[AlecSchueler]

So it's not confusing, you're actually just opposed to it on a political basis.

The word mother is fine but it isn't inclusive for trans men who can also give birth. It's better for their mental health if we use gender affirming language. This is supported by research and the health services of many countries support it.

Dictionaries change every year. I think it's better to consider the health and happiness of the people around you than to be slavish to dictionary definitions.

Apologies for making this political point on Hacker News, I know it's discouraged. Just felt the need to call out the assertion that the language used was "confusing" as I know we're all smart enough here to understand simple words.

[f6v]

I don’t think it’s political at all. It’s just that in my field trans people would very likely be outside of the scope of most studies. Genomics is still expensive and including someone on HRT is going to create outliers regardless whether you assign them to male or female group. It’s not terrific to exclude them, but that’s the realities of life.

So, when I’m at a conference and someone gives a talk on how live birth leads to microbiota transfer from mother to child, it’s clear who we talk about when we say “mother”. I’m not sure there’s a case for fighting for someone’s mental health here.

[Chris2048]

> it isn't inclusive for trans men who can also give birth

Do you consider trans-men to be male or female?:

female /ˈfiːmeɪl/ adjective

Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

[AlecSchueler]

It depends on the person. In the general case I consider them men with female reproductive organs.

I've already said I'm not interested in the dictionary. That's what the word female means in the simple definition, yes, but reality is more complicated. Some women are born without ovaries, or they later have them removed. What sex would you assign to them?

[Chris2048]

> I consider them men with female reproductive organs.

I'm not asking about other labels (man, woman, mother etc). I'm asking if a trans-man can correctly be described as "female".

Saying they have "female reproductive organs" i.e. those of a female, implies they are not female, yet the definition of a female is basically "has (female) reproductive organs", so it feels like redundant semantics / wordplay.

It's like being asked "is this a red bucket" and saying "No, its a bucket thats colour is red". If you aren't being deliberately obtuse then there some conflicting root of understanding you aren't just stating outright.

> I'm not interested in the dictionary.. reality is more complicated

word are convention of meaning. other than researching common usage, that's all they are. There is no a priori "true meaning" of a word beyond their definition, whether found in a dictionary, or elsewhere.

Does rejecting the "dictionary" mean you disagree with the definition I supplied; that you have your own alternative definition; or you don't care much about what word means (but do, nonetheless, care how it's used)?

> Some women are born without ovaries

Some women have ovaries removed, others don't yet never become pregnant. Conventionally they are still referred to as female.

The word "can" in the definition implies "capability", which allows a certain level of ambiguity in definition. They belong to a biologically class capable of, and distinguished by, reproduction. Perhaps there is a grey-area in how this definition is applied, but that aside: how does that affect a conversation of whether "pregnant people" are female? We bypass the issue of "who doesn't meet the condition(s)" entirely by presenting a group that absolutely meet the condition(s), without ambiguity.

> What sex would you assign to them?

This begs the question that all individuals have a unambiguous sex.

[AlecSchueler]

The OED gives 24 definitions for the word "female." The second in the list defines female as having the opposite gender identity as a male. Following this definition it would be incorrect to label a trans man as female. I wouldn't like to refer to them as female as this can be offensive or damaging. In my country trans men are medically recognised as distinct and medical professionals are encouraged to use gender affirming terminology. I'm not sure what bearing your insistence on a single definition has to the topic at hand. If the word red had 24 such distinct meanings and if buckets had feelings and preferences about how their colour was described then your metaphor might work better.

Rejecting the dictionary means recognising that dictionaries are made to reflect language as it is used, rather than as a handbook for relating to other people. As descriptive texts they will always lag behind use in practice and, as I said above, I see no reason to insist on certain harmful terminologies on the basis of a dictionary definition. I call them harmful terminologies because of the medical recognition of the distress that can be caused by misgendering individuals.

You recognise yourself that sex has many gray areas. Human life has many gray areas. The more we move towards a society where people are free to express their feelings the more people we see who have been unhappy with their prescribed gender identity. I feel morally obliged to be kind to the people around me and, as someone living in a community and society alongside trans and non-binary individuals, as well as same sex couples, I prefer to make the trivial change in my language that helps them feel included and happy in their own bodies. I can't see any reason why I wouldn't do this, but if others can then they're free to speak as they want.

Pregnant person is a very clear term in my mind.

[Chris2048]

I don't have access to oed.com - the definition you picked seems to explicitly refer to gender

So, does the word "female" prescribe gender? or not?

Or is the idea that some such definitions might exist, and therefore such words are to be avoided?

On that basis, there are 14 meanings for "pregnant", so how does this not have the same problem?

