Gender/Sex Labeling.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

I have posted on other sites about this subject. My aim to to help improve the language surrounding Gender/Sex assignment and patient/doctor discourse. I wish to do this with the addition of two words.

Exosex=external sex organs(classically male)

Endosex=internal sex organs(classically female)

I take inspiration from the word intersex which mean crossed sexed. I find the term intersex to do it's job the way I don't the terms male and female should. Intersex merely states appearance of the sex organs and nothing else. With the term intersex you can really draw abstract and social implications from it. Female is typically denoted of feminine. Male is typically denoted of masculine. While people still fall over themselves to say that these words only speak for sex, let's be honest, they simply don't. They pull double duty for both sex and gender. As we in modern times know, these to two things are not quite the same. One is between the legs and the other is between the ears. I think this will be beneficial for both the medical community and the Trans/Nonbinary/Queer community; mostly relating to dysphoric patients. These words may not be as pretty as male and female, but I find them more scientific as they would more clear describe sex organs(which is the only things they should be doing) without the additional societal baggage.

What are your thoughts? Do we need better vocabulary or do we stick to the old words instead?

[greene28]

I don't really see how this would help the medical community or the trans community. Using these terms, a pre-op transgender woman would be "exosex" while a post-op would be "endosex." But in both cases she still has XY chromosomes and lacks a uterus and ovaries. So these terms wouldn't really tell a doctor anything they need to know. I can't imagine a trans person would have a problem saying "genetically male" or "genetically female" when it's medically relevant.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

I don't really see how this would help the medical community or the trans community. Using these terms, a pre-op transgender woman would be "exosex" while a post-op would be "endosex." But in both cases she still has XY chromosomes and lacks a uterus and ovaries. So these terms wouldn't really tell a doctor anything they need to know. I can't imagine a trans person would have a problem saying "genetically male" or "genetically female" when it's medically relevant.

I heard of some trans folk avoiding the doctor because of dysphoria, and yes these words can help because your birth sex will still be on record. These words would only speak of birth sex without have the baggage the words like male and female have. XY would be labeled exosex chromosomes like X0 is labeled intersex or turners.

[dash]

My issue is that what makes someone's "biological sex" is way more than someone's genital shape.

Biological sex is, as we say in law, a "bundle of sticks." There is genital shape (which varies considerably even among non-intersex people). There are hormones (at each stage of life). There are secondary sexual characteristics (which also vary considerably even among non-intersex people). There are chromosomes. There are subtle differences in brain structure. And so on.

It's not biologically accurate to define sex on just one piece of this bundle (for example, a certain trait of genitals).

(I also consider my gentials to be external. My internal organs aren't "genitals," they're internal organs. All genitals to me are the external parts, the parts we can see, whatever their shape.)

On the "essentialist" notions of gender, I recently read of a Christian fundamentalist judge in Oklahoma who would not let a trans person change their name because in their view, sex was immutable, and being trans was committing a fraud. They cited the Bible in their decision. But then they also cited DNA. And that made me think -- they're entitled to their religious beliefs all they want (not to oppressing trans folks, though... except it's Oklahoma). But science? This is how he tried to use science to back up his argument:

* Gender cannot be changed because the Bible says so

* Therefore I must find just one example of something about gender that cannot be changed by science, in order to say that science agrees

* Aha, chromosomes! NO ONE CAN CHANGE THOSE!

* This therefore must be the ESSENTIAL trait of gender! All else can be altered, therefore it is NOT what truly makes someone a man or a woman!

* Therefore, since you haven't changed your chromosomes, AND HAHA YOU CAN'T, you're not really a woman, I will not let you change your name, get out of my court room.

(I wanted to ask him what his criteria would be prior to the discovery of DNA, since that is very recent. Fertility? That has other problems as the "sole determining factor for sex"! What about infertile people? And so on.)

This is a long way of saying, I don't think there is, or should be, any "one criterion" for determining "biological sex," since that's not how biology works. Sex shouldn't be essentialized to "man" or "woman" but it also shouldn't be essentialized to genital shape.

Besides, if someone's a man, or a woman, do we really need to check their genital shape when we meet them in order to accept this as their gender, or even their sex? (I've never done that, personally...) Are we going to imply that the biological sex of war vets has changed if they've had certain bits blown off in combat? (Graphic yes but definitions based on genital shape go there.) Are we going to say that transmen who use prostheses don't really have external genitals?

I don't want to go there.

[dash]

I don't really see how this would help the medical community or the trans community. Using these terms, a pre-op transgender woman would be "exosex" while a post-op would be "endosex." But in both cases she still has XY chromosomes and lacks a uterus and ovaries. So these terms wouldn't really tell a doctor anything they need to know. I can't imagine a trans person would have a problem saying "genetically male" or "genetically female" when it's medically relevant.

