Transgender terminology: a non-pathologizing non-binary approach
The article is published in the language of the original
Learn about transgender families in our research
The existing terminology of transgender identity carries a pathologizing and binary discourse within it. Activists who take a depathologizing stance and dismantle gender binaries need a new terminology, free of the additional meanings that contradict the ideology we advocate.
This article proposes a terminology that makes it possible to get around this problem. Below, the concept of “sex” is broken down into a number of components, the concept of “gender-sex space” — built on the components of sex / gender — is introduced, and transgender identity is treated as a change of coordinates within the gender-sex space. The reasons why a number of medicalized terms are best avoided are explained.
Components of sex / gender
Biological “sex”
There are a great many biological characteristics that are designated as “sexual.” On what grounds have some characteristics been called “sexual” as distinct from all the rest? Such a binary division into “sexual” vs. “non-sexual” biological characteristics is only possible within a binary discourse, in the context of conception, fertilization, pregnancy… If we perceive the world as it is, having rid ourselves of the binary prism imposed by culture, and accept that even at the level of biology there is far greater diversity than “biological women” and “biological men,” and that in fact every person has their own biological sex, then the very concept of “sex” becomes illusory and loses all meaning.
When you begin to deconstruct, step by step, the notions that most people never call into question, there is a danger of being left with no point of support on which to build further explanations. So although sex does not exist in the system I advocate, in order to connect it with existing notions I am obliged to use familiar terms, and from here on I will write “sex” — yet it is worth remembering that this word is only a temporary prop used for the purposes of explanation, whereas in reality no sex, and none of its components, exists.
Various components of sex are distinguished. They are distinguished in different ways. I will not go into the question of which division is the more correct one. The very fact that they can be distinguished in different ways shows how speculative this construct is. In my view, such a division is merely a pedagogical maneuver, useful for showing that “sex” is a non-monolithic and non-binary construct. For the purposes of this article, it seems important to me to single out the following “components” of “sex”:
- Chromosomal “sex”. Here a person’s “sex” means their set of X and Y chromosomes. Besides the well-known XX and XY sets, referred to in cisnormative terminology as “female” and “male,” there are many variants combining three, four and more chromosomes in a single set. Unable to assign these cases to the binary female/male model, a queerphobic society names them syndromes and pathologies (Klinefelter…).
- Genetic “sex”. It is determined by the presence (in which case such a “sex” is called “male”) or the absence (“female”) of the SRY gene. In most cases the SRY gene is located on the Y chromosome, but sometimes on the X chromosome as well. That is, there are people whose bodies society defines as “male” but who have XX chromosomes, and people with “female” bodies and XY chromosomes. Within cisnormative thinking, these conditions are also named syndromes — in the first case, de la Chapelle, in the second, Swyer.
- Gonadal “sex”. Gonads are the glands that produce “sex” hormones — the ovaries and the testes. During intrauterine development they form out of “sexless” progonads, which under the influence of the TDF factor (testis-determination factor) turn into testes, and in its absence into ovaries. The TDF factor is encoded by the SRY gene (see genetic “sex”). At this level, too, there are various variants, including the presence of gonads of different types, either separate or combined into a single gland.
- Hormonal “sex”. Once the gonads have formed, they begin to produce hormones that cisnormative terminology calls “female” or “male.” There is no way here to attempt to draw any clear boundary, because the quantity of hormones produced varies smoothly across a wide range, including within one and the same person at different periods of life.
- Morphological “sex”. This covers the most varied external characteristics of the body. These are the structure of the genitals, breast size, hair growth and so on and so forth. Each of these characteristics can be singled out as a separate component of “sex.”
At every level indicated above, except the genetic one, there are more than two variants, which undermines the theory of binarity and of a clear division into “women” and “men” at the level of biology. To sustain that theory, everything that does not fit into it is declared a pathology.
Gender
The common definition of gender in fact defines the gender role, i.e. a set of expected patterns of behavior. Such a narrow definition does not work, however, once we begin to speak about transgender identity. Gender includes all socially determined aspects of “sex” — for example, passport sex or the gender of upbringing. Social factors also determine perceived sex / gender, and even morphological and hormonal sex (see below). An attempt to find an all-encompassing definition of gender leads to the understanding that gender is not one of the components of sex, but a characteristic of the degree of social constructedness of the other components.
Gender identity is the sense of belonging to the social group of “women,” “men” or some other group, of identifying oneself with that group. Gender identity is constructed socially in relation to the gender schema accepted in a given society, which is itself socially constructed. In a binary gender system, four identities can exist: female, male, bigender (female and male by turns), agender (neither female nor male). In a gender non-binary society, more gender identities can exist. People who reject gender binaries often identify as genderqueer. Once gender has been dismantled, gender identity should, theoretically, disappear, since there will be no gender groups left with which one could identify.
