Why language like this matters.
My further adventures in the Instagram comment sections of trans-centered posts revealed, as they always have, more transphobia. A recurring phrase I see in these comments is “biological woman”; people using that phrase to refer to cisgender women andclaiming these words are synonymous.
The term “biological [gender]” is an oxymoron. To understand trans people, it is fundamental to understand sex is biological (though neither binary nor static), and gender is internal/mental. If this wasn’t true, trans people wouldn’t be trans.
“Man”, “woman”, “enby”, “demiboy”, “demigirl”- these are all genders. Equating gender with sex explicitly excludes trans people, as we do not identify with the sex assigned/assumed at birth.
We are all born a gender. This may or may not be apparent to cis people, though, because the main time we realize the difference between sex and gender is when there is an incongruence, which is not an occurrence cis people experience. This said, whether or not they are aware, cis people also identify as their gender- gender identity is generally a universal human experience, for cis people too.
The difference, as we know, is cisgender people also happened to end up in a body that “matches” this identity. Trans people, generally, are not.
Biological women do not exist because being a woman is not based on biology. To say so is to exclude cis women with diminished or nonexistent reproductive capabilities, among others. This language also, of course, demeans and invalidates trans people.
So what’s the solution? “Biological female”?
This, to me, is not the answer because sex is still malleable. This language leaves room to argue a transmasculine person is “biologically female” (or a transfeminine person is “biologically male”), which is just as transphobic as referring to cis women as “biological women”. Hormones and surgery (though not desired/accessible by all trans people) can change aspects of a person’s sex; genital differences occur after HRT, as well as the development of other secondary sex characteristics. Trans people on hormones also carry the same risks/comorbidities as cis people with the same dominant hormone (for example, transmasculine people on testosterone have an increased risk for heart disease, equal to that of cis men).
If sex is based on chromosomes, then sex isn’t malleable, but most definitions do not refer to chromosomes. In addition, most laws use “female” and “woman” interchangeably, meaning trans women are most definitely also female, and trans men are also male.
All of this means “biological sex” is also iffy and complex, so my proposed solution is what I’ve been using in this writing and beyond- “cisgender women”, “cisgender men”
Writing this, I fear the responses will be angry- this is, admittedly, a lot of effort to ask a person to put in. Affirming language seems like more effort than it’s worth to many people, but to me, in my life, inclusive language makes an insane difference. Just as seeing role models that resemble oneself builds confidence and hope, seeing language reflect my identity is affirming. Affirmation is rare as a trans kid.