Actually "genetically male/female" can be a huge problem for some in the trans community, because these are terms that are explicitly used by trans-hating second wave feminists and their followers to exclude trans women from womyn's spaces by finding some "excuse" to define them as not really women. (See my post below about gender essentialism as a social tool for trans oppression.)

Google the Michigan Womyn's Folk Festival for some examples.

Very often, people who say "genetic women" use it as code meaning "trans women not welcome," as in "genetic women only are welcome at this event" -- and no one is doing DNA testing at the door, they mean "trans women are not welcome because they are men." Pre-op, post-op, they don't care, men are men.

(Nor should such cis folks be saying, "post-op trans women only are allowed, and only if they've had full SRS at that," because that de facto excludes lots of trans women who can't afford to transition, medically can't transition, etc. -- and since when were these folks the "gatekeepers" of what makes someone "really" a woman?)

In my opinion, the only way out is to abandon the (biologically false) notion that a single trait can EVER wholly determine someone's sex, let alone socially determine it.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

My issue is that what makes someone's "biological sex" is way more than someone's genital shape.

Biological sex is, as we say in law, a "bundle of sticks." There is genital shape (which varies considerably even among non-intersex people). There are hormones (at each stage of life). There are secondary sexual characteristics (which also vary considerably even among non-intersex people). There are chromosomes. There are subtle differences in brain structure. And so on.

It's not biologically accurate to define sex on just one piece of this bundle (for example, a certain trait of genitals).

(I also consider my gentials to be external. My internal organs aren't "genitals," they're internal organs. All genitals to me are the external parts, the parts we can see, whatever their shape.)

On the "essentialist" notions of gender, I recently read of a Christian fundamentalist judge in Oklahoma who would not let a trans person change their name because in their view, sex was immutable, and being trans was committing a fraud. They cited the Bible in their decision. But then they also cited DNA. And that made me think -- they're entitled to their religious beliefs all they want (not to oppressing trans folks, though... except it's Oklahoma). But science? This is how he tried to use science to back up his argument:

* Gender cannot be changed because the Bible says so

* Therefore I must find just one example of something about gender that cannot be changed by science, in order to say that science agrees

* Aha, chromosomes! NO ONE CAN CHANGE THOSE!

* This therefore must be the ESSENTIAL trait of gender! All else can be altered, therefore it is NOT what truly makes someone a man or a woman!

* Therefore, since you haven't changed your chromosomes, AND HAHA YOU CAN'T, you're not really a woman, I will not let you change your name, get out of my court room.

(I wanted to ask him what his criteria would be prior to the discovery of DNA, since that is very recent. Fertility? That has other problems as the "sole determining factor for sex"! What about infertile people? And so on.)

This is a long way of saying, I don't think there is, or should be, any "one criterion" for determining "biological sex," since that's not how biology works. Sex shouldn't be essentialized to "man" or "woman" but it also shouldn't be essentialized to genital shape.

Besides, if someone's a man, or a woman, do we really need to check their genital shape when we meet them in order to accept this as their gender, or even their sex? (I've never done that, personally...) Are we going to imply that the biological sex of war vets has changed if they've had certain bits blown off in combat? (Graphic yes but definitions based on genital shape go there.) Are we going to say that transmen who use prostheses don't really have external genitals?

I don't want to go there.

I just wanted to create words that can be used at the doctors office, they don't need to leave it either. The words male and female have grown into its own thing in societies mind set. These words are meant to just speak of genitals/sex organs/chromosomes that's it. they are supposed to be more scientifically effective. I don't mean to feed this essentialism monster you speak of.

[pinkroses]

better vocabulary .

[dash]

My issue is that what makes someone's "biological sex" is way more than someone's genital shape.

Biological sex is, as we say in law, a "bundle of sticks." There is genital shape (which varies considerably even among non-intersex people). There are hormones (at each stage of life). There are secondary sexual characteristics (which also vary considerably even among non-intersex people). There are chromosomes. There are subtle differences in brain structure. And so on.

It's not biologically accurate to define sex on just one piece of this bundle (for example, a certain trait of genitals).

(I also consider my gentials to be external. My internal organs aren't "genitals," they're internal organs. All genitals to me are the external parts, the parts we can see, whatever their shape.)

On the "essentialist" notions of gender, I recently read of a Christian fundamentalist judge in Oklahoma who would not let a trans person change their name because in their view, sex was immutable, and being trans was committing a fraud. They cited the Bible in their decision. But then they also cited DNA. And that made me think -- they're entitled to their religious beliefs all they want (not to oppressing trans folks, though... except it's Oklahoma). But science? This is how he tried to use science to back up his argument:

* Gender cannot be changed because the Bible says so

* Therefore I must find just one example of something about gender that cannot be changed by science, in order to say that science agrees

* Aha, chromosomes! NO ONE CAN CHANGE THOSE!

