News

Amab and afab are equivalent to biological male or female, just less explicit I suppose.

That’s the point: They are not! Any sensible interpretation of a biological sex has to look at the whole system and we have comprehensively proven that biological sex can be changed. It’s a spectrum to begin with. Refusing that is like refusing that irrational numbers exist and claiming that every number can be written as a fraction: Understandable if you subject-matter education ends in 7th grade, but not if you actually looked into somewhat deeper at all.

Would you still argue that you are more biologically female than male if you considered that your DNA in every bit of your body still has the male set of chromosome?

For starters, define male set of chromosomes. If you say XY, then you will be interested to learn about De-la-Chapelle-Syndrom and Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome.

But even if we put that aside, the thing is: Chromosomes really don’t matter all that much. The relevant differences primarily lie with organs and hormone-levels. Now, there are things you can do with gene-therapy (there was for example that trans girl who used CRISPR on herself to get her testicles to produce E instead of T). So it’s not that they don’t play any role at all anymore when you are an adult, but what matters much more is the overall metabolism and HRT is absolutely capable of switching that around.

Like: Name the difference between a post-op transwoman and a cis woman who received a radical hysterectomy. Their metabolisms are functionally identical and both will have to substitute the same amount of Estradiol, because both lack ovaries. Chromosomes really don’t affect anything here, so insisting that they create a biological distinction, when they clearly don’t have any effect anymore is completely arbitrary.

I’m not arguing against you, more so arguing that the distinction doesnt much matter and could be argued either way. I’d rather just take someone’s word for it when they say who they are. Thats the whole point isnt it, acceptance?

The thing is: That is about accepting someone’s gender, which is usually indeed the more important thing.

But biological sex of course also exists and the important thing for many of us is that it can in fact be changed and the claim that it can’t is deeply problematic and harmful.

Thats the whole point isnt it, acceptance?

Right, and 'biological sex' is used as an exclusionary weapon that affects material policies.

Would you still argue that you are more biologically female than male if you considered that your DNA in every bit of your body still has the male set of chromosome?

There's people assigned female at birth with those chromosomes. Are they 'biologically male or female'? That's a rhetorical question. The point is sex assigned at birth is a more accurate term for what is put on people's birth certificates. Because sex assignment, and by proxy gender assignment, is based in sociology, not biology. And transphobes love using the argument from nature to justify real world policies and discrimination based on this sociological phenomenon.

If you're an ally, please listen to the folks living this and think critically about your own positions regarding these two terms. There's a lot of excellent literature on the topic and right now more than ever we need solidarity, not more skepticism.