The convention for identifying men based on whether they were born biologically with male or female genetalia is inconsistent at times since the language can be inflammatory.
Most people are familiar with the convention where men that were born in female bodies can be labeled as “trans-”. Less well-known is the ability to categorize men that were born in male bodies as “cis-”. This makes a lot of sense to me since in chemistry “cis” is used to denote functional groups of a molecule that are on the same side, where “trans” is used to denote functional groups that are across from each other. I accept this notation as applied to the difference of men that are born male or female, because it implies that while we are different, we are still the same thing when taken as a whole.
Most people are familiar with the convention where men that were born in female bodies can be labeled as “trans-”. Less well-known is the ability to categorize men that were born in male bodies as “cis-”. This makes a lot of sense to me since in chemistry “cis” is used to denote functional groups of a molecule that are on the same side, where “trans” is used to denote functional groups that are across from each other. I accept this notation as applied to the difference of men that are born male or female, because it implies that while we are different, we are still the same thing when taken as a whole.
Additionally, sometimes the phrase “bio-male” is used to contrast with “trans-male.” To me, this implies that men that were born in a male body are (biologically) superior because they were born in a male body instead of a female-body. This implication of superiority is not only frustrating but untrue; I know far too many “bio-males” that are complete failures at having a successful career, providing for their loved ones, or any number of qualities that make someone a good man or just a plain old good human.
On this note, I contend that transmen are just as capable as men/people in comparison to men that were born in a male body. There are bio-males that were born infertile, grow up to still be short, or have any number attributes that are often held by transmen. The biology in the chromosomes only determines so much beyond your mother’s womb. You are dealt cards, XY or XX or XX_ or (…), at the beginning of the game. The game isn’t over once the cards are dealt (this isn’t war)- a lot more goes into determining the makeup of your body. While I understand that many men do not have the typical levels of testosterone in their body (which would be obtained from production in the testes or by injection), testosterone is generally the first step for someone “becoming a man”.
In those that are born in a male body, when their voice begins to drop and a chin hair pops out during their teenage years, their parents rejoice in their little boy turning into a man. For many men born in a male body, testosterone injections mark the beginning to major physical transformations. So I suggest that when someone compares someone marked female at birth to a bio-male, we (gently) remind them that chemistry is what biology boils down to and a man born in a female body is really a chem-male.
I don’t consider myself any less of a male than my peers because I know the gender is intrinsic, but I also feel like I am going to be growing into a man externally as I transition. As a chem-male I don’t think that I will be any less physically of a man than a bio-male. Hell, as a male-identified bio-female I beat bio-males at the gun show.
Chem-male, a-ok by me. Bio-males? Sure, they started in a male body. Down the road, equivalent to a chem-male.
No comments:
Post a Comment