| > 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. |
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.