> If the word red had 24 such distinct meanings

Are the meanings for "female" all distinct?

> As descriptive texts they will always lag behind use in practice

ok, so you are talking about common usage? What else can it "lag behind"?

[AlecSchueler]

I'm no longer sure what you're asking me or what point you're making overall. I understand your individual questions but not what bearing they have to the topic at hand or why I should entertain them.

If you have a point to make then I would rather you simply state it and stand by it. As it is it feels like you're trying to bait me into admitting a fault in my own reasoning using a series of first principle questions. If you see a problem with my logic then please come forward with it, I have neither the time nor the energy to engage in your socratic dialogue.

[fractallyte]

In mammals, only the biological female has a womb. That's not "political", it's reality.

It sounds like you have an axe to grind...

[AlecSchueler]

In humans, gender is a social construct created on top of sex. It comes with a heap of socio-political norms. Some people feel that the gender assigned to them on the basis of their sex doesn't match the feeling they have about themselves or the way they would like to relate to society. For these people gender affirming language is very important to their quality of life, and their quality of life is directly tied to the well-being of their children.

> It sounds like you have an axe to grind...

Could you explain what you mean by this?

[lllkml]

And here's how it was socially constructed -

Step 1: Take all the western cultural sexist stereotypes that apply to women (female) and men (male).

Step 2: Redefine "woman" and "man" in terms of all these sexist stereotypes, instead of by sex.

Step 3: Anyone who wants to adhere to the sexist stereotypes imposed upon women is now a woman. Anyone who enjoys the sexist stereotypes associated with men is now a man. Invent the term "non-binary" for people who don't want either set of sexist stereotypes to apply to them.

Step 4: Whichever category of sexist stereotyping from Step 3 an individual feels most comfortable with becomes their "gender identity".

Step 5a: Replace sex with "gender identity" in law and policy everywhere. Formerly single-sex spaces and services are no longer separated by sex, but by which set of sexist stereotypes a person feels most comfortable performing. For example, if a male human criminal enjoys wearing dresses and make-up, incarcerate him in the women's prison.

Step 5b: Replace any language that references anyone's sex with a sex-neutral term instead, so that those who enjoy performing sexist stereotypes feel comfortable and unchallenged in their beliefs. For example, replace "expectant mother" (a term implying the female sex) with "pregnant person", just in case a female human who aligns herself with the sexist stereotyping associated with men bears a child.

[Athari]

This sounds like a valid interpretation which doesn't outright ignore valid points made the progressives, however, by calling gender stereotypes sexist, you sound more like a gender abolitionist believing that the distinction between male and female in behavior is completely arbitrary.

This IS theoretically a valid solution to the problem, however it requires a massive change in the society as it doesn't reflect how real humans behave here and now anywhere on the planet.

The way I see it, the current solution proposed by the progressives, with treating gender stereotypes as something substantial, is a tiny bit more practical in terms of healthy coexistence (leaving contested topics like sports aside). As to whether it'll be a temporary bandaid solution and the humanity will choose gender abolitionism, I guess we'll see in 500 years.

[AlecSchueler]

I'm not sure these stages apply to any known theory in contemporary gender studies.

[lllkml]

It's roughly how this ideological viewpoint has developed, and how it's affected language and policy, in the past few decades.

[Chris2048]

> gender affirming language

Do the words "male" and "female" affirm gender (as opposed to sex)?

If there's some contradiction there, it seems an inherent property to being trans;

since in this context "pregnant person" is suggested to be fine, why doesn't the same problem arise there too?

[AlecSchueler]

I'm not totally sure what you're asking me. Pregnant person covers everyone who is a person and pregnant. That can be a cis woman, a trans man or a lesbian woman with a non-pregnant co-mother as a partner.

[The_Colonel]

Doesn't "mother" work just fine to cover these cases as well? It just sounds like an unnecessary awkward neologism.

[AlecSchueler]

No, it doesn't cover trans men who will give birth to become the baby's father.

[fractallyte]

You're on the attack over some commenters who affirm the reality of "female" vs "male".

Social constructs are abstractions, not necessarily based on reality. Feelings do not change facts; nor can facts be changed to fit one's sensibilities.

[AlecSchueler]

I didn't think I was "on the attack." Could you point out where you were reading an attack in my comments?

I asked why "pregnant person" was a confusing term and defended it on the basis of inclusivity. Social constructs are indeed not based on immutable truths, they reflect our beliefs and feelings. It seems reasonable to me to consider the beliefs and feelings of others when perpetuating social norms. Mother is an ambiguous term when we're talking about child bearers. Not everyone who bears a child is a mother and not every mother bears children.