Skye-Blue: Thanks! Was good talking to you too.

Jadefyre: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at I guess? I made a pretty clear distinction between sex and gender in my argument. And I as I said, I'd argue that I am physically, biologically female, or closer to that than male, anyway.

I also didn't suggest an expansion of terms. Merely a replacement. MAAB and FAAB for MTF and FTM. The goal being to clarify language, not to confuse it. And, really, I'm more the messenger. That shift has already long been in progress.

Problem is, I don't feel what I was "assigned at birth".  It is a genetic error, a birth defect.

You can use whatever term you want.

Quote from: Sarah Louise on May 17, 2013, 04:58:00 PM
Problem is, I don't feel what I was "assigned at birth".  It is a genetic error, a birth defect.

You can use whatever term you want.

MAAB is only meant to be used when speaking of your personal history to avoid needing terms like MTF or male-bodied. Trans woman, or just woman, would generally be the standard outside of those specific contexts.

I suppose I get what you're saying, and I don't hold your belief against you or think that it's really wrong. I'm just not so sure it's for me.

Like I said, and as you can see if you read the thread I started here, I'm new to all this and still pretty confused by even my own feelings, so I don't pretend to speak for anyone. All I can say is that what your saying doesn't really resonate with me.

It's all way too cerebral and philosophical, and I'm a pragmatic person. I can't explain consciousness. I'm not sure even the people in this world that most understand our brains and how they work can even really explain much about consciousness and who we are and what makes us that way. But what I do understand is that biological sexes are defined and even though those definitions have definite shortcomings, I don't feel that my mental understanding of myself changes how my physical being fits into those definitions.

As far as I'm aware, there is no test for being trans. There's no way to physically detect that. I don't deny that there may be a way to do so as we attain a greater understanding of how to observe and interpret our minds and bodies, but as of now, from any purely physical standpoint that I can understand, I'm "male-bodied", no matter how much I might resent that.

I'm not trying to invalidate being trans. I'm not trying to say it's not real, or there's nothing physical about it. That would be pretty self defeating of me. I definitely feel a strong sense that I should be female, that's something that's real for me, and as far as I can tell it's something that some other people feel even more strongly and clearly than I do, about themselves.

I'm not someone who believes in a soul or some ethereal being. I believe in the observable, and my experiences and the experiences of others make it clear to me that being trans is something that's real. Thus, I feel confident that even if we don't know how to do it now, it is somehow observable, whether it exists in the data of the brain, or the DNA, or some other physical manifestation. Perhaps in the future, we'll be able to make those observations and more precisely define this stuff.

For now, however, all I know is I feel like something is wrong. I feel like my body ought to be female, and it's not. That leads me to understand my body as mistakenly male. I don't feel like this invalidates anything about my understanding of my gender. I don't feel it's a contradiction to have a male body in the possession of a female person.

Therefore, for me, I feel like the term Male Assigned At Birth is inaccurate or at least insufficient. I don't feel like this is something that was done to me. I don't feel like all that is wrong is that I have the wrong information on my birth certificate. For me, male-bodied describes how I feel. If and when I transition, I feel MTF will describe that physical process.

This is all from a purely pragmatic, physical understanding, mind you. This isn't about mental understanding of the self, or about gender identity. I myself may not have always understood myself as female, although now when I look back on it a lot of things make more sense in that light, but I do understand that there are a lot of people that have always understood themselves as their true gender. I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's understanding of themselves.

This is just how I feel, personally. I'm not trying to push anyone else to feel the same way, I'm just saying that I don't think the terms are wrong to use because I feel they apply to me.

Perhaps it's because I've never felt that my body is who I am. My consciousness feels like who I am, and I've always understood consciousness as software installed on hardware. I just feel like I've been installed on incompatible hardware. For me, just because the "pilot" may be female doesn't make my body any less male.

That's just how I feel, and it might change as I grow into understanding myself more. For now, to call my body female just because that's the way I feel seems like a denial of the problem. Maybe for you, your body isn't a problem, and if so, that's great and I don't begrudge you whatever term you want to use. I'm just saying that for now, that's not how I feel.

I may be beating a dead horse, but I want to say that I've always had an easy time of wrapping my mind around something intellectually and academically, but this is something I feel far from emotionally and personally resolved about. So take my limited understanding for what it's worth, but I think my reasoning holds up at least.

