so, I have some questions and am trying to gain a better understanding of some things regarding sex and gender.
we all know that sex and gender and completly different terms.......
gender is loosely defned as a variety of characteristics to distinguish between male and female......gender roles, appearance, mannerisms, etc etc so forth and so on.
sex is loosely defined by a species ability to reproduce and by which gametes are produced by that species, ovum (eggs) or sperm, or in some cases, both are produced.  in the absence of the those gametes being produced, sex is loosely defined as the genitalia, either a vagina or a penis..(in most animalia)

if someone claims a gender of female based on their characteristics, then yes, I agree wholeheartedly, their gender is female.......

where I have trouble understanding and comprehending is how can one claim a certain "sex" status when their genitalia is opposite the sex they are claiming and in some cases, have no interest in having the genitalia of the sex they are claiming.  can someone, anyone, help me at all in understanding this concept?

I (and many others) have been beat to hell and back, I have not misgendered anyone (as expressed in some smites), I am not transphobic.......I am simply trying to understand something that I currently do not understand......can anyone help with this?

I'm just going to copy/paste this from the last thread on this subject, cause I am bored of trying to say the same thing in different ways.


Definition of sex from Canadian Oxford:
   

Quote1 either of the main divisions (male and female) into which living things are placed on the basis of their reproductive functions.

We no longer use that definition. Sex ceased to be a biological category for humans hundreds of years ago. It was a term used to express REPRODUCTIVE function. The end. In the strict sense a post-operative woman is neuter, not female. So is every impotent bloke and every woman post-menopause. And since the term is not used in its original biological definition, this means that sex is a social category.

Let me give an example. A male soldier steps on a landmine in Afghanistan, he suffers that injury that all blokes are terrified of. However, he is still male. He does not suddenly cease to be male due to the lack of a penis. His IDs remain unchanged, his pronouns, everything stays exactly as it was. He is a disabled guy, but he is still a guy.

Or to put it another way, if you cut a guy's dick off, he doesn't become female, and neither will I.

I do not identify as MTF. I am a female who was born with a birth defect. I am correcting that defect. In less than 6 months my birth certificate will be altered to indicate that I was born female. I have zero interest in labelling anyone who is not me.

Efforts to rewrite the definition of sex to fit a specific agenda are exactly that. Rewriting. Don't imagine there is any actual basis for the crotch-definition.

I acknowledge that sex and gender are different (but interrelated) concepts. However, I think that because the cisgendered majority views gender and sex as the same thing, a transwoman who doesn't choose to have SRS can and should "check the F box" on legal documents, Facebook, etc. to better assimilate into their new gender role.

Quote from: Grave Robber 9 (from Outer Space) on October 27, 2011, 11:17:49 PM
I acknowledge that sex and gender are different (but interralted) concepts. However, I think that because the cisgendered majority views gender and sex as the same thing, a transwoman who doesn't choose to have SRS can and should "check the F box" on legal documents, Facebook, etc to better assimilate into their new gender role.

a major problem with that is those who become incarcerated, they are housed in cells based on their genitalia.....yes, it's an aweful thing.  I've seen programs where some are even on estrogen but housed in male units.

Quote from: Sarah7 on October 27, 2011, 11:13:30 PM
I'm just going to copy/paste this from the last thread on this subject, cause I am bored of trying to say the same thing in different ways.


Definition of sex from Canadian Oxford:
   
We no longer use that definition. Sex ceased to be a biological category for humans hundreds of years ago. It was a term used to express REPRODUCTIVE function. The end. In the strict sense a post-operative woman is neuter, not female. So is every impotent bloke and every woman post-menopause. And since the term is not used in its original biological definition, this means that sex is a social category.

Let me give an example. A male soldier steps on a landmine in Afghanistan, he suffers that injury that all blokes are terrified of. However, he is still male. He does not suddenly cease to be male due to the lack of a penis. His IDs remain unchanged, his pronouns, everything stays exactly as it was. He is a disabled guy, but he is still a guy.

Or to put it another way, if you cut a guy's dick off, he doesn't become female, and neither will I.

I do not identify as MTF. I am a female who was born with a birth defect. I am correcting that defect. In less than 6 months my birth certificate will be altered to indicate that I was born female. I have zero interest in labelling anyone who is not me.

Efforts to rewrite the definition of sex to fit a specific agenda are exactly that. Rewriting. Don't imagine there is any actual basis for the crotch-definition.

I certainly respect your input, but, that definition of sex is not what is being taught in american universities and public schools....my undergrad degree is in bio and my post grad work is in bio

From the World Health Organization

QuoteWhat do we mean by "sex" and "gender"?

Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what is meant by the term "gender", and how it differs from the closely related term "sex".

"Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

To put it another way:

"Male" and "female" are sex categories, while "masculine" and "feminine" are gender categories.

Aspects of sex will not vary substantially between different human societies, while aspects of gender may vary greatly.

Some examples of sex characteristics :

Women menstruate while men do not
Men have testicles while women do not
Women have developed breasts that are usually capable of lactating, while men have not
Men generally have more massive bones than women
Some examples of gender characteristics :

In the United States (and most other countries), women earn significantly less money than men for similar work
In Viet Nam, many more men than women smoke, as female smoking has not traditionally been considered appropriate
In Saudi Arabia men are allowed to drive cars while women are not
In most of the world, women do more housework than men

This isn't even touching the topic of how easily "sex" can be broken down, too. But it does lay out the common understanding of the two terms in their current usage in gender studies and medicine.

Quote from: LifeInNeon on October 27, 2011, 11:27:59 PM
From the World Health Organization

This isn't even touching the topic of how easily "sex" can be broken down, too. But it does lay out the common understanding of the two terms in their current usage in gender studies and medicine.

so, for example, somebody who identifies as female (in gender) but has male reproductive organs and genitalia (male)
which are they and which one is proper?
for example, somebody who identifies as female (gender) and chooses to have male reproductive organs removed and genitalia corrected to female..........which are they and which term (man or woman) is proper?
for example, somebody who identifies as female (gender) but chooses to keep male reproductive organs and genitalia, which are they and which term is more appropriate........and why?

It is only the mind that matters. If a person has a female brain, that person is female regardless of what their body looks like.

Some may wish to correct this imbalance, while others might choose to live with it. That doesn't change who they are inside.

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 27, 2011, 11:22:24 PM
I certainly respect your input, but, that definition of sex is not what is being taught in american universities and public schools....my undergrad degree is in bio and my post grad work is in bio

Jamie, I'll direct you to a specific quote from the big block.

Quote from: Sarah7 on October 27, 2011, 11:13:30 PM
Sex ceased to be a biological category for humans hundreds of years ago.

I'll go further and say that sex as a categorical classification hasn't held any relevance to humans beyond the single act of procreation (well, and fornication, too, but I'll get to that in a bit) ever since the construction of division by gender as a social model came into existence.  Biology is concerned with...well, exactly what it says on the label: things having to do with the study of life: namely, physiology and procreation.  Even then, we can talk all we want about species-typicality, müllerian and wolffian duct differentiation and their eventual roles in anatomical, chromosomal, and perhaps even identified sex (and remember that all of these exist along a spectrum, so it's not nearly as easy to assign all of these absolutes like "vagina/vulva = female, penis/scrotum = male"), but it simply doesn't have relevance in societal and cultural views on sex.

Now, about sex as a category by which people are defined.  When I'm having sex, I assume an identity based on the way I act during sex, my preferred roles during it, and my desires in sexual response.  Thus, my sexual identity (and, thus, sex) is female.  I could be sporting thirteen tiny multicolored penises erupting from random pores in the skin of my groin, and it would not change the fact that my identified (and since identification is the only category with social relevance, the rest follow) sex is female.

My gender identity isn't nearly as easy to pin down.  I don't feel that current social norms and expectations for men or women really accurately reflect me, and so, while there is certainly a strong aspect of me that finds a female gender identity easier to deal with (because of its harmony with my sexual identity), it's not entirely comfortable either.  This is part of the reason I'm so uncomfortable identifying as anything beyond "female" - that's my sexual identity, while the social markers of gender, "girl", "lady", or "woman" just don't sit well.

I'm not a big fan of the "female with a birth defect" argument, because the scientist in me does have to admit that yes, I was born physiologically and chromosomally under the classifications of a species-typical male and didn't seem to have a problem with that for at least some amount of time.  I can and will soon remedy the physiological-psychological disconnect, but the chromosomal one will always remain.  In the same way as an intersex person cannot cease to be intersex, I cannot ever stop being transsexual. 

That said, I don't identify as transsexual—it is a condition which I have, not an intrinsic component of my sexual or gender identity.  Let's put it this way: a diabetic woman need not self-identify as "diabetes", and so while I don't ever deny the fact that I'm trans, it's not a part of my identity in the same way as being trans is.

In the end, though, being trans doesn't change my sex or my gender.

