[2006alum]

PROBLEMATIC
"biologically male," "biologically female," "genetically male," "genetically female," "born a man," "born a woman"
Problematic phrases like those above are reductive and overly-simplify a very complex subject. As mentioned above, a person's sex is determined by a number of factors - not simply genetics - and a person's biology does not "trump" a person's gender identity. Finally, people are born babies: they are not "born a man" or "born a woman."

PREFERRED
"assigned male at birth," "assigned female at birth" or "designated male at birth," "designated female at birth"

FWIW, while I am all for inclusivity, this guidance kind of makes my point for me. I guess I resist the idea that we have all collectively agreed that "biologically male" necessary connotes gender identity, not sexual biology.  But that assumption is necessary to say that the term "biologically male" is "problematic" and we should use "assigned male at birth" instead.  

For those of us who are referring to someone's sexual biology at birth, if I am referring to someone with an XY chromosome, a phallus, and no ovaries, I am not sure why "biologically male" is "problematic." It is simply accurate based on how we have, for quite a long time, associated the sexual biology of nearly all individuals with an XY chromosome as male.  

Now the whole point of the existence of transgender individuals is that someone with male biology may not necessarily have a male gender construction and identity.  And conceding to the claim that "I felt like I was in the wrong body" essentially requires conceding that an individual's female gender construction should triumph over their physically male sexual biology.  All well and good so far. 

But I guess I don't think "assigned male at birth" is synonymous with "biologically male," because I'm not ready to concede that sexual biology is purely a matter of social construction or something that society "assigns", per se. And I don't think most people who have raised children from ages 0-6 think they're merely "assigning" gender to their children. For most children, their sexual biology is determinative of a lot of other aspects of their personality and gender construction. I have two friends who have young twins; both have one "boy" and one "girl" - in both instances, they have been quite surprised by just how much the sexual biological differences between the twins is the driver of their personality, preferences, temperament, etc. These are not parents who just default to giving the boys trucks and the girls princess dolls. Nevertheless, the differences seem innate and essentially linked to their sexual biology.

And of course, that isn't true for everyone! Nor should we assume, automatically, that it will be. But in sum, I guess I feel like we need to be more open and honest about how what is true for some is not true for all. And I think in some of these contests over linguistic terrain, we are closing the window a little too rapidly on terminology that I think retains useful and important distinctions.

And to cash that distinction out with the title of this thread, I don't think anyone cares about whether Thomas was "assigned male at birth." I think they care that she was biologically male at birth and until post-puberty, and thus her two records yesterday are a result of having been "biologically male" during the period when (then his, now) her adult physiognomy took form. And I think everyone, including Thomas, agrees that she shouldn't be able to compete without the hormones that are necessary for her to converge towards what we associate with being "biologically female." Given all this, I'm open to the discussion that that shouldn't preclude her from competing in women's events. But I really don't think the issue anyone has is that society was merely "assigning" maleness to Thomas prior to last year.

[2006alum]

PROBLEMATIC
"biologically male," "biologically female," "genetically male," "genetically female," "born a man," "born a woman"
Problematic phrases like those above are reductive and overly-simplify a very complex subject. As mentioned above, a person's sex is determined by a number of factors - not simply genetics - and a person's biology does not "trump" a person's gender identity. Finally, people are born babies: they are not "born a man" or "born a woman."

PREFERRED
"assigned male at birth," "assigned female at birth" or "designated male at birth," "designated female at birth"

FWIW, while I am all for inclusivity, this guidance kind of makes my point for me. I guess I resist the idea that we have all collectively agreed that "biologically male" necessary connotes gender identity, not sexual biology.  But that assumption is necessary to say that the term "biologically male" is "problematic" and we should use "assigned male at birth" instead.  

For those of us who are referring to someone's sexual biology at birth, if I am referring to someone with an XY chromosome, a phallus, and no ovaries, I am not sure why "biologically male" is "problematic." It is simply accurate based on how we have, for quite a long time, associated the sexual biology of nearly all individuals with an XY chromosome as male.  

Now the whole point of the existence of transgender individuals is that someone with male biology may not necessarily have a male gender construction and identity.  And conceding to the claim that "I felt like I was in the wrong body" essentially requires conceding that an individual's female gender construction should triumph over their physically male sexual biology.  All well and good so far. 

But I guess I don't think "assigned male at birth" is synonymous with "biologically male," because I'm not ready to concede that sexual biology is purely a matter of social construction or something that society "assigns", per se. And I don't think most people who have raised children from ages 0-6 think they're merely "assigning" gender to their children. For most children, their sexual biology is determinative of a lot of other aspects of their personality and gender construction. I have two friends who have young twins; both have one "boy" and one "girl" - in both instances, they have been quite surprised by just how much the sexual biological differences between the twins is the driver of their personality, preferences, temperament, etc. These are not parents who just default to giving the boys trucks and the girls princess dolls. Nevertheless, the differences seem innate and essentially linked to their sexual biology.

And of course, that isn't true for everyone! Nor should we assume, automatically, that it will be. But in sum, I guess I feel like we need to be more open and honest about how what is true for some is not true for all. And I think in some of these contests over linguistic terrain, we are closing the window a little too rapidly on terminology that I think retains useful and important distinctions.

And to cash that distinction out with the title of this thread, I don't think anyone cares about whether Thomas was "assigned male at birth." I think they care that she was biologically male at birth and until post-puberty, and thus her two records yesterday are a result of having been "biologically male" during the period when (then his, now) her adult physiognomy took form. And I think everyone, including Thomas, agrees that she shouldn't be able to compete without the hormones that are necessary for her to converge towards what we associate with being "biologically female." Given all this, I'm open to the discussion that that shouldn't preclude her from competing in women's events. But I really don't think the issue anyone has is that society was merely "assigning" maleness to Thomas prior to last year.