![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was party to a conversation this evening. I'm intentionally not revealing where it was.
It was about the term "Genetic Girl," usually used in abbreviated form of "GG," to mean "a woman who is not transsexual." This term used to be common in trans circles a decade or so ago but until today I haven't seen it for at least ten years. What surprised me was a defense of its continued use, rather than a term such as "cis," because the latter is being "politically correct" and confusing the meaning while the "GG" is clear to everyone involved. The trouble with this argument is that it demands we ignore factual problems with the term.
It presumes the strict XX/XY binary division exists in a person's DNA, and, more importantly, that one's genes are factually known. I propose a simple exercise here: pick any woman walking down the street and determine if, as of that moment, her karyotype is known, documented and genetically agrees with her gender presentation, and we continue doing this until we reach some arbitrary number, say 100. What odds would you give that any significant percentage would be? Let's go in halves starting at 50%, e.g. 50%, 25%, 12.5%... Personally, I don't think I'd even be willing to put down much if we got down to 1%.
Focusing on the genetic component privileges presumed biology, which, at least in the western world, is generally determined by a physician's impression of one's genitalia at birth. Biological essentialism, "biology is destiny," pervades this aspect, which has long been used to justify various ill treatment of trans persons, particularly trans women, including requiring that they use facilities designated for men, not infrequently attended by (threats of) violence against their person.
Where does this term leave trans men? Given the presumed karyotype, their existence is invalidated, and/or they're further rendered invisible, by the very definition of the term. This is not a theoretical problem; there exist multiple women-only places where trans women are prohibited and trans men are welcomed on this rationale.
In the discussion it was claimed that the use of "GG" made it clear to everyone what was intended. What it has made clear is that by definition it is an inadequate term and its ongoing use will only continue to lend justification to problems facing us.
The final aspect of the discussion was wanting to not have to change and keep up. This attitude I know only too well; it was how I heard casual usage of the N word in my youth from a grandmother deep in the southern US. After all, she argued, the 1980s and 1990s was hardly long enough for this usage to become unacceptable. I did not shed any tears over her passing some years ago.
It was about the term "Genetic Girl," usually used in abbreviated form of "GG," to mean "a woman who is not transsexual." This term used to be common in trans circles a decade or so ago but until today I haven't seen it for at least ten years. What surprised me was a defense of its continued use, rather than a term such as "cis," because the latter is being "politically correct" and confusing the meaning while the "GG" is clear to everyone involved. The trouble with this argument is that it demands we ignore factual problems with the term.
It presumes the strict XX/XY binary division exists in a person's DNA, and, more importantly, that one's genes are factually known. I propose a simple exercise here: pick any woman walking down the street and determine if, as of that moment, her karyotype is known, documented and genetically agrees with her gender presentation, and we continue doing this until we reach some arbitrary number, say 100. What odds would you give that any significant percentage would be? Let's go in halves starting at 50%, e.g. 50%, 25%, 12.5%... Personally, I don't think I'd even be willing to put down much if we got down to 1%.
Focusing on the genetic component privileges presumed biology, which, at least in the western world, is generally determined by a physician's impression of one's genitalia at birth. Biological essentialism, "biology is destiny," pervades this aspect, which has long been used to justify various ill treatment of trans persons, particularly trans women, including requiring that they use facilities designated for men, not infrequently attended by (threats of) violence against their person.
Where does this term leave trans men? Given the presumed karyotype, their existence is invalidated, and/or they're further rendered invisible, by the very definition of the term. This is not a theoretical problem; there exist multiple women-only places where trans women are prohibited and trans men are welcomed on this rationale.
In the discussion it was claimed that the use of "GG" made it clear to everyone what was intended. What it has made clear is that by definition it is an inadequate term and its ongoing use will only continue to lend justification to problems facing us.
The final aspect of the discussion was wanting to not have to change and keep up. This attitude I know only too well; it was how I heard casual usage of the N word in my youth from a grandmother deep in the southern US. After all, she argued, the 1980s and 1990s was hardly long enough for this usage to become unacceptable. I did not shed any tears over her passing some years ago.