* This therefore must be the ESSENTIAL trait of gender! All else can be altered, therefore it is NOT what truly makes someone a man or a woman!

* Therefore, since you haven't changed your chromosomes, AND HAHA YOU CAN'T, you're not really a woman, I will not let you change your name, get out of my court room.

(I wanted to ask him what his criteria would be prior to the discovery of DNA, since that is very recent. Fertility? That has other problems as the "sole determining factor for sex"! What about infertile people? And so on.)

This is a long way of saying, I don't think there is, or should be, any "one criterion" for determining "biological sex," since that's not how biology works. Sex shouldn't be essentialized to "man" or "woman" but it also shouldn't be essentialized to genital shape.

Besides, if someone's a man, or a woman, do we really need to check their genital shape when we meet them in order to accept this as their gender, or even their sex? (I've never done that, personally...) Are we going to imply that the biological sex of war vets has changed if they've had certain bits blown off in combat? (Graphic yes but definitions based on genital shape go there.) Are we going to say that transmen who use prostheses don't really have external genitals?

I don't want to go there.

I just wanted to create words that can be used at the doctors office, they don't need to leave it either. The words male and female have grown into its own thing in societies mind set. These words are meant to just speak of genitals/sex organs/chromosomes that's it. they are supposed to be more scientifically effective. I don't mean to feed this essentialism monster you speak of.

Then I am confused why one would need these words and not just say, "I have a penis" or "I have a vagina."

It seems to me these words don't distinguish medically between what a post-op trans woman would be called versus what a trans man who never had bottom surgery would be called.

And then there are SO MANY different transgender bottom surgeries. How would these words capture that? (Are you aware of the diversity of FtM bottom surgeries?) And what of a cis woman who had a hysterectomy? Where does she fit in? Or a trans woman who has had her testes removed, but has not had a vagina constructed?

I think it's simpler for a trans man to say to his doctor, "I'm a man, and I've had the following transgender surgeries:

• ."

[pinkroses]

My issue is that what makes someone's "biological sex" is way more than someone's genital shape.

Biological sex is, as we say in law, a "bundle of sticks." There is genital shape (which varies considerably even among non-intersex people). There are hormones (at each stage of life). There are secondary sexual characteristics (which also vary considerably even among non-intersex people). There are chromosomes. There are subtle differences in brain structure. And so on.

It's not biologically accurate to define sex on just one piece of this bundle (for example, a certain trait of genitals).

(I also consider my gentials to be external. My internal organs aren't "genitals," they're internal organs. All genitals to me are the external parts, the parts we can see, whatever their shape.)

On the "essentialist" notions of gender, I recently read of a Christian fundamentalist judge in Oklahoma who would not let a trans person change their name because in their view, sex was immutable, and being trans was committing a fraud. They cited the Bible in their decision. But then they also cited DNA. And that made me think -- they're entitled to their religious beliefs all they want (not to oppressing trans folks, though... except it's Oklahoma). But science? This is how he tried to use science to back up his argument:

* Gender cannot be changed because the Bible says so

* Therefore I must find just one example of something about gender that cannot be changed by science, in order to say that science agrees

* Aha, chromosomes! NO ONE CAN CHANGE THOSE!

* This therefore must be the ESSENTIAL trait of gender! All else can be altered, therefore it is NOT what truly makes someone a man or a woman!

* Therefore, since you haven't changed your chromosomes, AND HAHA YOU CAN'T, you're not really a woman, I will not let you change your name, get out of my court room.

(I wanted to ask him what his criteria would be prior to the discovery of DNA, since that is very recent. Fertility? That has other problems as the "sole determining factor for sex"! What about infertile people? And so on.)

This is a long way of saying, I don't think there is, or should be, any "one criterion" for determining "biological sex," since that's not how biology works. Sex shouldn't be essentialized to "man" or "woman" but it also shouldn't be essentialized to genital shape.

Besides, if someone's a man, or a woman, do we really need to check their genital shape when we meet them in order to accept this as their gender, or even their sex? (I've never done that, personally...) Are we going to imply that the biological sex of war vets has changed if they've had certain bits blown off in combat? (Graphic yes but definitions based on genital shape go there.) Are we going to say that transmen who use prostheses don't really have external genitals?

I don't want to go there.

I just wanted to create words that can be used at the doctors office, they don't need to leave it either. The words male and female have grown into its own thing in societies mind set. These words are meant to just speak of genitals/sex organs/chromosomes that's it. they are supposed to be more scientifically effective. I don't mean to feed this essentialism monster you speak of.

Then I am confused why one would need these words and not just say, "I have a penis" or "I have a vagina."

It seems to me these words don't distinguish medically between what a post-op trans woman would be called versus what a trans man who never had bottom surgery would be called.