The simple breakdown to make it a little easier to understand (and sadly, the WHO article breaks this guideline). For this, since we're in the MTF section, I'm going to use MTF examples where necessary (Sorry guys!):

Sex: Male/Female

Gender: Masculine/Feminine or "Man" / "Woman"

Transgender: Broadly speaking anyone whose gender identity(internal sense of self), gender expression(how one outwardly presents themselves), and biological sex are not or have not always been aligned. Cisgender, therefore is someone whose sex and gender are and have been in conventional alignment. This is the "umbrella" usage of the word transgender, since this can apply to crossdressers (gender identity masculine, gender expression feminine, biological sex male), non-transitioning transsexuals (gender identity feminine, gender expression masculine, biological sex male), transitioned transsexuals (gender identity feminine*, gender expression feminine*, biological sex female*), drag queens,  androgynes, genderqueers, and so on. We could also add an axis for sex identity that would be the biological analogue of gender identity, but this isn't a commonly referenced idea.

*Formerly masculine or male

Transsexual: Someone who has taken steps, or would if possible take steps to alter their biological sex. (Notice, this does not specify which steps.)

---------------------------------------------------

Now, when it comes to sex, this is where it gets a little trickier since the usefulness of distinguishing male from female depends upon what is being discussed. There's basically no hard line you can draw where someone won't end up on the wrong side of it, whether due to intersex conditions, genital reconstruction, accident or misfortune damaging reproductive organs, hormone imbalances, and so on.

Chromosomes: This is a common one since it determines, in large part, who is capable of producing viable gametes, and on paper determines physical characteristics. However, I shouldn't have to explain the difference between genotype and phenotype. What actually develops for an individual is influenced by many other factors. Also, it's disingenuous to declare this to be the sole determinant if a person has not themselves had a karyotype analysis done to determine if they are in fact who they claim to be. So this one is out. c.f. Klinefelter Syndrome

Genitals and gonads: Technically separate, but they are similar enough for our purposes. Sex organ development is largely influenced by prenatal and postnatal hormones, not chromosomes. An imbalance in utero can lead to ambiguous genitalia. Sometimes this can be ambiguous enough that doctors and parents are basically taking a 50/50 shot that they guessed right for their child's identity in the future. In the worst cases, surgery is performed early on to "correct" these children before they can either consent or dispute their assigned sex. c.f. Intersex

Hormones: Simple enough. They influence nearly everything about your sex differentiated characteristics, from mood to physical development. This is a wide spectrum with typical females producing significantly higher quantities of estrogens and males producing significantly higher qualities of androgens. But people are known to have widely varying levels even for their identified sex. c.f. Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Secondary Sex Characteristics: These are largely influenced by hormones, but they play a large role in how others identify a person's sex on sight. (That's the motivation for HRT for many transsexuals) However, there are cross-sex characteristics that are fairly common in the sex not typically associated with them. c.f. Hirsutism (male-type hairiness in females), Gynecomastia (female-type breast growth in males)

---------------------------------

So, where does one draw the line that doesn't leave some folks on the wrong side? And if you notice, none of those disorders on that list were Gender Dysphoria. Not all of them even cause infertility, either.

The easiest and simplest answer is to allow people to identify themselves. At the scope of any decent scientific study or legal/bureaucratic process, self-identification should be sufficient for what is being tracked. If it is so sensitive that this is not sufficient, then it's probably more helpful to disregard sex entirely and focus on delineating populations by the specific characteristic under review: e.g. if you want to know the influence of testosterone on hair loss, instead of studying males vs females (and simply assuming all males have higher testosterone than all females), compare high testosterone subjects to low testosterone subjects. On the other hand, if the margin of error on the assumption that all males are higher than all females is acceptable, then self-identification should suffice. Trans people aren't common enough to skew a study that badly unless trans people specifically are the topic of study.

Similarly for medicine. I now have female characteristics AND male characteristics. Whether I check M or F doesn't matter nearly as much as what organs and chemical levels I have. Those are the details the doctor actually needs. Just because the assumption that male means penis + prostate is right in most instances, what happens when a female has a prostate? Or a male has ovaries? Those are organs that can develop cancer, so knowing about their presence or absence is much more relevant than simply an M or F and assuming.

So, even when it comes to biological sex, the water is pretty muddy when you get to so-called "edge cases." And before anyone gets on any soapboxes about who is too far outside the norm to worry about, remember that everyone posting on this forum is one of those edge cases, and raising awareness and proper use of language are meant to ensure that those of us out here on the edge aren't being pushed off.

Great points, and post as a whole, LifeInNeon, though I take issue with a few of the wordings.