Firstly: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html

For me, I don't see my consciousness as separate from my body. I joke that I'm actually a demon, because I don't have a soul or anything of the kind. I don't really think there is a mind/body divide. What we perceive as consciousness is just our experience of our brains' function. Our brains being physical, squishy objects inside our skulls.

To me, gender and by extension gender identity, seem too... vague and undefined. I don't like them, and I don't get along with most of the tropes that people talk about with gender. Part of that I guess is that I'm queer and not particularly feminine, and have complicated feels about being categorized as a woman and what that means in our society, and yet I'm definitely female and even stealth in my daily life (i.e. my work colleagues, for example, believe I'm a cis woman).

I'm also post bottom surgery and facial surgery and I've been on HRT and had female gender markers on my identification for quite some time. So that affords a different kind of perspective as well. I don't really believe I "turned female" through a series of hormonal changes and surgeries. I don't really believe that is a logical perspective. I don't have ovaries or a uterus or a womb. In terms of the biological distinction, I'm no more female now than I was before. But then there are rather a lot of women who are unable to have kids, or have unusual physical constructs, so I can't see how "female" and "male" as two discrete categories really makes all that much sense in terms of biology. And when you combine that with the research into the physical structures in a trans person's brain... well. To me what makes logical sense is that my brain is biologically determined to understand its body as female, and that dysphoria is the discrepancy between that determination and the physical reality. In the same way that someone born missing a limb can still have the physical hookups for the limb in their brain creating a ghost image of what their body's form should be.

Since the brain is the control centre for the human body, it makes sense to me to prioritize the brain in terms of determining sex, if the person does not entirely match one of the two standard categories. To prioritize the genitals seems strange to me. Like deciding on the processing capacity of a computer based on the volume of the speakers. And pragmatically, it isn't what we actually do in society. If a person's genitals alter shape during the course of their life (cancer, land mine, etc.), we don't re-categorize a person's sex, with the exception of trans people. That's very weird, not to say illogical, to single out one (or possibly two, they pull this crap on some intersex folks as well) group of people like that. With anyone else, we accept that a person is still the sex that they perceive themselves as, regardless of their current genital status.

So if a dude gets his testicals removed, and is still a dude... why should I magically become a woman because mine have been removed? The reasonable answer is that is not a thing. That I was actually already female, and the request to have them excised from my body is a result of being female according to my processing system (i.e. brain).

So that's why I see it the way I do. I feel like the idea of shifting sexes based on gender identity is too... undefined for me and doesn't match the experience I have had with my flesh. If I am female now (and I am according to my society's construction of "female"), I have always been female. That is the language that makes sense to me.

i'd like to get rid of all trans related terms, i don't think any of them are necessary. when talking about medical history, that should be a talk in specific terms about that only. gender history is something different, and should be kept apart form that.

i want to be able to tell people that i was born a girl (probably), but grew up mostly as a boy. but in high school i was a girl, and even had a child whom i'm raising on my own. but now i'm generally a guy, apart from on the odd days when i'm a woman. whatever body parts i have or don't have shouldn't matter in this story, and people should feel a need to call me "she" just because i have boobs. and i'm definitely not trans, it's just something i have to call myself when trying to explain to others something that should be perfectly natural.

"faab" shouldn't be a necessary term for me, i'm ok with having been born a girl. i was a girl many times as i grew up, even if i was a boy even more often. i want people to take my gender for what i say it is (and accept occasional changes), regardless of my looks or voice, and then we can talk about specific body parts if it is time to get intimate with someone. boobs are a more obvious body part, difficult to hide, so i might want to talk more with people (cis or trans) about pros and cons of getting rid of them, in just as casual terms as if we were talking about getting a new haircut.

i mean, why should i have to be afraid of other people's reactions? can't i just be me? why do they need a trans label just to put me in a "do not touch" box? my mother shouldn't need to be transphobic, i'd rather she be accepting of a child who's just the person he or she is.

Quote from: Sarah7 on May 16, 2013, 03:00:09 AM
"Born a man." I want to stab something every time I see that phrase. I dunno about you all, but I'm pretty sure I was born a baby.

For some reason, that last sentence made me laugh - it's just one of those funny little things that sticks out.  Thanks for brightening up my day today!

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.

Male bodied, no matter how you put it, is misleading.

Male assigned at birth, however, is not. All it implies that one was assigned (by others, case in point, perceived by others) as a male.

Male bodied, however, implies that someone is male bodied. As in, housed within a male body. No matter what sentiment you place behind it, male bodied will be construed as meaning body of a male.

Oh wow, this topic has moved into the deep end of the pool.