The term “psychological sex,” otherwise “brain sex,” is sometimes used in the same sense as gender identity. This terminology is supported by proponents of biological theories of transgender identity, who claim that the sense of oneself as a “woman” or a “man” is set during intrauterine development. Activists who argue against biological theories would do better to refrain from this terminology and to use the words “gender identity.”
Sex vs. gender, or biology vs. social construction
In order to achieve its political goals, feminism sets biological “sex” against gender. The goal, in its primitive understanding, is to show that “biological women” can occupy the same social position (gender role) as “biological men.”
Despite the expediency of using a binary between sex and gender (in fact, the gender role) in certain contexts, distinguishing the components of sex makes it possible to realize how artificial this division is. One graphic example is the distinction of perceived sex / gender. This is the sex / gender that other people ascribe to us on the basis of their (culturally determined) notions of how “women” and “men” ought to look. From my own experience I have become convinced that the way the people around me perceive me is influenced both by biological factors (hormone levels, facial hair) and by social ones (clothing, behavior). Perceived sex / gender, therefore, cannot be assigned unambiguously either to biological sex or to gender.
Other examples of biological and social factors acting together are hormonal and morphological sex. Hormonal sex can be changed by taking hormonal medication, access to which is determined by social factors (obtaining a prescription, the cost of the medication). The same is observed in the case of morphological sex, which can be changed through surgery. The possibility and/or the necessity of undergoing these surgeries is determined by legislative acts and ministerial orders, by the availability of qualified surgeons and by financial accessibility. In the case of intersex children, surgeries are performed on them because of binary notions of what “biological women” or “biological men” ought to be.
In the same way, obstetric “sex” (and the passport “sex” that follows from it) is determined not only by the child’s biological characteristics, but also by which characteristics the medical staff consider suitable for a “woman” and which for a “man.”
Where is the clear boundary between gender and biological sex? Where is the possibility of setting biology against social construction? Not all components of sex / gender can be assigned unambiguously to one of these categories. It is more accurate to consider that some components are influenced more by biological factors and others more by social ones.
Gender-sex space
Definition. Gender-sex space is an N-dimensional space built on the components of sex / gender, where N is the number of components.
Since the components of sex / gender can be chosen in different ways, the number N will differ depending on one’s purposes. The question of the mutual dependence of the components will be examined in a separate article.
Women and men
Once the concept of “sex” has been broken down into separate components, it becomes clear that there is no single characteristic by which people could be classified as “women” and “men.” The concepts of “woman” and “man” are thus deconstructed. What is left? These concepts remain only as self-designations, or gender identities. A woman, then, should mean a person who considers herself a woman, and a man a person who considers himself a man.
Here it is also necessary to mention “genetic / biological women and men” (often abbreviated to GG and GM — genetic girl and genetic male). It is odd that those who call themselves “genetic” have never had a DNA test. In the case of “biological” people, it is unclear which component of sex is meant. The main problem with this phrase, however, lies in its cisnormativity, in the way it implies that people with certain chromosomes and genitals will have the identities of a woman or a man. It is therefore proposed to abandon this terminology and to speak of “people with XX chromosomes” or “people with a vagina” instead of saying “biological woman.”
Transgender identity
Definition. Transgender people are people who change their coordinates (make a transition) within the gender-sex space.
The version of the definition that uses the words “change their coordinates” is the more formal one, while “transition” is a slang term. The word “transition” has a broader meaning here than the one often ascribed to it in the trans* community, where it implies a change of hormonal and/or morphological sex. It should be borne in mind that some components of sex cannot be changed at the current level of medical development (genetic, chromosomal, gonadal). A person who changes their coordinates within the gender-sex space can be assigned a transition vector directed from their point in the gender-sex space before the transition to their point after it.
This definition makes it possible to move away from pathologizing words about a “mismatch” (of biological sex and gender or gender identity), a “discrepancy” and the like, which occur in the classic definitions.
An infinitesimal transition, or you are transgender too
Along which coordinates (components of sex / gender) must a transition take place, and how long must the transition vector be, for a person to be able to call themselves transgender?
These questions cannot be answered unambiguously. Even if a person makes an infinitesimal transition, they can already be considered transgender. Transgender and cisgender are therefore not opposing, mutually exclusive categories; rather, there is a smooth gradation between them.
