Monthly Archives: October 2008

Before I even go into discussing problematic language used by and about trans people, I want to talk a little bit about why I find it important.

Firstly, full disclosure: a few years ago (in what seems now like a previous life), I was a student of linguistics. I was particularly interested in the language of marginalized groups, specifically GLB people with non-normative gender expressions. That I am interested in the language politics of the trans community is not surprising.

I’ve only been involved in trans communities for a couple of years now, but I have definitely noticed a language shift. In many cases, terminology that was accepted and commonplace is increasingly considered trans-negative or offensive.

Personally, I attribute this trend to the further solidification of trans communities. We’re communicating with one another and with cis people in forums, on blogs, and in person. Shit, we’re even starting to get books published that aren’t memoirs! We’ve got a long way to go, of course, but we’ve come an incredibly long way, and our language reflects that.

The stories of our bodies, our experiences, and our identities have traditionally been told from a perspective of assumed cissexual superiority. Increasingly, trans people want to be able to speak to one another or to cis people in our own words–words that reflect our lived experiences and empower us as trans people. That means developing a new, trans-positive vocabulary. It also means re-examining the words we use (and the words cis people use for us), tossing out words and phrases that don’t pass muster, and replacing them with better ones.

I want to own up to having used basically all of the below terms at one time or another. Often, I still use words and phrases that feel kind of fucked up, simply because I haven’t yet found a better alternative.  But I’m always looking and, as such, this list will always be a work-in-progress.

That being said, here are some of the problematic terms used to describe people’s physical bodies, and some better alternatives:

“Bio-”: As in “bioguy”, “biological woman”, and “bio-male”.

This one is really popular, and it’s got several issues. Firstly, it implies that trans people are not “biological”. Obviously, we’re not cyborgs; we’re not artificial or synthetic (“We can rebuild him–we have the technology–”). In my experience, this is the most commonly cited reason many trans folks are uncomfortable with this usage.

More problematically in my opinion is the whole idea of “biological” gender/sex. The physical traits that we consider gendered vary by incredible amounts–among cis people and trans people. Both cissexual women and transsexual women often have “biologically male” facial hair, for example. On the biological level, though, almost every person will possess physical traits of both “biological” sexes. Besides, after some time on HRT, transsexual folks’ biology is within the “normal” realm of cissexual folks’ biology, with only a very few exceptions.

Usually (at least among trans guys), “biological” is used to refer to a person’s genitals (as in “bio-cock”). Biological gender is so much more complex than genital configuration, and we should really come up with a more direct and accurate way to talk about our junk. Beyond that, outward genitals are just being treated as indicators for the rest of a person’s “biology”, which is why a post-operative trans woman is never referred to as a “biological woman”.

And don’t get me started on why “biological gender” (usually “male” and “female”) is conflated with social gender (usually “man/boy/guy” and “woman/girl”). “Bio-man”–Seriously? That sounds like some shitty drug store Halloween costume.

Since “biology” is so much more than sex organs and chromosomes.  Nobody really knows what causes some people to identify as a sex/gender other than the one they were assigned at birth.  It’s quite likely that gender identity is determined biologically in both trans and cis people.

“Biological sex” is a convenient social fiction that is mostly correct, most of the time.  It’s not an objective, observable fact; it’s often an arbitrary decision.  A decision that’s consistently valued above the identities and the realities (and, often, the biologies) of trans people.

“Genetic-”: I’ve most often seen this as “genetic girl”, and occasionally in constructions like “XY males”.

The idea of genetic sex is a lot like biological sex, only it’s more specifically about a person’s assumed chromosomal makeup. I say “assumed”, because few people know their own chromosomal makeup, much less anyone else’s. You can have known someone intimately and sexually for years and not know their chromosomal sex.

It’s more than just XX and XY. My brother, for example, was almost out of high school before he learned that he is chromosomally intersex; his body (internally and externally) is more or less “normal” for a person of his birth-assigned gender and age, but a karyotype revealed his chromosomes are XXY–Kleinfelter’s Syndrome.

Most people would consider my brother a “genetic male”. They’d probably also consider women and girls with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome to be “genetic females”, despite their XY chromosomes. Not that they’d know anyway. My brother, along with many (if not most) intersex and post-transition transsexual people, would just be assumed to be “genetic” members of their identified sex.

That’s what it is most of the time.  It’s the [occasionally incorrect] assumption that you can tell who is and is not a “genetic” member of their sex/gender, based on how you perceive their body.

“Natal-”: Usually “natal women”, occasionally “natal females”.

Almost identical to “biological woman”, “Natal woman” makes no sense. Perhaps even less sense, considering that fetuses have no social gender whatsoever (and if they did, they probably wouldn’t be given the adult genders “men” and “women”).

The idea of “natal sex” is similarly problematic. Sex differentiation happens a lot later during gestation than we like to think–hormone levels, genital development, etc. Without an amniocentisis, there’s no way of identifying a fetus’ sex chromosomes either.

“-bodied”: As in female-bodied and male-bodied. Occasionally trans-bodied.

This one is everywhere. I can completely and totally understand the temptation to use this phrase. Discussion of trans* physical embodiment is a tricky issue. I have absolutely no problem with people using the term to describe themselves, but I often see it used for other people–usually anonymous strangers over the internet. Even when used in person, it’s usually directed at a person or a group of people that the speaker has never seen unclothed.