If I had my way, the only label I would use for myself is "me."  I eschew labels to the greatest extent possible!

Quote from: Jamie D on May 19, 2013, 08:06:55 AM
Oh wow, this topic has moved into the deep end of the pool.

If I had my way, the only label I would use for myself is "me."  I eschew labels to the greatest extent possible!

If only! Hahaha xD

But yes, it's kind of getting to the point where I feel I've said all I can say about this subject... I'll just watch for now I guess.

Quote from: kyh on May 19, 2013, 08:02:57 AM
Male bodied, no matter how you put it, is misleading.

Male assigned at birth, however, is not. All it implies that one was assigned (by others, case in point, perceived by others) as a male.

Male bodied, however, implies that someone is male bodied. As in, housed within a male body. No matter what sentiment you place behind it, male bodied will be construed as meaning body of a male.

I get what you're saying, but I don't see a solution being proposed that addresses all the issues. Do you not see what I'm saying about the shortcomings of MAAB? I've freely admitted to the shortcomings of "male-bodied" in terms of how it could be perceived. (Could, not should, nor has to be.) Regardless of those shortcomings, I feel it's more semantically descriptive of my reality than "Male Assigned At Birth." I wasn't "assigned" male genitals. I wasn't "assigned" an XY chromosomal makeup. "MAAB" does not sufficiently cover the extent of my situation. Why is that so hard to understand?

So neither phrase is perfect. Fine. I'm not attacking your right to use your phrase to describe yourself, I'm saying I don't feel it adequately describes me. Why are you acting as if I'm wrong to defend my right to use a phrase I feel more comfortable with?

Yea, "male-bodied" can be taken to mean "body of a male." I'm okay with that. You know why? Because that's how I feel. Fine, so I might have a neurological difference from cis males, but my body has a not insignificant number of male characteristics, and that is specifically the problem I have with it. That is exactly why I want to change it, so I think the phrase "male-bodied" works quite well to describe the problem I have, thanks.

The premise of this thread was to list words you find offensive or that you wish to remove from the lexicon. All I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's fair to call a phrase I identify with offensive or distasteful, and explaining why exactly I feel the phrase adequately identifies me. Now I'm starting to feel villainized for it.

How exactly do you propose I refer to the phenomenon of my body having overwhelmingly male characteristics in a way that's not offensive? If even using the word "male" in describing it is taboo, how exactly do you propose I explain the issue? Am I supposed to just list my physical defects? Because "woman with a penis" sure sounds a whole lot more crass to me.

Now I'm frustrated. I'm already trying to understand and deal with all this, and now I don't even have a phrase I can use to describe the issue without offending someone?

I'm hard core into philosophy and definitions...so I see what both of you mean in terms of why you like or dislike each particular definition.

MAAB is a broad term and is ambiguous in terms of defining body characteristics. All means is that the doctors looked at your genitalia when you were born and said, "It's a boy". Effectively everyone assumes that you are male when in reality your brain pattern corresponds far more to female than male. Hence MAAB, the outer body is seen as male by everyone else, but the brain is not, and is in fact female (or in my case androgynous leaning female). As Jadefyre was trying to say that she doesn't like MAAB because it doesn't really explicitly state that said MAAB person has masculine characteristics, just that they are assumed to be male because of masculine characteristics.

"Male bodied" has the limitation of not taking into account (at least not explicitly) the fact that trans brains do not match their masculine bodies...by definition the word "body" also includes a brain. But, at the same time "male bodied" strongly expresses the fact that a person still has masculine characteristics, which Jadefyre sees as being an important distinction to be made for her personally. And Kyh doesn't like the term "male bodied" because she feels that it labels her as a "him", and it doesn't take into account that her brain is female.

Am I understanding both of your positions correctly?

So effectively it's just a fight over semantics, further vs farther, it's all just definitions that we each personally prefer because of their connotations (negative and positive).

Like Jamie...I don't like labels, they can go fly a kite

But I use them because that's how we understand/communicate the world around us...it's just practical.

What do you think about masculine bodied?

Respectfully,
-Skye

Quote from: Skye-Blue on May 19, 2013, 09:53:53 AM

MAAB is a broad term and is ambiguous in terms of defining body characteristics. All means is that the doctors looked at your genitalia when you were born and said, "It's a boy".

Exactly what I mean! Hit the nail on the head.

And, as per your proposal Skye, I would feel awful if somebody said that I was "masculine bodied."

