I've been rolling this around since reading Female Masculinities by Dr Finn Mackay, particularly a section on the arbitrary nature of sex categorisation. I've been pondering if there is a linguistic construction possible which both acknowledges the aspects you talk about here, but also the inherently malleable nature of sexed characteristics, both materially and conceptually.
I need to read this book (I haven't, yet). Thanks for reminding me! I'm not sure I agree with sex categorization being arbitrary. But trans people, DSDs, and the whole field of trans medicine do shake things up and are excellent examples of why sex is not perfectly binary in many cases, and that many aspects of primary and secondary sex characteristics can be changed by medicine.
Arbitrary is perhaps too connected to the idea of random personal whims, but Dr Mackay talks at length about how changeable and contextual the various ways of categorising sex have been throughout both history and globally, too, and how this has affected the conclusions drawn from it. I think my main takeaway was definitely that the binary analogue of 'if not this, then that' way of looking at sex was not only inaccurate, but also anomalous in the grand scheme of things.
The non binary point is interesting too when studies merely include identity (eg trans masculine or feminine) without analyzing by the symptoms such as dysphoria about genitals or body parts. There's only so much you can tell from whether someone identified as a trans woman or transfeminine, I would find it much more useful for researchers to separate data by symptoms like Dysphoria about patients genitals or body rather than identity. As the former is much more pertinent to the questions that matter. If two people have identical symptoms with their gender Dysphoria but one identifies as "transfeminine" and the other as male to female, does it really matter the label they use?
This is an interesting point and one I've thought about before, thinking about gender dysphoria nosology, and who seems to benefit from and be happy with treatment, versus those who end up feeling unsatisfied or worse off.
This relates more to the perspectives of binary & medically transitioning folks like myself, but I don’t think trans people want to eliminate any discussion of sex, but rather take into context what “biological sex” actually means. A trans man who is advanced enough on T to have cis-male-passing features, had top surgery and phalloplasty, full hysterectomy, etc - is essentially no longer “biologically female” nor distinguishable from a cis man in anything other than (assumed) chromosomes. I don’t have bottom surgery and don’t want it, but I still don’t consider myself biologically “female”. There are few contexts under which my assigned sex is really relevant at this point, and that’s the occasional medical care of what reproductive organs I do have left (however they are no longer capable of reproduction nor even menstruation). The other would be more about assigned social roles, ie how AFAB individuals often have a tougher time getting diagnosed or taken seriously as neurodivergent due to gendered assumptions, for example - in the case of post-transition people, again this would be in past reference only.
Research would need to just be done in such a way as to be mindful that AFAB/AMAB are context dependent on how medically transitioned someone is, and whether whatever body parts that have not been transitioned yet or ever are actually still in alignment with assigned sex in any meaningful way. Not all AFAB/AMAB trans and nonbinary people have the same bodily reality, so these terms are fixed points in time, not a data point that follows us our entire lives. Being trans is not limited to social gender identity. I’m absolutely in favor of bringing back terms such as “sex change” and “transsexual” because those more closely describe my experience than “transgender.” Even our sexed terminology is a social contruct. Who decided that penises are “male”, and vaginas are “female”, when so much of “male” and “female” in humans relates to social identity rather than biological realities?
The point of transition is to leave our assigned sex in the past. The contexts under which it is ever relevant (and the *extent* to which it is actually relevant) needs to be very carefully and sensitively determined. And so therefore, simply having AMAB/AFAB as data points in research is so reductive as to almost be meaningless, because they don’t really have much bearing on a person’s current biological sexual features, especially because of how many body systems are dependent on whichever dominant sex hormone you *currently* have, and NOT your assigned sex (like, literally almost everything, from our brain functions to our body odor to our cardiovascular system… there’s barely anything our sex hormones don’t touch). It would probably be more accurate to design study groups based on similar levels of transition/non-transition rather than assigned sex.
i want to agree that sex should be named and identified, but i do think you have to factor in how this affects trans women. i have essentially been labeled as "predator bodied" (male bodied in their words) by terfs before in my personal life.
Thanks for adding this. I agree. The online GC/terf rhetoric can be really cruel and hurtful. I am speaking a bit more about what we risk losing in research, if we dont collect/report data on assigned sex.
I find the idea of men who compulsively imitate women speaking about sex similar to anorectics speaking about overeating, or kleptomanics on wheeze to shop.