And then there are SO MANY different transgender bottom surgeries. How would these words capture that? (Are you aware of the diversity of FtM bottom surgeries?) And what of a cis woman who had a hysterectomy? Where does she fit in? Or a trans woman who has had her testes removed, but has not had a vagina constructed?

I think it's simpler for a trans man to say to his doctor, "I'm a man, and I've had the following transgender surgeries:

• ."

good point. also i never realized there were so many pelvic area surguries. O.o

[dash]

My issue is that what makes someone's "biological sex" is way more than someone's genital shape.

Biological sex is, as we say in law, a "bundle of sticks." There is genital shape (which varies considerably even among non-intersex people). There are hormones (at each stage of life). There are secondary sexual characteristics (which also vary considerably even among non-intersex people). There are chromosomes. There are subtle differences in brain structure. And so on.

It's not biologically accurate to define sex on just one piece of this bundle (for example, a certain trait of genitals).

(I also consider my gentials to be external. My internal organs aren't "genitals," they're internal organs. All genitals to me are the external parts, the parts we can see, whatever their shape.)

On the "essentialist" notions of gender, I recently read of a Christian fundamentalist judge in Oklahoma who would not let a trans person change their name because in their view, sex was immutable, and being trans was committing a fraud. They cited the Bible in their decision. But then they also cited DNA. And that made me think -- they're entitled to their religious beliefs all they want (not to oppressing trans folks, though... except it's Oklahoma). But science? This is how he tried to use science to back up his argument:

* Gender cannot be changed because the Bible says so

* Therefore I must find just one example of something about gender that cannot be changed by science, in order to say that science agrees

* Aha, chromosomes! NO ONE CAN CHANGE THOSE!

* This therefore must be the ESSENTIAL trait of gender! All else can be altered, therefore it is NOT what truly makes someone a man or a woman!

* Therefore, since you haven't changed your chromosomes, AND HAHA YOU CAN'T, you're not really a woman, I will not let you change your name, get out of my court room.

(I wanted to ask him what his criteria would be prior to the discovery of DNA, since that is very recent. Fertility? That has other problems as the "sole determining factor for sex"! What about infertile people? And so on.)

This is a long way of saying, I don't think there is, or should be, any "one criterion" for determining "biological sex," since that's not how biology works. Sex shouldn't be essentialized to "man" or "woman" but it also shouldn't be essentialized to genital shape.

Besides, if someone's a man, or a woman, do we really need to check their genital shape when we meet them in order to accept this as their gender, or even their sex? (I've never done that, personally...) Are we going to imply that the biological sex of war vets has changed if they've had certain bits blown off in combat? (Graphic yes but definitions based on genital shape go there.) Are we going to say that transmen who use prostheses don't really have external genitals?

I don't want to go there.

I just wanted to create words that can be used at the doctors office, they don't need to leave it either. The words male and female have grown into its own thing in societies mind set. These words are meant to just speak of genitals/sex organs/chromosomes that's it. they are supposed to be more scientifically effective. I don't mean to feed this essentialism monster you speak of.

Then I am confused why one would need these words and not just say, "I have a penis" or "I have a vagina."

It seems to me these words don't distinguish medically between what a post-op trans woman would be called versus what a trans man who never had bottom surgery would be called.

And then there are SO MANY different transgender bottom surgeries. How would these words capture that? (Are you aware of the diversity of FtM bottom surgeries?) And what of a cis woman who had a hysterectomy? Where does she fit in? Or a trans woman who has had her testes removed, but has not had a vagina constructed?

I think it's simpler for a trans man to say to his doctor, "I'm a man, and I've had the following transgender surgeries:

• ."

good point. also i never realized there were so many pelvic area surguries. O.o

There are so many, I still don't know what they all are, and I've done a bunch of research into this!

Medical professionals already have some very precise terminology to talk about these things.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

My issue is that what makes someone's "biological sex" is way more than someone's genital shape.

Biological sex is, as we say in law, a "bundle of sticks." There is genital shape (which varies considerably even among non-intersex people). There are hormones (at each stage of life). There are secondary sexual characteristics (which also vary considerably even among non-intersex people). There are chromosomes. There are subtle differences in brain structure. And so on.

It's not biologically accurate to define sex on just one piece of this bundle (for example, a certain trait of genitals).

(I also consider my gentials to be external. My internal organs aren't "genitals," they're internal organs. All genitals to me are the external parts, the parts we can see, whatever their shape.)

On the "essentialist" notions of gender, I recently read of a Christian fundamentalist judge in Oklahoma who would not let a trans person change their name because in their view, sex was immutable, and being trans was committing a fraud. They cited the Bible in their decision. But then they also cited DNA. And that made me think -- they're entitled to their religious beliefs all they want (not to oppressing trans folks, though... except it's Oklahoma). But science? This is how he tried to use science to back up his argument:

* Gender cannot be changed because the Bible says so

* Therefore I must find just one example of something about gender that cannot be changed by science, in order to say that science agrees

* Aha, chromosomes! NO ONE CAN CHANGE THOSE!

