Both: How do you feel about the terms "female man", "male man", "female woman", and "male woman"?

submitted by comradeconradical from (self.GCdebatesQT)

If we are to consider sex and gender as separate categories (socially woman/man and biologically female/male) then would the normalization of the terms in the title be a beneficial compromise for both QT and GC?

As in, a cis man is a male man and a trans man is a female man.

Despite being somewhat cumbersome and sometimes seemingly redundant, I think it would improve communication and comprehension on these matters. For example, it's clearer and more truthful to say that "female men can get pregnant" than it is to say "men can get pregnant". This could allow for both gender and sex to coexist and be fairly and openly discussed.

That said, I'm sure there are arguments for and against these terms, and I would love to hear everybody's thoughts on the subject.

all 31 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sounds silly, cause it is silly. Redundancies are not helpful to communication. It’s absolutely not more truthful or clear to say that “female men can get pregnant” than it is to say “women can get pregnant”.

There is yet to be a convincing reason to all of a sudden force gender to take over sex. Capitulating to silly language games like saying a nonsensical phrase such as “male women cannot get pregnant but female men can” isn’t finding even ground if it still requires all English speakers to perform an upheaval for a tiny group who can’t even explain why we must make the changes.

[–]comradeconradical[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good point, it is giving in to the word games and places the burden on the majority rather than the vocal minority.

I'm just tired of being shut down when pointing out that transwomen are male and all that implies haha so if the language states it, maybe that would make QT more open to discussing sex-based ideas as separate from their conceptions of gender-based ideas.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Female man and male woman are both oxymorons

Male man and female woman are both redundant

[–]comradeconradical[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Redundant and cumbersome, yes, though I'd argue no moreso than cis and trans.

Oxymorons, I agree as I don't personally think gender exists beyond people's biases, but I thought maybe it would make it clearer when discussing, say, transwomen in women's sports. But I guess in the end it is just word play lol

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

but I thought maybe it would make it clearer when discussing, say, transwomen in women's sports

See that’s what bothers me. Not about you lol, but the subject.

We could have just kept saying women and transwomen. That’s the compromise. That’s the language that makes everything clear. And it’s actually honest language. This is why I said they can’t be satisfied so why try. We had terminology that made this conversation clear and easy to have. But they keep pushing to ignore the truth and force the rest of us to and it’s just ridiculous. I’m at a point now where unless I’m on this sub I don’t even use the words “transwoman” or “transman”. I call everyone exactly what they factually are.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Basically, I think even if we used the terms “male women” and “female women” (and the equivalent for men), it won’t matter to the 99, and the 1% will eventually argue that male women are actually female women and then yet another term will have to be made to differentiate and then the cycle repeats. They will never let women be women and men be men.

Edit- typo

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Commenting again because I’m bored af stuck at home with my baby and have nothing to do…

“This could allow for both gender and sex to coexist and be fairly and openly discussed.”

Ever notice how gender and sexuality were always able to coexist pretty seamlessly until tras decided that gender was personal? Gender and sex DO coexist in a way that can be fairly and openly discussed. The issue is that qt thinks that their personal (wrong) understanding of the word gender means something. Gender isn’t personal- it is societal and correlates to sex. Always. It’s literally defined by its relation to sex. The only reason we can’t discuss this is because qt/tra/some trans people can’t accept what gender means.

If we ignore qt/tras/some trans people, what issues do we have with discussing sex, gender, sexuality, sex based language, or biology clearly and accurately?

This is gonna sound rude and dismissive but I see no reason to adjust language for 1%. Especially when the reasoning isn’t fact or science based, it’s desperation based.

[–]comradeconradical[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hi, as a GC myself I agree with everything you and the other GC have written, as never before in history has there been such an issue with saying the words "woman" and "man" and understanding which people are being referred to.

However, though a small part of the population, the QT vernacular is becoming more and more pervasive. People get shut down for calling female humans "women", as you're likely aware. I personally would prefer if the small percentage would use reality-based language, however in current practice that seems unlikely. In that light I was trying to consider new terminology to encompass both sides, as trans and cis really don't do it for me and many GC.

