Originally posted by
Despite what several people are saying above, FtMs are not male. They're female, hence Female to Male (FtM), female is a physical sex, man/boy/men/guy is a gender, the mental identity. A FtM begins as female and transitions, either to presenting
Despite what several people are saying above, FtMs are not male. They're female, hence Female to Male (FtM), female is a physical sex, man/boy/men/guy is a gender, the mental identity. A FtM begins as female and transitions, either to presenting as male, or physically becoming male (or anywhere in between) depending on the person. It's a little off putting to see people get snappy at you for asking about terminology when they don't have THEIR terminology straight.
The majority of the time, an FtM and a woman dating is considered straight, since it's a man and a woman (regardless of their physical sexes). However, like Rawhide stated, some FtMs who were part of the lesbian community before may feel more comfortable being referred to as lesbians even if they are guys. It completely depends on the person and their preferences.
If you want to get scientific, there are noted physical differences that are being studied in FTM individuals that would preclude them from being truly physically "female" (and likewise for MTF). Certainly not the be-all and end-of of who is allowed to call themselves FTM, but there is more than you are giving the body credit for.
The world is hardly just "male" and "female" bodies. Biology is not that cut and dry. A very obvious example is that of intersex people. There are also chromosome disorders that would invalidate many people who have never known they are not "female" or "male" completely by the book. This is not even those who are identifiable as intersex, this is normal people who never felt the need to have a chromosome test.
Nature is hardly perfect and makes many mistakes. Is an "FTM" who has fundamentally different underlying physical structures really "female" ?
There are hormone disorders, too and hormone conditions at birth that are being considered and studied and linked as well. This would set the particular body apart from females who will never experience life in such a body.
In reality, we assign sex based on secondary sex characteristics. Hardly any children are tested at birth since no problem has yet presented itself. It's only in the case of significantly physically variant children that there is attention given and there is no set "line" on when to investigate and "call it".
Scientifically, there is NO one thing that is firmly the be-all and end-all of sex identification. It is a combination of many things. You cannot judge merely by secondary sex characteristics, that would be false. As is judging merely by chromosomes or hormone levels. As is outward or inward genitalia.
Many will claim chromosome superiority, yet there is not merely XX and XY. I've spoken to people who never knew they were XXX or XXY until a freak test was done for something unrelated. As well, there are other species of animal that do not use this system - so purely sexing by homo or heterogametic chromosomes is inaccurate and doesn't take into account the complex pathway that determines what we read as "sex".
Take a look at how and why physical sex develops - it's fascinating and there are many opportunities for error. There is no one "switch" to make a male fetus as was once thought (as you might have heard "we were all female once"). So many things can and do go awry. Medicine can and does recognise that an XX person can be classified as "male" (and other examples) and this is nothing new or politically correct.
I understand where you're coming from, and I once felt that way too, but once you look into the science and biology - there is much to learn and think about.
"FTM" is an easy, dumbed-down term that is useful because many people just really don't care that much about science and biology. It is relevant to many's personal social experiences as well, without taking biology into account.
But calling any given "FTM" a "female" is incredibly shortsighted and offensive to scientific reason and curiosity. It will hit many people on an emotional level, your claim - but I am setting that aside and looking merely at the evidence of nature.
Trying to decode sex is like trying to understand what an author was thinking or intended when they wrote a book. There is much we can surmise, but much unknown that we can only guess at unless we uncover more direct evidence - and even then the mind plays tricks on itself that we may never understand.
I love biology and learning about how life is formed and how incredible it is that it's able to keep its error rate low enough to sustain a species. Yet so many variables are at play that we tend to overlook them.
It may be useful to read a certain set of characteristics as "female" and call them that, but that is the same as trying to divide the world into "food" and "non-food". Just because you can digest something doesn't mean it's food, and plenty of "food" can produce the harm of "non-food" with given dosages. Nature simply is grey and isn't convenient when you take the time to get to know it.
I choose to take evidence into account only as it exists and to keep an open perspective instead of forcing people into boxes for which the criteria is only being uncovered and is not fully known.
I fucking love science, fuck yeah. *science boner*