I'm not masculine in any way shape or form. And I know maybe that's not what you meant by masculine bodied, but that's the way it feels to me, and it really pushes my buttons.

Quote from: Jamie D on May 19, 2013, 08:06:55 AM
Oh wow, this topic has moved into the deep end of the pool.

If I had my way, the only label I would use for myself is "me."  I eschew labels to the greatest extent possible!

i think i'll cling to this for the rest of the discussion.

it's pretty easy for me to admit that i have a vagina, if you ask for what equipment i got for intimate situations, but right now i find it ridiculous to call myself faab or ft(whatever), because "female" is a label someone else put on me in the first place. and a person's (outer) equipment is not proof of being one gender or the other, even biologically speaking.

Quote from: Taka on May 19, 2013, 11:04:31 AM
because "female" is a label someone else put on me in the first place.

Which is exactly what FAAB means. And why I prefer those terms. Because it rejects the notion that doctors have the power to determine what bodies and identities are. Rather than an identity it breaks it down to an event that occurred.

And personally, that is my preference. I have no problem saying I was born with a penis, or that I have XY chromosomes (or I think I do anyway), or that I was assigned male by a doctor at birth, or that I was raised as a boy. Those are all simply factual pieces of information about me. But "male" and "masculine" require a judgement of what those things actually are.

And for a creature like me... I have a surgically constructed vulva and vagina, but no other primary sex characteristics. I have breasts and limited body hair and no facial hair. I am sterile. I have XY chromosomes. I have short hair and wear boy clothes and men's jewelry. I go by a female-sounding name. I spent 15 years being pumped full of testosterone by my body and 2 1/2 artificially shifting my body to estrogen. As far as my society is concerned I'm legally female. As far as most people I meet are concerned I'm a woman.

As far as what I am to myself... well. See that's the thing. I feel like I should get to define myself. I don't feel like I trust doctors or governments or societies or anyone really to tell me what I am. So I prefer to stick to events. To things that happened. Rather than categories of identity. I'm not okay with letting other people tell me what my body is or who I am. I don't want to be told that I was born male or that I am a woman or that I'm feminine or masculine or any of it. Those are things that I should get to pick, that I should have authority over.

So ya. All the feels.

Quote from: Jadefyre on May 19, 2013, 09:03:39 AM
Now I'm frustrated. I'm already trying to understand and deal with all this, and now I don't even have a phrase I can use to describe the issue without offending someone?

You can call yourself whatever you like and I'll respect that and use that language for you. If you do the same for me obviously.

But you started this conversation trying to tell me what biological sex is, that that is not an identity, and that I don't get a choice. I don't agree. And I tried to explain why I don't agree. That is all.

Also, to clarify--this thread is about words you dislike and wish you could remove from the vocabulary. I dislike certain words because I find them problematic and limiting. That doesn't mean I won't respect other people who want to use words in that way, obviously. I don't actually have to enjoy them or accept them when used for myself though. Nor am I going to stop arguing the problems with them, though you certainly don't have to argue with or agree with me.

Quote from: Sarah7 on May 19, 2013, 02:01:02 PM
Which is exactly what FAAB means. And why I prefer those terms. Because it rejects the notion that doctors have the power to determine what bodies and identities are. Rather than an identity it breaks it down to an event that occurred.

all i see that doing, is to recognize other people's power to decide what clothes a child should wear even when they get big enough to express their own preferences. that one is also a label, and i'd like to proclaim my right to reject any label that i didn't choose myself. i am "me" an immeasurable number of times more than i am "faab", "fta", or any other label that says nothing at all about who i really am.

First of all, I just wanted to apologize for the tone of my last post. I lost a bit of perspective. I was posting just before I went to sleep and was very tired, and I tend to get a little touchy when tired. I didn't mean to make anyone feel bad for expressing their opinions. I'm not going to say that I regret what I said exactly, but I do wish I had found a better way to say it.

I'll respond a bit more to some of this later, right now I don't have time as I'm going to go see the new Star Trek movie with a friend.

One thing I do want to make clear first, is Sarah, I was never trying to tell you what your biological sex is. I'm so sorry if that's how it came across, I'm usually much better with words but I was struggling a bit finding the right way to explain what I meant. All I was trying to imply is that there are certain biological features, characteristics of a body, that are typically categorized, linguistically, as "male." I'm not saying having those features makes you male, in any way, biologically, identity, or otherwise.