* This therefore must be the ESSENTIAL trait of gender! All else can be altered, therefore it is NOT what truly makes someone a man or a woman!

* Therefore, since you haven't changed your chromosomes, AND HAHA YOU CAN'T, you're not really a woman, I will not let you change your name, get out of my court room.

(I wanted to ask him what his criteria would be prior to the discovery of DNA, since that is very recent. Fertility? That has other problems as the "sole determining factor for sex"! What about infertile people? And so on.)

This is a long way of saying, I don't think there is, or should be, any "one criterion" for determining "biological sex," since that's not how biology works. Sex shouldn't be essentialized to "man" or "woman" but it also shouldn't be essentialized to genital shape.

Besides, if someone's a man, or a woman, do we really need to check their genital shape when we meet them in order to accept this as their gender, or even their sex? (I've never done that, personally...) Are we going to imply that the biological sex of war vets has changed if they've had certain bits blown off in combat? (Graphic yes but definitions based on genital shape go there.) Are we going to say that transmen who use prostheses don't really have external genitals?

I don't want to go there.

I just wanted to create words that can be used at the doctors office, they don't need to leave it either. The words male and female have grown into its own thing in societies mind set. These words are meant to just speak of genitals/sex organs/chromosomes that's it. they are supposed to be more scientifically effective. I don't mean to feed this essentialism monster you speak of.

Then I am confused why one would need these words and not just say, "I have a penis" or "I have a vagina."

It seems to me these words don't distinguish medically between what a post-op trans woman would be called versus what a trans man who never had bottom surgery would be called.

And then there are SO MANY different transgender bottom surgeries. How would these words capture that? (Are you aware of the diversity of FtM bottom surgeries?) And what of a cis woman who had a hysterectomy? Where does she fit in? Or a trans woman who has had her testes removed, but has not had a vagina constructed?

I think it's simpler for a trans man to say to his doctor, "I'm a man, and I've had the following transgender surgeries:

• ."

good point. also i never realized there were so many pelvic area surguries. O.o

There are so many, I still don't know what they all are, and I've done a bunch of research into this!

Medical professionals already have some very precise terminology to talk about these things.

I just thought that I could come up with words would be more superior to male and female. You can't give em a whole speech at the doctors, they want a word to classify you(Especially when you are born). I have gone to the doctors and they told me this. I personally prefer endosex in regard to describing my sex organs, rather than female, because I am solely explaining my sex organs with out the baggage of the word. I feel no dysphoria with endosex and I figure that I would share these words to perhaps help others who may feel it far worse than me. From my point of view I can't see my words being treated the same as the words they are meant to replace. If it benefits me it could probably benefit someone else. That is my goal. Gender is not sex.

Essentially....

My gender:Man

My sex :Endosex=Born with Vagina/Cervix/Ovaries/Labia/Vulva etc(most likely XX,not always) and that's it.

Why not female? Female which denotes femininity, which denotes womanhood, which than arouses my dysphoria.

Do you get where Im coming from now????????

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

Also, if you are transitioning, you still gotta do the paper work to amend your sex status. As for hysterectomies and other surgeries like that(outside of transition), your birth sex can still apply because I doubt part of that involves the same paper work of the earlier. It can apply to chromosomes too but since that is not how we are assigned at birth, that is not the primary function of the word, perhaps secondary though.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

There are so many, I still don't know what they all are, and I've done a bunch of research into this!

Medical professionals already have some very precise terminology to talk about these things.

*If* you're lucky enough to not run into ones like the ones who treated Tyra Hunter and were responsible for her death through their inaction and prejudice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter

They're not going to care about new medical terms that are more scientific. To some of them, they think they are doing God's work as well as his job. Warning about the above link-- it's very upsetting.

I remember some of the troubles I had with them like it was yesterday. And Dash is right, you're FAR better off knowing your medical history like it comes from a text book. I walk around with a card about mine, because knowing the medical term for it saved my life. Oh, the ambulance crew figured something was different about me right before I stopped breathing, but it had no bearing on them reviving me.

I have posted on other sites about this subject. My aim to to help improve the language surrounding Gender/Sex assignment and patient/doctor discourse. I wish to do this with the addition of two words.

Exosex=external sex organs(classically male)

Endosex=internal sex organs(classically female)

I take inspiration from the word intersex which mean crossed sexed. I find the term intersex to do it's job the way I don't the terms male and female should. Intersex merely states appearance of the sex organs and nothing else. With the term intersex you can really draw abstract and social implications from it. Female is typically denoted of feminine. Male is typically denoted of masculine. While people still fall over themselves to say that these words only speak for sex, let's be honest, they simply don't. They pull double duty for both sex and gender. As we in modern times know, these to two things are not quite the same. One is between the legs and the other is between the ears. I think this will be beneficial for both the medical community and the Trans/Nonbinary/Queer community; mostly relating to dysphoric patients. These words may not be as pretty as male and female, but I find them more scientific as they would more clear describe sex organs(which is the only things they should be doing) without the additional societal baggage.

