I would be specific about the thing I am talking about, I would not call anyone a ‘biological’ ‘female’ nor a ‘biological’ ‘woman’ either.
Instead I would merely make references to what it is I wanted or what I am talking about without ultimately being biologically essentialist nor limiting or harmful in my talk of such things.
For example, if I wanted to be able to reproduce via ovaries and a womb, I would just say that without saying those things are inherently ‘female’ nor ‘woman’ as saying such things are transphobic and biologically essentialist to trans masc and nonbinary people who have those organs etc.
[Sincere, not mean or sarcastic] Does that make sense?
Edit: If you need or want more examples of what I would say I would be happy to give them 🙂. Ultimately the point though is to be specific and use less/no gendered or assumed sex labelling when referring to such things.
I think the issue with this is that it ends up being very verbose, which makes it annoying to talk about outside of borderline scientific contexts. If we could find a short and snappy way to describe things that would probably make it a lot easier.
i know some people say stuff like “to you penis-bearers out there” which mostly works, but it’s also very funny which isn’t always suitable.
Not always, but for the general person who does not know the words or understand these things, probably.
I mean, there are less funnier ways to say things (like penis havers, vagina havers etc etc). However, I’d say that it still needs to be relevant to what they’re/we’re attempting to talk about.
For instance, trans and nonbinary people who are on hormones may have specific genetic makeups but the effects of hormones means that that doesn’t actually matter, they aren’t really ‘males’ or ‘females’ (if such crude terms are to be used) any more in the strict sense because they have been altered by such things, some may even not have certain features people might expect them to have if they are thinking in such basic terms.
For non hormonally transitioning trans and nonbinary people, I’d still wouldn’t say they are such things partially due to transphobia and biological essentiallism, partially because by doing so it sets up gender essentialism towards such people which is extremely harmful and can set incorrect expectations towards them and besides as you said genes aren’t really defined by a typical set of things (if I understood correctly), there are many configurations and it’s stifling to limit people’s genetics even to what they mean for that person unless looking at it from a strictly medical necessity or such, even then it should still be up to that person.
As someone that believes in 100% individual liberty and freedom (note: by this I mean they get to decide for themselves what and who they are, not what they can do to others) I cannot abide others or systems telling them what they are or might be, that is up for individuals to decide, not any other person, group, system or body of supposed knowledge.
I would be specific about the thing I am talking about, I would not call anyone a ‘biological’ ‘female’ nor a ‘biological’ ‘woman’ either.
Instead I would merely make references to what it is I wanted or what I am talking about without ultimately being biologically essentialist nor limiting or harmful in my talk of such things.
For example, if I wanted to be able to reproduce via ovaries and a womb, I would just say that without saying those things are inherently ‘female’ nor ‘woman’ as saying such things are transphobic and biologically essentialist to trans masc and nonbinary people who have those organs etc.
[Sincere, not mean or sarcastic] Does that make sense?
Edit: If you need or want more examples of what I would say I would be happy to give them 🙂. Ultimately the point though is to be specific and use less/no gendered or assumed sex labelling when referring to such things.
I think the issue with this is that it ends up being very verbose, which makes it annoying to talk about outside of borderline scientific contexts. If we could find a short and snappy way to describe things that would probably make it a lot easier.
i know some people say stuff like “to you penis-bearers out there” which mostly works, but it’s also very funny which isn’t always suitable.
Not always, but for the general person who does not know the words or understand these things, probably.
I mean, there are less funnier ways to say things (like penis havers, vagina havers etc etc). However, I’d say that it still needs to be relevant to what they’re/we’re attempting to talk about.
For instance, trans and nonbinary people who are on hormones may have specific genetic makeups but the effects of hormones means that that doesn’t actually matter, they aren’t really ‘males’ or ‘females’ (if such crude terms are to be used) any more in the strict sense because they have been altered by such things, some may even not have certain features people might expect them to have if they are thinking in such basic terms.
For non hormonally transitioning trans and nonbinary people, I’d still wouldn’t say they are such things partially due to transphobia and biological essentiallism, partially because by doing so it sets up gender essentialism towards such people which is extremely harmful and can set incorrect expectations towards them and besides as you said genes aren’t really defined by a typical set of things (if I understood correctly), there are many configurations and it’s stifling to limit people’s genetics even to what they mean for that person unless looking at it from a strictly medical necessity or such, even then it should still be up to that person.
As someone that believes in 100% individual liberty and freedom (note: by this I mean they get to decide for themselves what and who they are, not what they can do to others) I cannot abide others or systems telling them what they are or might be, that is up for individuals to decide, not any other person, group, system or body of supposed knowledge.
Thank you for having this discussion with me 🙂