Quote from: LifeInNeon on October 28, 2011, 12:58:22 AM
non-transitioning transsexuals (gender identity feminine, gender expression masculine, biological sex male), transitioned transsexuals (gender identity feminine*, gender expression feminine*, biological sex female*)

I think you're conflating gender expression and gender presentation here (which is an easy mistake to make, to be fair).  Gender presentation is the gender as which the person intends to present to society, whereas gender expression is one's choice of gendered societal roles (that may or may not coincide with the gender presentation, especially in androgyne or neutrois individuals, for example).

Quote
Now, when it comes to sex, this is where it gets a little trickier since the usefulness of distinguishing male from female depends upon what is being discussed. There's basically no hard line you can draw where someone won't end up on the wrong side of it, whether due to intersex conditions, genital reconstruction, accident or misfortune damaging reproductive organs, hormone imbalances, and so on.

Chromosomes: This is a common one since it determines, in large part, who is capable of producing viable gametes, and on paper determines physical characteristics. However, I shouldn't have to explain the difference between genotype and phenotype. What actually develops for an individual is influenced by many other factors. Also, it's disingenuous to declare this to be the sole determinant if a person has not themselves had a karyotype analysis done to determine if they are in fact who they claim to be. So this one is out. c.f. Klinefelter Syndrome

Genitals and gonads: Technically separate, but they are similar enough for our purposes. Sex organ development is largely influenced by prenatal and postnatal hormones, not chromosomes. An imbalance in utero can lead to ambiguous genitalia. Sometimes this can be ambiguous enough that doctors and parents are basically taking a 50/50 shot that they guessed right for their child's identity in the future. In the worst cases, surgery is performed early on to "correct" these children before they can either consent or dispute their assigned sex. c.f. Intersex

Hormones: Simple enough. They influence nearly everything about your sex differentiated characteristics, from mood to physical development. This is a wide spectrum with typical females producing significantly higher quantities of estrogens and males producing significantly higher qualities of androgens. But people are known to have widely varying levels even for their identified sex. c.f. Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Secondary Sex Characteristics: These are largely influenced by hormones, but they play a large role in how others identify a person's sex on sight. (That's the motivation for HRT for many transsexuals) However, there are cross-sex characteristics that are fairly common in the sex not typically associated with them. c.f. Hirsutism (male-type hairiness in females), Gynecomastia (female-type breast growth in males)

This is a really good summary.

Quote
So, where does one draw the line that doesn't leave some folks on the wrong side? And if you notice, none of those disorders on that list were Gender Dysphoria. Not all of them even cause infertility, either.

The easiest and simplest answer is to allow people to identify themselves. At the scope of any decent scientific study or legal/bureaucratic process, self-identification should be sufficient for what is being tracked. If it is so sensitive that this is not sufficient, then it's probably more helpful to disregard sex entirely and focus on delineating populations by the specific characteristic under review: e.g. if you want to know the influence of testosterone on hair loss, instead of studying males vs females (and simply assuming all males have higher testosterone than all females), compare high testosterone subjects to low testosterone subjects. On the other hand, if the margin of error on the assumption that all males are higher than all females is acceptable, then self-identification should suffice. Trans people aren't common enough to skew a study that badly unless trans people specifically are the topic of study.

Similarly for medicine. I now have female characteristics AND male characteristics. Whether I check M or F doesn't matter nearly as much as what organs and chemical levels I have. Those are the details the doctor actually needs. Just because the assumption that male means penis + prostate is right in most instances, what happens when a female has a prostate? Or a male has ovaries? Those are organs that can develop cancer, so knowing about their presence or absence is much more relevant than simply an M or F and assuming.

So, even when it comes to biological sex, the water is pretty muddy when you get to so-called "edge cases." And before anyone gets on any soapboxes about who is too far outside the norm to worry about, remember that everyone posting on this forum is one of those edge cases, and raising awareness and proper use of language are meant to ensure that those of us out here on the edge aren't being pushed off.

I continue to be an advocate of self-identification as well (in addition to advocating the removal of legal sex from all documents, because why should it matter?).

Quick note, though.  If you've been on HRT long enough, your prostate shrivels to near-nothingness, such that prostate cancer is not a practical concern for trans women, if I recall correctly.

Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 28, 2011, 01:16:34 AM
I think you're conflating gender expression and gender presentation here (which is an easy mistake to make, to be fair).  Gender presentation is the gender as which the person intends to present to society, whereas gender expression is one's choice of gendered societal roles (that may or may not coincide with the gender presentation, especially in androgyne or neutrois individuals, for example).

Trying as hard as I can to keep it Queer Theory 101 level.

But thank you.

Quote from: LifeInNeon on October 28, 2011, 01:20:41 AM
Trying as hard as I can to keep it Queer Theory 101 level.

Hahaha.  I'm a walking Gender Studies Department!