What are your thoughts? Do we need better vocabulary or do we stick to the old words instead?

There are bigger problems like those above in the first section of my post. And one of them is that we are always more vulnerable because we have no one to speak for us when we can't speak for ourselves. Say you end up in intensive care and they need your consent to do emergency surgery. Since you live alone and most likely are isolated, there is no one to fulfill that role.

I've often thought about this in light of my medical difficulties, and came to wonder if being 'chipped' was or wasn't a good thing? That were I to be transitioning, that info from medical professionals who would be TG friendly, would be on the chip. And the whole thing would be covered under the HIPPAA statutes. Not that that would guarantee anything, but it might make me feel a little better knowing I had a law to stand upon should a violation occur.

I know what you're getting at, but it can be a real mixed bag. And once the proverbial cat is out the bag, it's difficult to put it back.

But please, don't stop thinking about it. It is a worthy idea and maybe a good start. Let's talk about it.

[Heart]

I really can see a lot of sides to this... I don't know if there even is an answer, but it's a good thing to be thinking about. Thank you to everyone in this thread that has brought up their thoughts and points of view.

It seems unfair that one would have to memorize every procedure done to their body in order to communicate with a doctor, but at the same time, one must be speaking the same language in order to effectively and accurately exchange knowledge. There needs to be a shared vocabulary between patient and doctor, and I guess at the moment the best way to do so is to use medical terminology. As such, saying "I have a vagina/penis/this or that surgery" seems like the practical route for now. But on the other hand, I of all people can understand how stupidly difficult it is to talk to a doctor (seriously, I get in a cold sweat every single time, even if it's a routine thing or if I have written a whole script... I suck at talking to anyone in the medical profession about myself :( ). So I know that there is a HUGE incentive to say what you need to say in as short a time as you can to just get out of there but still get what you need... I don't know an answer. Maybe in the future we will be lucky enough to have doctors that are well versed in non-binary genders, trans stuff, and dyshporia. But for now.... blargh is all I have to say :P

[dash]

My issue is that what makes someone's "biological sex" is way more than someone's genital shape.

Biological sex is, as we say in law, a "bundle of sticks." There is genital shape (which varies considerably even among non-intersex people). There are hormones (at each stage of life). There are secondary sexual characteristics (which also vary considerably even among non-intersex people). There are chromosomes. There are subtle differences in brain structure. And so on.

It's not biologically accurate to define sex on just one piece of this bundle (for example, a certain trait of genitals).

(I also consider my gentials to be external. My internal organs aren't "genitals," they're internal organs. All genitals to me are the external parts, the parts we can see, whatever their shape.)

On the "essentialist" notions of gender, I recently read of a Christian fundamentalist judge in Oklahoma who would not let a trans person change their name because in their view, sex was immutable, and being trans was committing a fraud. They cited the Bible in their decision. But then they also cited DNA. And that made me think -- they're entitled to their religious beliefs all they want (not to oppressing trans folks, though... except it's Oklahoma). But science? This is how he tried to use science to back up his argument:

* Gender cannot be changed because the Bible says so

* Therefore I must find just one example of something about gender that cannot be changed by science, in order to say that science agrees

* Aha, chromosomes! NO ONE CAN CHANGE THOSE!

* This therefore must be the ESSENTIAL trait of gender! All else can be altered, therefore it is NOT what truly makes someone a man or a woman!

* Therefore, since you haven't changed your chromosomes, AND HAHA YOU CAN'T, you're not really a woman, I will not let you change your name, get out of my court room.

(I wanted to ask him what his criteria would be prior to the discovery of DNA, since that is very recent. Fertility? That has other problems as the "sole determining factor for sex"! What about infertile people? And so on.)

This is a long way of saying, I don't think there is, or should be, any "one criterion" for determining "biological sex," since that's not how biology works. Sex shouldn't be essentialized to "man" or "woman" but it also shouldn't be essentialized to genital shape.

Besides, if someone's a man, or a woman, do we really need to check their genital shape when we meet them in order to accept this as their gender, or even their sex? (I've never done that, personally...) Are we going to imply that the biological sex of war vets has changed if they've had certain bits blown off in combat? (Graphic yes but definitions based on genital shape go there.) Are we going to say that transmen who use prostheses don't really have external genitals?

I don't want to go there.

I just wanted to create words that can be used at the doctors office, they don't need to leave it either. The words male and female have grown into its own thing in societies mind set. These words are meant to just speak of genitals/sex organs/chromosomes that's it. they are supposed to be more scientifically effective. I don't mean to feed this essentialism monster you speak of.