But what does it even mean to be “female-bodied” (using the version I’m most familiar with)? As I pointed out earlier, there is an incredible amount of variation between cissexual bodies. To look at an extreme case: if a cissexual woman lost her breasts, her uterus, her cervix, her ovaries, and her vagina (not to mention her hair) due to disease, is she no longer “female-bodied”? What about a post-HRT transsexual man who has had reconstructive chest surgery, a hysterectomy and oophorectomy, a vaginectomy, and a phalloplasty?

A lot of the time, it’s used as a sort of euphemism for someone’s [often assumed] genital configuration. And, honestly, can everybody just stop treating our crotches as the be-all-end-all of sex and gender? Reducing an entire body down to its bits and pieces is weird at best and misogynistic at worst.  Repeat after me: “Trans women are more than just their surgical status.”

My idea of a “female body” is the body of a person who identifies their body as female. Yes, that leaves us with some non-op no-ho bleeds-every-month-like-clockwork female-assigned-at-birth people with male bodies (and some with female bodies). It means that there are transsexual women with female bodies (and some with male bodies).

It also means that the phrase “female-bodied” becomes meaningless when applied to large groups of people (such as trans men), as it doesn’t actually refer to any specific set of characteristics. Good. With some luck, it’ll disappear completely from the lexicon. I’ve spent more time than I care to admit educating cis people about the failings of assuming strangers’ genders; it’s vexing to feel the need to explain to other trans people the pitfalls of assuming others’ “biological sex”. You know–out of the cissexual-assumption frying pan and into the biological-determinism oven and all that.

So, what are we supposed to use instead? I don’t have any hard and fast answers; the vocabulary is very new and has a lot of holes. I can tell you what I use and why.

“Birth-assigned-”: As in female-assigned-at-birth or birth-assigned-male. Refers to sex designation at birth.  Often abbreviated FAAB/MAAB.

I like this one pretty well. I use it all the time. When a child is born (at least in my geographic location), a legal gender is assigned to them based on the presence or absence of a penis. The question of whether it’s a “penis” or “clitoromegaly” can be kind of a grey area in some infants, and it’s my understanding that the matter is usually solved with a ruler. And–to put it crudely–sometimes a scalpel. It’s just that fucking important for us to be one or the other.

Birth-assignation is something that’s near-universal, and is as binary as my culture’s idea of gender, which is pretty convenient (as binaries tend to be). It doesn’t imply any knowledge beyond that–none of that bullshit about “biology”. It’s also worthy of note that “birth-assigned” puts the focus on the active gendering of an infant–it’s not something that’s self-evident and/or magical; it’s a doctor’s opinion of a baby’s genital configuration.

As I use it most often, it’s a way to group people who were female-assigned, but who don’t identify as female/women, as in “FAAB trans people”. It includes genderqueer/gender-variant people, trans-identified people, and/or people of trans experience–folks who seem to have a lot to talk about, and occasionally it’s useful to make a distinction. It also gets me out of saying problematic shit like “the trans-masculine spectrum”, my hatred of which I will detail at a later date.

It is problematic in the sense that it contains the word “female” to describe a group of people who don’t identify with it–including a lot of male people. I’m ambivalent on this point, though. Within the larger trans community, the only thing we have in common is often our lack of identification with our birth-assigned genders.

When used outside of the trans community, though, I am wary of any terms that define trans people by their birth-designations.  If there is no reason to reference someon’s trans status, transition, or birth-assigned sex, why is it being mentioned?  To me, there is an important difference between these two sentences:

Okay: “When women’s spaces are advertised as trans-inclusive, they are often only inclusive of FAAB trans people, and not MAAB trans people.”

“Cis-”: The prefix “cis-” meaning “on the same side of”. As in cissexual/cisgender.

It’s preferred for a reason; it’s accurate and good. It’s spread to the point where it’s pretty safe to use it on the internet in trans and feminist discussions of gender. And it’s really easy to explain to someone who cares to listen. I hope that it’ll soon be included in “Trans 101″. Here’s to hoping it’ll replace “normal”, “regular”, “real”, “actual”, “bio”, “genetic”, “natal”, and any other such nonsense.

Some folks consider “cis-” to be offensive, because it isn’t a word they chose to describe themselves.  That’s sort of the point.  People who are not trans don’t have to describe the relationship they have to their sex/gender.  It’s just understood.  They don’t need words for it, because all of the words to describe sex and gender were created by cis people, for cis people.

That’s part of what privilege is.  It’s not having to make a distinction between yourself, and what’s considered “normal”.  White people often don’t think of themselves as “white”, because whiteness is the default assumption.  At one point, straight people didn’t think of themselves as “straight”, because heterosexuality was just normal, healthy sexuality, and homosexuality was a deviation.

White people have a race.  Straight people have a sexual orientation.  Cis people have a gender identity.  They/we just don’t have to think about those privileged identities in our daily lives.  Having that privilege pointed out might make them/us feel uncomfortable, or even attacked.  If so, it’s probably a good idea to figure out why.  Until then, folks who are institutionally oppressed will continue to use language that decentralizes the experience of the privileged.

It’s worth noting here, if I haven’t elsewhere, that I don’t consider cisgender and cissexual to be synonyms.  I’ll explain why at a later date.