(Embarrassingly, I'm not taking my first GenSex course until next semester.  I've read metric tons of material, though.)

so you're saying that we should just ignore the genitals and sex completely?  how do you solve that when it comes to lockerrooms, possibly when an inpatient and having to share a room, if convicted and incarcerated?
would it be fair to someone with a vagina to be housed with someone with a penis, where possibly a crime could be committed in the height of a possible sexual arousal?

not to mention sporting activies......would be fair to a cis female to have to compete in the same class as someone with a penis and all the characteristics of male, but they identify as female?  say in a 100 yard dash?

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 01:26:19 AM
so you're saying that we should just ignore the genitals and sex completely?  how do you solve that when it comes to lockerrooms, possibly when an inpatient and having to share a room, if convicted and incarcerated?
would it be fair to someone with a vagina to be housed with someone with a penis, where possibly a crime could be committed in the height of a possible sexual arousal?

I'm saying we ignore the genitals, because they do not define someone's sex.  That's really simple.

There's something to be said for a lot of advancements that feminism has brought us.  The characterization of penis as villain penetrating women's spaces with its mere presence is not one of them.

Also, the fact that you bring up bathroom rape is not appropriate.  Under really any circumstances.  You're characterizing trans women as sexual predators, and that really is unconscionable.  It's what extremists do to erase us and to fearmonger whenever we want to be recognized as our rightful, identified sex.

Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 28, 2011, 01:34:54 AM
I'm saying we ignore the genitals, because they do not define someone's sex.  That's really simple.

There's something to be said for a lot of advancements that feminism has brought us.  The characterization of penis as villain penetrating women's spaces with its mere presence is not one of them.

Also, the fact that you bring up bathroom rape is not appropriate.  Under really any circumstances.  You're characterizing trans women as sexual predators, and that really is unconscionable.  It's what extremists do to erase us and to fearmonger whenever we want to be recognized as our rightful, identified sex.

I never characterized anybody as anything and I suggest you go back and edit that comment!  The possibility exists both ways and to deny that it could happen is quite ignorant.  If you have a somebody that identifies as female housed with males but still retaining male organs, the possiblity exists for them to be raped (such as in correctional institutions) and on the flip side, someone with testicles, penis, testosterone identifying as female is in a position to conduct a rape if sexually attracted to a woman with a vagina if in the same situation............

Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 28, 2011, 01:34:54 AM
I'm saying we ignore the genitals, because they do not define someone's sex.  That's really simple.

There's something to be said for a lot of advancements that feminism has brought us.  The characterization of penis as villain penetrating women's spaces with its mere presence is not one of them.

Also, the fact that you bring up bathroom rape is not appropriate.  Under really any circumstances.  You're characterizing trans women as sexual predators, and that really is unconscionable.  It's what extremists do to erase us and to fearmonger whenever we want to be recognized as our rightful, identified sex.

and yes, the genitals along with the reproductive organs (as well as which gamete is produced) loosely defines sex......nobody is just going to ignore them, not the legal community, not the medical community and not society in general

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 01:42:03 AM
I never characterized anybody as anything and I suggest you go back and edit that comment!  The possibility exists both ways and to deny that it could happen is quite ignorant.  If you have a somebody that identifies as female housed with males but still retaining male organs, the possiblity exists for them to be raped (such as in correctional institutions) and on the flip side, someone with testicles, penis, testosterone identifying as female is in a position to conduct a rape if sexually attracted to a woman with a vagina if in the same situation............

I'm not editing anything.

"A crime committed in the height of a possible sexual arousal"?  You're saying that trans women have the potential to rape other women, and that that characteristic is intrinsic to their genitals, which is a) insulting to men, because the assumption is that only "penis-bearers" are sexual predators, b) insulting to trans women, because you characterize them as equivalent to males in this situation, c) insulting to women because you're assuming that only cis-or-post-operative-trans women are capable of being raped, and d) insulting to the trans* community at large, because they're the ones who are far more often the victims of rape than cis people.

Rape is not just PVI, Jamie.  Rape is any number of things, and it can be perpetrated by someone of any gender/sex/genital arrangement, against someone of any gender/sex/genital arrangement.  To deny that fact is not only ignorant but sexist.

Quote from: MeghanAndrews on October 28, 2011, 01:43:38 AM
Are you serious here or just poking fun at the conversation? I think you're joking but I'm not quite sure. It almost sounds serious.

actually, I'm being very serious......nearly everywhere we go, we are separated by sex.  restrooms, patients in the hospital rooming together, locker rooms, phys ed classes (sometimes coed), etc etc..........so exactly how can we just ignore the genitals and reproductive organs?