Then I am confused why one would need these words and not just say, "I have a penis" or "I have a vagina."

It seems to me these words don't distinguish medically between what a post-op trans woman would be called versus what a trans man who never had bottom surgery would be called.

And then there are SO MANY different transgender bottom surgeries. How would these words capture that? (Are you aware of the diversity of FtM bottom surgeries?) And what of a cis woman who had a hysterectomy? Where does she fit in? Or a trans woman who has had her testes removed, but has not had a vagina constructed?

I think it's simpler for a trans man to say to his doctor, "I'm a man, and I've had the following transgender surgeries:

• ."

good point. also i never realized there were so many pelvic area surguries. O.o

There are so many, I still don't know what they all are, and I've done a bunch of research into this!

Medical professionals already have some very precise terminology to talk about these things.

I just thought that I could come up with words would be more superior to male and female. You can't give em a whole speech at the doctors, they want a word to classify you(Especially when you are born). I have gone to the doctors and they told me this. I personally prefer endosex in regard to describing my sex organs, rather than female, because I am solely explaining my sex organs with out the baggage of the word. I feel no dysphoria with endosex and I figure that I would share these words to perhaps help others who may feel it far worse than me. From my point of view I can't see my words being treated the same as the words they are meant to replace. If it benefits me it could probably benefit someone else. That is my goal. Gender is not sex.

Essentially....

My gender:Man

My sex :Endosex=Born with Vagina/Cervix/Ovaries/Labia/Vulva etc(most likely XX,not always) and that's it.

Why not female? Female which denotes femininity, which denotes womanhood, which than arouses my dysphoria.

Do you get where Im coming from now????????

I think I get what you're saying and for the record I'm not defending "male/female" used in this context -- and to be clear I DON'T use those words unless I'm forced to by forms -- precisely because as you correctly point out, it's got all that baggage. (And male and female aren't even fixed, mutually exclusive biological categories, etc.)

Rather than adding new terms that have the potential to confuse folks even more, I just try to avoid being labeled like this at all. I have the following anatomy: [names of relevant parts]. I have the following medical history: [names of drugs, procedures, etc.]. I do not say "birth control" for medications that are prescribed for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception. I draw a big slash through the "What is your sex" section of medical intake forms, or I write N/A in big letters. The government ASSIGNS me a sex, and that appears in all my insurance paperwork, no matter what I do -- there is nothing doctors can do about that, and I've tried.

I get that "endosex" avoids issues of dysphoria for you. However, it is just as dysphoria-inducing as "female" for me. Absolutely any categorizing of my body (not yours, mine -- you are completely free to talk about your own body in absolutely any terms that are right for you), any characterization of my body that is framed around "your sex parts are inside" is upsetting to me. And... I don't feel like typing the reasons for that publicly on the internet.

The least dysphoria-inducing terms for me are the most medical. Also, doctors need to avoid using "purpose" language for my anatomy like woah, because that's a huge trigger. (As in, in a conversation about my body, talking about "the purpose" of a vagina as a birth canal, and many other such subtle but important missteps.)

I have a reproduction-themed doctor's visit in the morning (looking into oocyte vitrification) -- wish me luck, y'all.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

My issue is that what makes someone's "biological sex" is way more than someone's genital shape.

Biological sex is, as we say in law, a "bundle of sticks." There is genital shape (which varies considerably even among non-intersex people). There are hormones (at each stage of life). There are secondary sexual characteristics (which also vary considerably even among non-intersex people). There are chromosomes. There are subtle differences in brain structure. And so on.

It's not biologically accurate to define sex on just one piece of this bundle (for example, a certain trait of genitals).

(I also consider my gentials to be external. My internal organs aren't "genitals," they're internal organs. All genitals to me are the external parts, the parts we can see, whatever their shape.)

On the "essentialist" notions of gender, I recently read of a Christian fundamentalist judge in Oklahoma who would not let a trans person change their name because in their view, sex was immutable, and being trans was committing a fraud. They cited the Bible in their decision. But then they also cited DNA. And that made me think -- they're entitled to their religious beliefs all they want (not to oppressing trans folks, though... except it's Oklahoma). But science? This is how he tried to use science to back up his argument:

* Gender cannot be changed because the Bible says so

* Therefore I must find just one example of something about gender that cannot be changed by science, in order to say that science agrees

* Aha, chromosomes! NO ONE CAN CHANGE THOSE!

* This therefore must be the ESSENTIAL trait of gender! All else can be altered, therefore it is NOT what truly makes someone a man or a woman!

* Therefore, since you haven't changed your chromosomes, AND HAHA YOU CAN'T, you're not really a woman, I will not let you change your name, get out of my court room.