I don't believe in gender, but for the people who do, I was thinking maybe these terms could at least keep biology and sex as a main pillar. Maybe I should have asked QT in particular, as they are the driving force of gender-based language.

Thank you for your replies :)

[–]worried19 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Too confusing, plus TRAs don't want compromise. It's their way or the highway. They don't want to hear "female men can get pregnant." They will only accept "men can get pregnant."

[–]comradeconradical[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good point, it's true that I haven't seen many QT open to any form of compromise on their end :(

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm against it.

  1. I don't have a "gender identity". I'm a woman because of my body. I refuse to be defined by a bunch of sexist stereotypes.

  2. This would only benefit the QT position as we would be adopting their language.

  3. There is no compromise to be made. QT have made quite clear that they don't want any kind of compromise and they won't forgive any wrong thinking. Instead they keep demanding more and more each day. Give them a inch and they will take a mile.

[–]comradeconradical[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes unfortunately I think you're especially on the mark with point 3 :(

And I personally agree about gender ideology, but I was thinking for those who believe it strongly, at least these terms would make them acknowledge and state sex-based reality alongside gender identity. But it is all word games and somehow I doubt they want to state the sex-based side of things, similar to how GC don't want to give credence to genderism.

Though I haven't received any replies from QT yet so I'm just speculating.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

IME arguing with QT, they mostly want to be viewed as the opposite sex. A few may acknowledge their sex, but they will still insist their sex is irrelevant.

[–]comradeconradical[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's been my experience as well. Even the few who do admit it downplay the reality of the immutability of sex.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

TRAs have moved on from that. Nowadays TRAs have made it quite clear that the words girl, woman & even 'female' all describe a social construct which any man can identify with (synonyms for femininity). Likewise they have decided that there should be no way of describing the sexes, not even while piling a bunch of euphemisms on top. Take "AMAB", for instance. "Assigned male" is not even indirectly acknowledging the fact that the person is male.

That's why no one should give them an inch. Man & woman are not social constructs, masculinity & femininity are. Man & woman, like male & female are single-sex terms.

Even "feminised male" would be pushing it. But if a man feminises his name (which is the very least that they do) then it'd at least be accurate.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

“For example, it's clearer and more truthful to say that "female men can get pregnant" than it is to say "men can get pregnant". “

Much more clear and truthful to just state the actual clear truth… that the “man” that can get pregnant can do so because they aren’t actually a man. People need to stop pretending that personal senses of self can change fact. Transmen are women. Transwomen are men. The trans community needs to provide actual proof otherwise or stop trying to force this on everyone else.

Why should women (or men) have to compromise on the very language and definitions meant for us for people who aren’t women (or men)? Because it hurts their feelings if we don’t? Lots of people get their feelings hurt all the time, we don’t deny reality to placate them.

The thing I don’t think the trans community understands is that, to 99% of the world, “transwoman” translates to “man”. “Transman” translates to “woman”. “Cis” translates to “real/actual” and “female man” would just translate to “not a man at all” and “male woman” would translate to “not a woman at all”

Whatever language changes or made up words we come up with to “compromise”- most people are still going to not see trans people as they want to be and the real understanding of these compromise terms would be exactly what the terms we have already are: code for things we aren’t allowed to say out loud anymore.

We already compromised when we agreed to call certain men “transwomen” and certain women “transmen”. It wasn’t enough. Nothing ever will be, so why bother?

All of this to say- these terms would mean nothing to anyone but the trans community. Which kind of makes this pointless. It’s not like all of a sudden people will view trans people differently if we accept any new terms. It won’t change shit.

*Edited to fix a typo

[–]comradeconradical[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Right, the compromise always has and continues to fall more and more on women (female women lol)

I thought this language would be a bigger compromise for QT as they would need to state sex, but I see now that it's not going to be possible to create new terms to fix this divide in communication or change the way these opposing groups consider things.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

QT can’t even agree with each other. We can’t compromise (further) with people who can’t even align within their own group. For every qt that acknowledges that TW are male but are also somehow women, you have a dozen that claim that TW are actually female. You have varying definitions of what it means to be trans and who is trans. If they can’t get it together to unify their beliefs, how can anyone whos not qt compromise on anything?