Genderqueer people, agender people, and gender non-conforming women and men also fall into the category of transgender, on the grounds that they have changed their gender identity or their gender in relation to the way they were brought up. Finally, cisgender people are transgender too, because in the course of their upbringing they acquired a gender role different from the gender-neutral one they had at birth. Even if they had changed nothing, they would have a zero transition vector, which would make being cisgender a particular case of being transgender.
Transsexuality vs transgender identity
The term “transsexualism” was introduced by M. Hirschfeld in 1923 and popularized by H. Benjamin, in whose book “The Transsexual Phenomenon” (1966) a binary division was drawn between transsexual people and transvestites on the grounds that the former were in need of medical care. The term “transsexuality” therefore has medical roots. At present, the ICD-10 contains the diagnosis of “transsexualism,” which is defined as “a desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex,” which adds gender binarity to this terminology as well — which is hardly surprising, since the pathologization of transgender identity and gender binarity flow from each other and mutually reinforce one another.
The term “transgender identity” is used either as an umbrella term or as the opposite of “transsexuality.” Using it in the latter sense creates the medicalizing binary “transgender identity vs transsexuality,” which often leads to a hierarchy being built along the lines of whether a person is a “real transsexual” or merely transgender. In part, this binary is connected with the binary division into biological sex and gender, which is why people who want changes of gender or of sex are called transgender or transsexual. As was shown earlier, no boundary exists between biological sex and gender, and none exists between transgender identity and transsexuality either. To move away from this binary, it is proposed to abandon the term “transsexuality” and to use “transgender identity” only as an umbrella term.
MtF, FtM, “transwoman” and other incorrect terms
The terms MtF and FtM stand for “male to female” and “female to male.” The main problem lies in their use as nouns. Calling someone an “MtF” implies that this person is not a woman but something in between, in transit “from a man to a woman.” The correct approach is to call people in accordance with their gender identity, i.e. if someone considers herself a woman, she must be called a woman and not something else. In cases where it is necessary to make clear that a person has made a transgender transition, the word “transgender,” or “trans*” for short, can be added to the name of the gender identity. Thus, it is recommended that the words “transsexual woman” and “MtF” be replaced with the phrase “trans* woman”; likewise, the words “transsexual man” and “FtM” should be replaced with “trans* man.” In these cases, the adjective “trans*” is a modifier complementing the nouns “woman” and “man.” The closed-up spelling “transwoman” is therefore undesirable, since it implies that the person is not a woman but a “transwoman,” i.e. something distinct from a “woman.” Using the free-standing word “trans*” as a noun is categorically unacceptable.
Sex change or sex correction
One often comes across statements that transgender/transsexual people “need a sex change / sex correction.” Every word in this phrase is open to question. First, it is unclear which “sex,” or which component of it, is meant. As for “change”/”correction,” the latter term is positioned as politically correct, since it is thought to indicate that, for transgender people, the wish to make a transition is not a whim but a necessity beyond their control. In doing so, the word “correction” supports cisnormative discourse and the pathologizing model, implying that being transgender is an incorrect condition that has to be “corrected,” brought to the “correct” condition, i.e. to being cisgender. For this reason, activists who advocate the depathologization of gender variance and the deconstruction of cisnormativity should refrain from using this word. In this respect, the word “change” is more suitable, since it carries no additional meanings.
Pre-, post-, non-
The bodies of transgender people serve as a battlefield between different political views, so it is not surprising that people take it for granted that the structure of our genitals may be mentioned, and consider themselves entitled to demand that we explain what we have done with them. This has been implicitly reflected in the terminology used to classify transgender people into those who have had surgery (post-op), those who have not (pre-op) and those who do not intend to (non-op). Among other things, such a classification points to the important role that society assigns to people’s genitals, and especially to those of transgender people. Terminology based on the classification of genitals should not be used.
Other unacceptable terms
It is unacceptable to call transgender people anything other than what they call themselves. Terms that come from the porn industry are also unacceptable: shemale, tranny, ladyboy and so on.
Implicit cisnormativity
One not infrequently comes across phrases whose authors are trying to emphasize trans* inclusivity and write, for example, “an event for women and transgender people.” Elsewhere, when gender is to be indicated, one is offered a choice between the options “woman,” “man” and “transgender,” or “woman” and “trans* woman.” It turns out, then, that women/men cannot be transgender and transgender people cannot be women/men, and transgender people are forced to choose between their identity as transgender people and their identity as women/men. The solution is to use the adjective “cisgender” for those women/men who are not transgender.
Yana Sitnikova
Source: Trans* Coalition
Read “TRANSGENDER IDENTITY FROM M/F TO X“
Read “Why be non-binary?“