My whole point was never about defining anyone, in any way. It was about the language. The characteristics we're talking about fall under the linguistic category of "male." That's how people understand them. I don't see a better way to describe them succinctly and be understood.

Just got back from Star Trek, and anyone who is a sci-fi or action nerd and hasn't seen it, make time to see it. See it in 3D if you can. It was really, really good.

Okay, I wanted to say more before I left, but if I did I was going to be late.

I understand the desire to be able to just throw off any ties to a gender and sex that you don't identify with, you don't feel you belong to, etc.

I also get the objection that if a female can develop a penis, which obvious we know that's possible, then is a penis really inherently male?

I'm open minded. I'm totally okay with dismantling the language and ideas we've built up now that we've come to understand they may be insufficient. My problem, I think, can be broken down into three points.

One, I don't feel there have been any proposals to adequately rebuild new language in the place of the terms we're rejecting. MAAB may be a solid term for a foundation. I like it, it's nice and broad and it's descriptive. But like I said, I think it has limits, it doesn't describe the same thing that "male-bodied" does. So I'd like to hear some proposals for describing the issue of a person having physical characteristics not typical of their gender/sex.

Two, such phrases need to be semantically clear. When I say "male-bodied" I think virtually any English speaker will picture the physical attributes I'm trying to convey. Whatever phrase we come up with to replace that one needs to do the same. It needs to evoke an image of a body with those physical characteristics. Personally, I'm at a loss for any vocabulary that does that without gender or sex connotations.

We can invent a whole new phrase for it, but then we're faced with the problem of getting that phrase into the lexicon of common parlance. If our phrase isn't immediately semantically recognizable, it means that we'll have to explain it every time we use it, which sort of defeats the purpose. That option might be nice for people in the future, if we succeed in getting a phrase embraced and understood, but it would take so long that it doesn't do much for us.

Also, we face the problem of making sure the new phrase doesn't pick up connotations of sex or gender just by association. Even if we create a whole new phrase, once we explain what it means, people are going to attach gender and sex to it just because that is the framework they understand.

It's a noble goal, but I'm just not sure how practical it is.

My third and final issue is, if my brain being female automatically makes my body female regardless of how it looks, where does the dysphoria come from? Is it purely cosmetic? Or is it purely social? The framework I have to understand my problem is a mismatch in the sex of my brain and the rest of my body, take that away and I'm not sure how to frame the problem. I don't think it's purely cosmetic, because it feels deeper than just wanting to look a certain way.

Maybe it is purely social, maybe it comes from the fact that I understand my body as male because of social constructs. I don't think so though. It feels much more intrinsic than that. I have no proof for this, but I feel like even if I were raised in a society with no genders, I would feel a wrongness about my form.

I feel like there's a very real mismatch of my parts, my brain and my form. The only framework I have to understand that mismatch is that my brain is female but my form is male. Without that, I'm not sure how to wrap my mind around it.

So that about sums up my feelings about it, and I'd like it if someone could help me with understanding and describing the issue without the framework and terms you find distasteful.

While I was typing this post, I did come up with an idea for a term that could work. I'm not sure it's very good, but tell me what you guys think about "Sex Dysmorphic."

Here's what dysmorphic means: "Dysmorphic feature is a medical term referring to a difference of body structure that is suggestive of a congenital disorder, genetic syndrome, or birth defect."

In more layman's terms, that would mean an abnormal physical characteristic developed at birth.

Now, I see some potential problems with the connotations of this phrase, too. First of all, I don't think people generally like being called abnormal or defective. I personally feel my body is defective, but I understand other people may not feel that way about themselves.

Secondly, it still relies on a connotation of sex, meaning that if your body is dysmorphic to your sex, that you're saying your body has something your sex should not have. This might imply that if the feature in question is something your sex shouldn't have, that it belongs to the other sex, arriving at the same problem.

Still, at least it avoids directly relying on the word "male." Plus, it just generally sounds more medical.

Any thoughts?

  When I was young...a man who dressed as a woman was a cross-dresser or ->-bleeped-<-.  A woman who had a sex-change was called a sex-change.  An inter-sex person was called a hemophrodite (sorry wrong spelling) they didn't have all these fancy titles that are around today...dysphoria, transgender, transexual, and what these titles do today is confuse the hell out of people and usually aren't any help at identifying someone.  A man who has lived all his life as a man, fathered children, gotten married, can now be called a woman?  Can now say he was always a she...Yeah right!

I mean no offense if you are offended...I'm just telling you how things have changed over the past 55 years, from personal experience.