[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.

[Chris2048]

> I'm no longer sure what you're asking

Generally, if it ends with a '?' it's a question. Try answering those, and maybe you'll get the point.

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

Why did you choose not to answer that and instead claim you "no longer sure what you're asking"? I'm asking if the word prescribes gender, it's pretty clear!

I also don't have the time or energy - I asked the questions straight, and if I break-down the questions further it's because you didn't answer them in the first place.

> If you see a problem with my logic then please come forward with it

Here's what I wrote, then re-iterated:

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

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

I'll "simply state it": read what I wrote and respond to it rather than "anticipating" my point and waffling on about something else.

I don't even know what prompted the "Human life has many gray areas" paragraph, it feels like you are responding to something else.

[Chris2048]

Ok, A quick search and it seems you're Irish. I wondered if there was a language barrier here, but it seems that's not the case.

The following definitely needs citation:

"In my country trans men are medically recognised as distinct"