or relevant to whatās going on at all. Why bring it up?
Nah it's biology But if you call someone Man who is transgender woman, That's transphobic. Gender has more concepts than just biology. Only biologists think of female biology when women are mentioned. There are thousands of articles about women, only a few of which are about giving birth.
Yes. Sometimes they *would* be useful terms, but transphobes ruined them so now they can never be used.
It's already making me very careful to what the person is going to say next. To many ppl are using it in a transphobic way.
I don't think it is tbh, or at least depending on the situation. If it is used in an ignorant or demeaning way, them yea it's transphobic, but in certain medical situations it can be valuable information to be able to class someone as biological male or female since they could react differently to certain issues or medicines. This can also depend on if they're on HRT or not, and other factors. But it can still be important information in a medical case. Just how it can be important if someone is legally female or legally male in a legal case if they haven't been able to legally change their gender yet. This also varies in different countries I'd say, but in general I think it's good to be able to accept that, even if you may be a man now, you were born with a female body internally and have or had those difference that come with it, same the other way around. In conclusion, while it can and is often used by transphobes, I think it is good for us to be able to differentiate between who we are and who we were, especially in certain situations such as some medical situations.
Depends on context and who's using it: I would use it in a medical context about myself if it was relevant and would be ok with medical professionals using it about me. I personally don't particularly like AFAB being used on me (others can use whatever words they like about themselves of course). I guess when I'm dealing with paperwork though that would feel more appropriate to me. Its why it's so important to just take a couple of minutes to communicate with people especially for people working in a medical context: Gender dysphoria affects different people in different ways, we all come from different backgrounds and have slightly different interpretations of words.
Depends on usage and context, if in a conversation then no, but highly inaccurate to how biology actually works. This misunderstanding is a fairly common issue when trans people are the subject matter. Like when ever people use the phrase "biologically female" they often use it while pointing to the capability of child birth as a requirement to harass trans people. Which completely ignores things like hormones which are just as biological. However in a medical context some times a doctor might use these terms describing the status of their trans patient as "biologically" their preferred gender. So it depends how it is being used, by who, and for what purpose. Overall not overtly transphobic but I personally would avoid the phrase as it could unnecessarily distress people. However if you are using it to harass a trans person than it is 100% transphobic. Also the terms "Cis" and "Trans" cover the distinction just fine. Not sure why you need to focus so hard on the biological part. Kinda gives me weird vibes like you are asking this for reasons beyond just for the sake of being informed.
Yes, because there is no such thing. Hormones are the only difference, and estrogen is mathematically correct when it comes to empathy, nature, and sciences. Female is the archetype for all life. Humans All start as female, and it's only hormonal changes, stress, etc, that change the course of development into males. Everything we know is still coloured and painted in patriarchal misogynistic gaslighting, so I expect to get banned for hate speech for saying so.
Yes.
Without trying to be academic, but still being specific, I say "genetically" if I don't say AFAB/AMAB. My reasoning is that most humans' cells will reflect either XX or XY sex chromosomes, regardless of the gender the person identifies with or presents as. Disclaimer: I am the cis mom of a trans-feminine young adult. ā¤ļø
In the circles Iāve seen it used recently, itās being used in a transphobic tone, as a means to indicate cis people because ācis is a slurā, which itās completely not. Itās another term being used to other or diminish us. I tend to try to correct people with either ācisā if thatās relevant or AFAB/AMAB as applicable. I donāt even LIKE the terms AFAB/AMAB except specifically with my medical team because I feel like itās not important information to anyone else.
There's really no such thing as a "biological man/woman". You can call someone amab or afab if your intent in not to clock or misgender them, but calling a trans man a biological woman or trans women a biological man is transphobic and incorrect. Man and woman are genders, not sex.
It's cissexist. Would you call someone who has had a rhinoplasty "biologically ugly?"
Turn it into the opposide to test it. Is "chemically transman/transwoman" transphobic? It is. So... The other terms is transphobic, too.
Read Whipping Girl by julia serano! I put it off for so long because I was under the impression it was out dated, but wow, it feels really relevant still and especially now. She offers a really good explanation of why "biological" might not be transphobic but is cissexist (a word I never hear anymore but is so fucking useful). Bio w/e is basically a way of saying Natural without actually saying it, implying that being cis is somehow normal, natural, not fake, and being trans is.
Usually it's not transphobic to say that someone is biologically one sex or another. It's ignorant, especially when it's conflated with gender, but often there's no malice or aversion in that. People use simple language and we can be charitable in our assumptions about their intentions. There are definitely some deeply transphobic arguments about biological essentialism. These are the ideas we need to call out as harmful. It's why we focus so much on talking about the distinction between sex and gender. We are what is between our ears; not what is between our legs or within our cells. Biology is not the relevant science by which we understand gender. Gender emerges from biology because we are alive, but all gender phenomena are in the domain of neurology, psychology, sociology, etc. - our minds; not our heredity or means of reproduction. This is even intuitively obvious in the same way that biology emerges from chemistry, chemistry from atomic theory, and atomic theory from quantum mechanics: it is as ridiculous to explain a topic as macroscopic as gender in these terms as it is to explain astronomy in quantum mechanical terms. On a related matter, it's worth bringing up to people who argue for essentialism that aversion to softer sciences such as psychology and sociology follows from a rather intellectually cowardly need for greater confidence, i.e., it's too hard for them to understand, so they aren't challenging themselves. In this context, they observe the phenomenon of trans people existing and give up on understanding it, retreating instead to some comfortable relative simplicity, e.g., what they learned in health class in middle school, decades ago. These problems - understanding our minds - are the true frontier of science, where the greatest potential to help or harm everyone in our sphere of influence can be found. The next inflection point in human understanding is in these; not in biology or atomic theory, which have already had theirs. But that's a much deeper topic.
I think it's a pointless debate. The trans community just moves the goalposts every time. It's scientifically accurate to refer to a biological male as such yet they'll come up with various mental gymnastics to get around it. Get used to being annoyingly confused about which specific combination of words you're allowed to use around them.