"(think elder millennial or boomer-aged)" -- You skipped right past GenX... 😒
I've been rolling this around since reading Female Masculinities by Dr Finn Mackay, particularly a section on the arbitrary nature of sex categorisation. I've been pondering if there is a linguistic construction possible which both acknowledges the aspects you talk about here, but also the inherently malleable nature of sexed characteristics, both materially and conceptually.
I need to read this book (I haven't, yet). Thanks for reminding me! I'm not sure I agree with sex categorization being arbitrary. But trans people, DSDs, and the whole field of trans medicine do shake things up and are excellent examples of why sex is not perfectly binary in many cases, and that many aspects of primary and secondary sex characteristics can be changed by medicine.
Arbitrary is perhaps too connected to the idea of random personal whims, but Dr Mackay talks at length about how changeable and contextual the various ways of categorising sex have been throughout both history and globally, too, and how this has affected the conclusions drawn from it. I think my main takeaway was definitely that the binary analogue of 'if not this, then that' way of looking at sex was not only inaccurate, but also anomalous in the grand scheme of things.
im sure i would enjoy reading it!
The non binary point is interesting too when studies merely include identity (eg trans masculine or feminine) without analyzing by the symptoms such as dysphoria about genitals or body parts. There's only so much you can tell from whether someone identified as a trans woman or transfeminine, I would find it much more useful for researchers to separate data by symptoms like Dysphoria about patients genitals or body rather than identity. As the former is much more pertinent to the questions that matter. If two people have identical symptoms with their gender Dysphoria but one identifies as "transfeminine" and the other as male to female, does it really matter the label they use?
This is an interesting point and one I've thought about before, thinking about gender dysphoria nosology, and who seems to benefit from and be happy with treatment, versus those who end up feeling unsatisfied or worse off.
This relates more to the perspectives of binary & medically transitioning folks like myself, but I don’t think trans people want to eliminate any discussion of sex, but rather take into context what “biological sex” actually means. A trans man who is advanced enough on T to have cis-male-passing features, had top surgery and phalloplasty, full hysterectomy, etc - is essentially no longer “biologically female” nor distinguishable from a cis man in anything other than (assumed) chromosomes. I don’t have bottom surgery and don’t want it, but I still don’t consider myself biologically “female”. There are few contexts under which my assigned sex is really relevant at this point, and that’s the occasional medical care of what reproductive organs I do have left (however they are no longer capable of reproduction nor even menstruation). The other would be more about assigned social roles, ie how AFAB individuals often have a tougher time getting diagnosed or taken seriously as neurodivergent due to gendered assumptions, for example - in the case of post-transition people, again this would be in past reference only.
Research would need to just be done in such a way as to be mindful that AFAB/AMAB are context dependent on how medically transitioned someone is, and whether whatever body parts that have not been transitioned yet or ever are actually still in alignment with assigned sex in any meaningful way. Not all AFAB/AMAB trans and nonbinary people have the same bodily reality, so these terms are fixed points in time, not a data point that follows us our entire lives. Being trans is not limited to social gender identity. I’m absolutely in favor of bringing back terms such as “sex change” and “transsexual” because those more closely describe my experience than “transgender.” Even our sexed terminology is a social contruct. Who decided that penises are “male”, and vaginas are “female”, when so much of “male” and “female” in humans relates to social identity rather than biological realities?
The point of transition is to leave our assigned sex in the past. The contexts under which it is ever relevant (and the *extent* to which it is actually relevant) needs to be very carefully and sensitively determined. And so therefore, simply having AMAB/AFAB as data points in research is so reductive as to almost be meaningless, because they don’t really have much bearing on a person’s current biological sexual features, especially because of how many body systems are dependent on whichever dominant sex hormone you *currently* have, and NOT your assigned sex (like, literally almost everything, from our brain functions to our body odor to our cardiovascular system… there’s barely anything our sex hormones don’t touch). It would probably be more accurate to design study groups based on similar levels of transition/non-transition rather than assigned sex.
Thanks for taking the time to share all of this. Great points to consider
i want to agree that sex should be named and identified, but i do think you have to factor in how this affects trans women. i have essentially been labeled as "predator bodied" (male bodied in their words) by terfs before in my personal life.
Thanks for adding this. I agree. The online GC/terf rhetoric can be really cruel and hurtful. I am speaking a bit more about what we risk losing in research, if we dont collect/report data on assigned sex.
What a hall of mirrors. Find the exit.
I find the idea of men who compulsively imitate women speaking about sex similar to anorectics speaking about overeating, or kleptomanics on wheeze to shop.