(I wanted to ask him what his criteria would be prior to the discovery of DNA, since that is very recent. Fertility? That has other problems as the "sole determining factor for sex"! What about infertile people? And so on.)

This is a long way of saying, I don't think there is, or should be, any "one criterion" for determining "biological sex," since that's not how biology works. Sex shouldn't be essentialized to "man" or "woman" but it also shouldn't be essentialized to genital shape.

Besides, if someone's a man, or a woman, do we really need to check their genital shape when we meet them in order to accept this as their gender, or even their sex? (I've never done that, personally...) Are we going to imply that the biological sex of war vets has changed if they've had certain bits blown off in combat? (Graphic yes but definitions based on genital shape go there.) Are we going to say that transmen who use prostheses don't really have external genitals?

I don't want to go there.

I just wanted to create words that can be used at the doctors office, they don't need to leave it either. The words male and female have grown into its own thing in societies mind set. These words are meant to just speak of genitals/sex organs/chromosomes that's it. they are supposed to be more scientifically effective. I don't mean to feed this essentialism monster you speak of.

Then I am confused why one would need these words and not just say, "I have a penis" or "I have a vagina."

It seems to me these words don't distinguish medically between what a post-op trans woman would be called versus what a trans man who never had bottom surgery would be called.

And then there are SO MANY different transgender bottom surgeries. How would these words capture that? (Are you aware of the diversity of FtM bottom surgeries?) And what of a cis woman who had a hysterectomy? Where does she fit in? Or a trans woman who has had her testes removed, but has not had a vagina constructed?

I think it's simpler for a trans man to say to his doctor, "I'm a man, and I've had the following transgender surgeries:

• ."

good point. also i never realized there were so many pelvic area surguries. O.o

There are so many, I still don't know what they all are, and I've done a bunch of research into this!

Medical professionals already have some very precise terminology to talk about these things.

I just thought that I could come up with words would be more superior to male and female. You can't give em a whole speech at the doctors, they want a word to classify you(Especially when you are born). I have gone to the doctors and they told me this. I personally prefer endosex in regard to describing my sex organs, rather than female, because I am solely explaining my sex organs with out the baggage of the word. I feel no dysphoria with endosex and I figure that I would share these words to perhaps help others who may feel it far worse than me. From my point of view I can't see my words being treated the same as the words they are meant to replace. If it benefits me it could probably benefit someone else. That is my goal. Gender is not sex.

Essentially....

My gender:Man

My sex :Endosex=Born with Vagina/Cervix/Ovaries/Labia/Vulva etc(most likely XX,not always) and that's it.

Why not female? Female which denotes femininity, which denotes womanhood, which than arouses my dysphoria.

Do you get where Im coming from now????????

I think I get what you're saying and for the record I'm not defending "male/female" used in this context -- and to be clear I DON'T use those words unless I'm forced to by forms -- precisely because as you correctly point out, it's got all that baggage. (And male and female aren't even fixed, mutually exclusive biological categories, etc.)

Rather than adding new terms that have the potential to confuse folks even more, I just try to avoid being labeled like this at all. I have the following anatomy: [names of relevant parts]. I have the following medical history: [names of drugs, procedures, etc.]. I do not say "birth control" for medications that are prescribed for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception. I draw a big slash through the "What is your sex" section of medical intake forms, or I write N/A in big letters. The government ASSIGNS me a sex, and that appears in all my insurance paperwork, no matter what I do -- there is nothing doctors can do about that, and I've tried.

I get that "endosex" avoids issues of dysphoria for you. However, it is just as dysphoria-inducing as "female" for me. Absolutely any categorizing of my body (not yours, mine -- you are completely free to talk about your own body in absolutely any terms that are right for you), any characterization of my body that is framed around "your sex parts are inside" is upsetting to me. And... I don't feel like typing the reasons for that publicly on the internet.

The least dysphoria-inducing terms for me are the most medical. Also, doctors need to avoid using "purpose" language for my anatomy like woah, because that's a huge trigger. (As in, in a conversation about my body, talking about "the purpose" of a vagina as a birth canal, and many other such subtle but important missteps.)

I have a reproduction-themed doctor's visit in the morning (looking into oocyte vitrification) -- wish me luck, y'all.

Good luck.

[dash]

Good luck.

The meeting went super well!!!

The last few docs had me enraged or in tears (or both) so this was quite a relief.

I didn't realize until today that "conception" was also a trigger word for me -- because I automatically go to "this person is implying sex and/or pregnancy" and then I realized after a bit that no, he really just meant "sperm + egg" and wasn't implying any of those other things (in other words, fertilization). I would be cautious though of using that word around other doctors/nurses etc. who might take from it an implication of other things.

The dictionary defines conception as: "The process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both" so I'm not off the wall from having thought this was being implied. That Wikipedia's page on "fertilization" lists "conception" as a synonym backs up the doctor's usage though.