Your usage of the word “females” felt offensive to me because it implied that transwomen are unambiguously not females. It seems that you think that “male/female” should refer strictly to genetics while “man/woman” should refer to gender identity, but I don’t think this a great convention: in everyday use, “woman” and “female” are often used interchangeably.
I grant that “cisfemales” would not be completely accurate in principle, although IMO the meaning would be clear enough in practice.
You are right that in broader society, “natural/artificial” has positive/negative connotations, but I hope that here, where transhumanism is popular, and conflating “natural” with “good” is viewed as a fallacy, this is not the case.
As to “genetic” I’m not sure why you think it would be offensive? You grouped it with “natural” but the connotations are completely different (AFAICT the word doesn’t have much connotation, just denotation).
As an aside, I think that the language in this domain is suffering from overzealous policing by social justice fundamentalists. While everyday words such as “woman/man” or “female/man” should IMO be absolutely trans-inclsuive[1], there should also be room for convenient terminology about bodily sex characteristics.
It seems that you think that “male/female” should refer strictly to genetics while “man/woman” should refer to gender identity, but I don’t think this a great convention: in everyday use, “woman” and “female” are often used interchangeably.
I am aiming to do the best I can in communicating with precision and I apologize for any missteps on my part. It’s certainly true that “woman” and “female” are often used interchangeably but I’ve seen this become the source of significant confusion and ambiguity. You are correct about how I use the two terms (although it’s more about social role than identity); that is the convention I’ve eventually settled upon and so far it has worked well in minimizing ambiguity.
My working assumption about the word “female” is that it is much more heavily grounded within the context of reproductive capacity and the associated secondary characteristics (e.g. a livestock breeder ordering “females” from a supplier is not ambiguous in that context) which is why I used it.
Given your greater familiarity with this space I trust your judgment that “natural females” would not be negatively received here, but I’m doubtful this would be the case outside of LW and it’s difficult to keep a vocabulary index updated across so many places. I also imagine that transmen and non-binary individuals would not appreciate being called “female”, but they’d appreciate “natural female” even less. With regards to “genetic females” my question would be “as opposed to what?” so my (weak) objection is mostly based on its ambiguity to me. I wouldn’t be confident that either terms would carry the meaning I intend.
Either way, I was not privy to either of these alternate phrases before, so I hope it’s established that my use of “females” was not intended to be malicious. Language is imperfect and I’m trying to do the best I can in nevertheless communicating clearly.
My working assumption about the word “female” is that it is much more heavily grounded within the context of reproductive capacity and the associated secondary characteristics (e.g. a livestock breeder ordering “females” from a supplier is not ambiguous in that context) which is why I used it.
Medically transitioning transgender people have both reproductive capacity and secondary characteristics different from cisgender people of the same genetic sex. Ofc transgender women don’t have a functional female reproductive system (yet), but they often also don’t have a functional male reproductive system. Moreover, some cisgender women lack a functional female reproductive system as well. In principle, a reproduction-oriented classification can be useful, but it would require a 3rd category (sterile people), and is in any case largely unrelated to sexual attraction. So neither reproductive capacity nor secondary characteristics unambiguously point at the group you were referring to.
With regards to “genetic females” my question would be “as opposed to what?” so my (weak) objection is mostly based on its ambiguity to me.
As opposed to transwomen obviously (and if you insist that “female” should have a physiological connotation, then medically transitioning transwomen; but personally I don’t endorse this usage).
I concede that “females” is not 100% accurate in the context I was discussing but it felt like the least worst option. “Natural vagina haver” would be the most accurate label for the demographic I had in mind but it sounds distasteful. I’m open to ideas.
Your usage of the word “females” felt offensive to me because it implied that transwomen are unambiguously not females. It seems that you think that “male/female” should refer strictly to genetics while “man/woman” should refer to gender identity, but I don’t think this a great convention: in everyday use, “woman” and “female” are often used interchangeably.
I grant that “cisfemales” would not be completely accurate in principle, although IMO the meaning would be clear enough in practice.
You are right that in broader society, “natural/artificial” has positive/negative connotations, but I hope that here, where transhumanism is popular, and conflating “natural” with “good” is viewed as a fallacy, this is not the case.
As to “genetic” I’m not sure why you think it would be offensive? You grouped it with “natural” but the connotations are completely different (AFAICT the word doesn’t have much connotation, just denotation).
As an aside, I think that the language in this domain is suffering from overzealous policing by social justice fundamentalists. While everyday words such as “woman/man” or “female/man” should IMO be absolutely trans-inclsuive[1], there should also be room for convenient terminology about bodily sex characteristics.
And even then, it should be alright to use e.g. “women’s health” in a context where the vast majority of the people involved are ciswomen.
I am aiming to do the best I can in communicating with precision and I apologize for any missteps on my part. It’s certainly true that “woman” and “female” are often used interchangeably but I’ve seen this become the source of significant confusion and ambiguity. You are correct about how I use the two terms (although it’s more about social role than identity); that is the convention I’ve eventually settled upon and so far it has worked well in minimizing ambiguity.
My working assumption about the word “female” is that it is much more heavily grounded within the context of reproductive capacity and the associated secondary characteristics (e.g. a livestock breeder ordering “females” from a supplier is not ambiguous in that context) which is why I used it.
Given your greater familiarity with this space I trust your judgment that “natural females” would not be negatively received here, but I’m doubtful this would be the case outside of LW and it’s difficult to keep a vocabulary index updated across so many places. I also imagine that transmen and non-binary individuals would not appreciate being called “female”, but they’d appreciate “natural female” even less. With regards to “genetic females” my question would be “as opposed to what?” so my (weak) objection is mostly based on its ambiguity to me. I wouldn’t be confident that either terms would carry the meaning I intend.
Either way, I was not privy to either of these alternate phrases before, so I hope it’s established that my use of “females” was not intended to be malicious. Language is imperfect and I’m trying to do the best I can in nevertheless communicating clearly.
Medically transitioning transgender people have both reproductive capacity and secondary characteristics different from cisgender people of the same genetic sex. Ofc transgender women don’t have a functional female reproductive system (yet), but they often also don’t have a functional male reproductive system. Moreover, some cisgender women lack a functional female reproductive system as well. In principle, a reproduction-oriented classification can be useful, but it would require a 3rd category (sterile people), and is in any case largely unrelated to sexual attraction. So neither reproductive capacity nor secondary characteristics unambiguously point at the group you were referring to.
As opposed to transwomen obviously (and if you insist that “female” should have a physiological connotation, then medically transitioning transwomen; but personally I don’t endorse this usage).
I concede that “females” is not 100% accurate in the context I was discussing but it felt like the least worst option. “Natural vagina haver” would be the most accurate label for the demographic I had in mind but it sounds distasteful. I’m open to ideas.