[–]DistantGlimmer 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I dislike it. "Male man" and "female woman" is redundant. A "female adult human female"? "Cis" isn't real. Many people who aren't self identified "trans" still do not identify with gender stereotypes. We need to stop using these words that are lies. This isn't a compromise. It's accepting the QT view of everyone having an inherent gender identity and erases GNC (non trans) people. "masculine and feminine" are perfectly good words if you need an adjective for gender presentation and neither are inherently connected to being a man or woman.

[–]comradeconradical[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I agree and your response mirrors all the GC responses. Like I mentioned elsewhere, I really should have asked QT directly... very few replies from them if any...

Allowing QT to use woman and man as gender words rather than sex words was the beginning of the end for sexed language. Now I see them even claiming male and female are gender words. It's never enough, and it will not do us any good to compromise/capitulate.

Thanks for your response!

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I’m sure if there can be much agreement because many QT sees man/woman and male/female as gender words and GC sees man/woman and male/female as sex words. Years ago no one would say trans female to refer to a trans natal male, but you hear things like that now. I would like it if we could keep male and female only as sex words. It’s possible to be a man or a woman in a social sense while not actually being that male or a female, although I know people may disagree on that. I feel like the assigned sex a birth stuff is really confusing (and also inaccurate). I don’t that means that TM are going to start referring to themselves as female men or vice versa, but at least it might make things simpler for times it does matter, like at the doctor’s office.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I don’t that means that TM are going to start referring to themselves as female men or vice versa, but at least it might make things simpler for times it does matter, like at the doctor’s office.

Simpler than just saying “I’m trans”? This is what I don’t get. Why is it so hard to just say that you are trans when it matters if “female man/male woman” mean the exact same thing?

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

For me personally, that usually isn’t enough though and I have to explain more. If I tell a medical person that I’m trans, they usually think I’m going the opposite way than I did. I’m not sure if other trans people have this problem. It’s always possible to explain, but it’s become harder since male/female started being seen as gender words too. Even saying I’m male can give opposite meaning and I don’t like having to say assigned at birth because it is nonsense. :(

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This is kind of just proof that no matter what language we use, fact is fact and speaking factually solves all the issues. These problems exist because language got so muddied that even the people language was muddied for don’t benefit from the mud.

Sex will always matter and it will always overpower what qt calls “gender”, so there’s no point in the “inclusive language” at all because most people don’t need it and trans people still have to explain their biology even to people who should understand the terminology.

I get the trans community (or specific “factions” within it) having their own terminology that they use amongst each other and may request others use for them, but if we’ve reached a point where a TW can say to a medical professional “I’m a transwoman, I’m a biological male who presents female (or some version of that)” and that medical professional doesn’t understand, that’s pretty sad. And dangerous.

But also, when someone changes their sex on legal documents, do their medical records just not indicate their biological sex? Like couldn’t a medical professional see your chart/records/whatever and see without asking that you’re a bio male? (Just curious I have no point to make, it just occurred to me that that could/should be a simple solution where nothing has to be said because they can read it)

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don’t see any point to inclusive language either. I assume it’s to spare the feelings of trans people who don’t pass, but that hardly seems like a reason to change words for the entire population. Also, it’s hard to understand why someone would want to go through life with other people just pretending for them to make them feel better. It seems like every interaction would be so fake. It becomes harder to use the language too in a way that makes sense.

I can’t speak for everyone, but the medical records of mine I’ve seen don’t indicate it. That said, I don’t think my childhood medical records weren really carried forward and I’ve been legally that way for a very long time, so it might be different for other people. My primary care doctor and anyone else I see regularly know my history, but I expect to have to explain if I see someone new. I don’t think the medical records system is really designed to deal with legal sex change.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

My primary care doctor and anyone else I see regularly know my history, but I expect to have to explain if I see someone new.

What happens if you can't explain to someone new? Like if you end up needing emergency care and are unconscious, out of it or can't speak due to stroke? I hope, of course, that never happens to you, but the fact is that it can to any of us. It's happened to me and to quite a few people I know.

