First of all, let me clarify that, like I said, I don't believe in a soul or some such thing either.
My idea about the human condition is that our essence is the data that composes our consciousness. The memories, experiences, instincts, opinions, and thoughts. That's who we are. That's physically manifested as electrical impulses and such in our brains, but who we are is that data. Just like data stored on a hard drive and run by a CPU, our consciousness is stored and run by our brains.
That data is reliant on our brains, certainly, just like if the power went off and my computer stopped processing, I'd lose the data that comprises this post.
Further, our bodies certainly have more impact upon the data that comprises our consciousness than a typical computer has upon it's programming. Unlike computers, we don't (as far as my beliefs go) have designers inputting code. Our personhood is actually generated by our hardware. Our chemical balance effects our moods, the physical composition of our brain effects how we process information, and so on.
So of course I recognize the role our bodies play in who we are, but I don't necessarily recognize our bodies as inherent to our being. For example, I feel confident that if we live long enough, we'll be able to come up with methods to back up our consciousness, and download it to another body, be it biological or synthetic, or even exist in a wholly digital manner.
So, that said, of course I recognize that there must be some physical difference between a cis male and a trans woman. Somewhere, some aspect of the body has caused that difference. Your article may very well point to progress towards understanding that difference. Perhaps one day that difference can be used to more accurately define biological sex.
However, by asking me to explain how a man losing his genitals remains a man, but a trans woman undergoing SRS qualifies as "male to female," you are conflating two separate concepts.
First, I think we can all agree by virtue of being here that physical sex is not what makes one a man or a woman.
Second, even if you consider yourself biologically female because of the difference that made you trans, the term "male to female" isn't speaking to that.
"Male to female" does not speak to gender, and despite my floundering to describe this better earlier, it doesn't actually speak to biological sex as you are describing it either. What it speaks to is a set of physical characteristics that traditionally fall under the category of "male."
A "male-bodied woman" is no less a woman. "Male-bodied" is just an adjective describing that woman. It speaks neither to gender nor to sex, but to the physical characteristics of her body.
A penis
XY chromosomes
A male frame
Male body hair
A male hairline
A male facial structure
Male hormones
Male musculature
Etc
These are things that fall under the semantic category of "male." We don't have another general category to cover these things. Therefore, "male-bodied" is the most accurate and succinct way to convey to someone you are talking about a physical form with those attributes.
When I say "male-bodied" I think most people immediately understand that I am talking about the physical characteristics I listed above. Beyond that, they probably understand that because I said "male-bodied" and not just "male," that I'm not talking about a male person.
Thus, "Male to Female" isn't meant to represent either "Male Gender Identity to Female Gender Identity" nor "Male Biological Sex to Female Biological Sex."
Instead, it is meant to represent either "Male gender role to Female gender role," if you believe in those social constructs, or "Male physical characteristics to Female physical characteristics" in the case of surgery, or both.
Now, if you want to come up with a new category that doesn't rely on gender/sex based phrasing to allow us to describe these physical characteristics, I'm all for it. Still, getting such a description to adequately penetrate the parlance of society would be a monumental task that will probably not occur in our lifetime.
I understand the idea that someone might hear "male-bodied" (and by extension MTF) and think that classifies the person being discussed as in some way male, and that is why the term may rankle. Unfortunately, I can't think of a gender/sex neutral term that's equally as succinct and descriptive. So, when the misconception comes up that "male-bodied" indicates that a person is in any way "male," we'll just have to clarify, until we have a better term.
That said, I find "Male Assigned At Birth" inadequate. It fails to fully encompass the scope of the problem. The problem isn't the gender I was assigned at birth, not exclusively. I also have physical issues I feel compelled to address. To me, the term "Male Assigned At Birth" seems to imply that all that's wrong is that the doctors misgendered me at birth. That's not the full extent of the issue.
P.S: I used the phrases "male-bodied" and "MTF" as the example phrases in my post, but obviously the same applies to their opposites. I just didn't want to have to work my phrasing around including both phrases.
Taka: I empathize. Certainly, you should never feel forced to categorize or label yourself. You should never feel forced to justify or explain yourself for these things. Ideally, you would never have to use these phrases if you don't want to.
Still, the necessity of these words is that they describe something real, something that sometimes people need to talk about. They describe our experiences when we feel compelled to describe them. They exist to help us identify something, and convey it to one another. That's the purpose of words, and while categories can hamper when abused, they exist to facilitate communication.
Even if you were never categorized as trans, eventually someone would come up with something to name your behavior, and call it that. It isn't the words or the categories that are the problem, it's how people react to them. Neither being trans nor being called trans necessitates the behavior you are lamenting, that's the fault of people, not words.
kyh: Hopefully if you read the above, my point makes a little more sense to you now. What I was saying was "cerebral and philosophical" was the concept that by virtue of belonging to a female, a characteristic that's traditionally defined as male should be redefined as female. As far as I'm concerned, according to our current parlance, a penis is a "male" characteristic, regardless of who it belongs to.
Please, I feel like you are getting frustrated and a bit combative. "And so she's always been female. Is that too philosophical for you?" No, it isn't and I never made a single claim anywhere that she was anything but female. Having male characteristics does not make her less female. My claims were never about her status as a female, neither in terms of gender identity or biological sex. I may have failed to convey that properly, but it was always just about the ability of the words being discussed to describe something real.
I'm not saying she isn't female. I'm not saying her brain isn't a valid determining factor in her biological sex. I'm saying that the term "male-bodied" (and by extension MTF) describes the presence of characteristics traditionally thought of as male, and we don't have a gender/sex neutral way to describe that.
You seem to be under the impression that my opinions represent an attack on her femininity or the validity of her sex, and that's not even close to accurate. Further, I've repeatedly stated that I'm in no way speaking for anyone but myself, I'm not applying my thoughts to her, but only to me. Beyond even that, I've made a point in each post to point out the limitations of my personal understanding and the possibility of being wrong.
So please, don't get upset with me. I'm just having a discussion with no ire or malice. I'm not trying to change the way anyone thinks or feels. I'm just discussing. If I read something into your post that wasn't there, I do sincerely apologize, I just felt your phrasing seemed a bit pointed.