In all the discussions of "trans health care" and how difficult it supposedly is for trans people to access/get good care, I never see any mention of taking practical measures to help insure that people who "pass" get proper care in emergency situations where they're unable to speak or communicate in other ways. People with medical conditions that aren't obvious to others just by looking at them/us often wear medical alert jewelry. Some people get tattoos. Many carry laminated cards in our wallets stating our hidden conditions too. But I never see any trans people even broach this topic at all. Which seems odd to me since my understanding is that people on trans hormone treatments have higher risk of stroke, and because there's constant emphasis amongst the "trans community" about the poor health care they get.

I realize that trans people wouldn't want to out themselves by wearing a piece of medical alert jewelry, but when HCPs are diagnosing, treating and risk-assessing a patient, it's important they know the patient's sex - as well as what drugs/exogenous hormones the patient is on. After all, the normal lab values/reference ranges in many areas are different for men and women, and the diagnostic trees, diagnostic tools and treatment options often/sometimes are different, too. Also, when treating an unconscious or unable to communicate woman of childbearing age, it has to be assumed she might be pregnant... and until it's ascertained that she's not, certain options are off the table. Taking the steps to determine whether an unconscious patient is pregnant (blood test, putting in an urinary catheter and obtaining urine for an hcg test, calling in a tech to do a sonogram) can take up precious time in situations when every minute counts, and also can involve time-consuming tests and procedures that would be wasted on a male. Also, every test that's done comes with a financial cost.

Also the dosages of many drugs differ based on sex, and the adverse reactions, and risk of them, to various drugs are often different based on the patient's sex too.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Hi MT! Hope you had a wonderful holiday and happy new year! Sorry I’m so low in responding to this! I’m not sure why it doesn’t come up more in the trans community. Maybe they just don’t think about the long term very much.

There also just isn’t a lot of research about trans bodies and how they respond to things. Is a male body that’s developed with high estrogen or a female body that’s developed with high testosterone need treatment based on sex rather than how it’s developed? There are obvious things like pregnancy or prostate problems that could be ruled out for sex, but for dosage requirements or disease risks, I’m just not sure if it has been studied enough. I feel often speaking to my doctors that they don’t quite understand my body or what to expect. People who advocate for it act like the long-term medical effects are well understood, but I don’t think they are.

I have thought about the being unconscious and not able to explain. There is medical information on my Apple watch that can be access if I am unconscious. Maybe my partner would be there or he could explain my medical history. I’m not sure how much it matters though other than like pregnancy because I feel like they just don’t know that much. I feel like, in most cases, even if they knew the history I’d probably be treated similar to female person of my height and body weight. I don’t thing medical people are trained to do any different or would know what that different thing should be.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

People like you need to be treated based on sex like everyone else. Taking exogenous hormones won't make someone's body develop more like the opposite sex, it just going to induce a hormonal imbalance which will lead to health issues. The problem is acknowledging that "gender affirming treatment" causes more problems than what it solves will make anyone being labeled as a "evil transphobe".

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m not sure about always needing treatment based on sex, it just doesn’t seem like that is how it is treated. At the very least, someone like me would have an unusual body fat ratio, tissue distribution, hormonal profile, and genitals compared to most male people. That’s why I feel like it’s important someone to have all the information. Assuming I was female might be bad and that’s why I tell people and would want them to know if I was unconscious, but I feel like someone just giving treatments targeting an average male person would probably be bad too.

Taking exogenous hormones won't make someone's body develop more like the opposite sex

That just isn’t true. They don’t change sex, but they effect how your body develops, if you take them when you are still developing. Most of the changes that happen during puberty are because of large quantities of sex hormones. You can still believe that "gender affirming treatment" causes more problems than it solves (and it probably does many times, it’s probably how the person sees it, but it isn’t without problems), but I don’t know what to say to the other part.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Trans identified people often want medical records to reflect their chosen "identity". They also want medical proffessionals treat them as if they were the opposite sex. If they get hurt or killed because of this, they will blame the medical system for being so "cis-normative", anyway.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just another reason it’s a bad idea to allow some people to legally falsify these documents. I remember reading that this is actually why (as opposed to transphobia) some medical professionals are reluctant to treat trans people. It’s a liability or something, and they don’t want to take the risk.

Everyday it just becomes more and more clear that we as a whole are better off just being honest, all of this bullshit just to protect someone’s sense of self. When your sense of self should never need external validation anyway.