I have to ask, what is it you think you're achieving by pursuing linguistic purism with respect to the words "male" and "female?"
It isn't linguistic purism. Like I said, I'm just fine with them changing their meanings. They just need to actually, you know, have meanings.
When you use a self referential meaning (which is really what this post is complaining about) like "one who identifies as x" wherein x is the term being defined, you yield no additional information with that term. Literally.
By using the term in reference to yourself, you have already made it clear that you identify as that term. Otherwise you wouldn't use it. So making the definition express this information is redundant and strips the phrase of any real meaning.
When I tell someone that I'm a woman, what am I trying to get across? Does everyone who uses the term woman simply want to get across "I feel this term applies"? Why apply the term at all if it has no additional meaning than that? Because it sounds or looks pretty? The means to protecting identity currently is nonsensical because it strips the words of any meaning.
You want to go ahead and work on changing the word female to mean (anatomically) "an individual with the bodily structure normally gained from the female developmental path or an individual who wishes to have said structure" then by all means, we can start encouraging the definition change to go in that direction.
But lets keep the self referential definitions that strip words of any meaning at all out of terminology. Because that doesn't help anyone.
To repeat myself, what makes them more valuable, cissexist words that they are, than phrases like "people with penises" or "people with XX chromosomes" or "people with breasts," which are actually much more accurate and precise and, yes, objective than words like "male" or "female" which could be referring to any one of dozens of characteristics--
Actually, based on your previous reasoning above, the inverted penis arguers can easily use the "people with penises" to continue to brand even post SRS trans women as such.
Basing it on layman phrases doesn't really remove the risk of bigots and cissexist folk trying to twist it. Basing it on biological phrases at least bases it on a very specific and technical system that has an authority beyond what bigots can claim.
Also, breasts, penis, and vagina are not the only traits often wished to be changed by transitioning folk. Once again, the problem for many of us is the entire package, i.e. the bodily structure normally created by a certain development path (in my case, XY development path). That phrase is defined as male in biology (anatomical context).
Perfectly objective.
None of this really means that I'm not all for just using those phrases. The thing that I am solidly against is not changing definitions or using various different phrases that may have more benefit. It is applying self referential definitions to words and making them meaningless. That's all. Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was a linguistic penny pusher who thinks all words should stay rigidly where they are.
characteristics which by the way are, arguably, perfectly aligned with the people who use those words to identify their bodies in only a minority of the cases among cis people as well as trans people?
Technically, the terms in question refer to the results of a given development path which have some give and take but tend to have a set of organs. Missing a few doesn't change much (biologists made allowances for accidents, surgery and us actually, so a lack of uterus isn't a problem), it's the presence of things that changes stuff.
But really, if only a minority of trans and cis people use these terms then why is it that I keep on hearing the insistence that male/female should have the same self referential definition that people want to give to gay, lesbian, trans and etc?
If these words were so uncommon, the urge to change them would be uncommon too, wouldn't you say?
Part 2
It isn't linguistic purism. Like I said, I'm just fine with them changing their meanings. They just need to actually, you know, have meanings.
When you use a self referential meaning (which is really what this post is complaining about) like "one who identifies as x" wherein x is the term being defined, you yield no additional information with that term. Literally.
By using the term in reference to yourself, you have already made it clear that you identify as that term. Otherwise you wouldn't use it. So making the definition express this information is redundant and strips the phrase of any real meaning.
When I tell someone that I'm a woman, what am I trying to get across? Does everyone who uses the term woman simply want to get across "I feel this term applies"? Why apply the term at all if it has no additional meaning than that? Because it sounds or looks pretty? The means to protecting identity currently is nonsensical because it strips the words of any meaning.
You want to go ahead and work on changing the word female to mean (anatomically) "an individual with the bodily structure normally gained from the female developmental path or an individual who wishes to have said structure" then by all means, we can start encouraging the definition change to go in that direction.
But lets keep the self referential definitions that strip words of any meaning at all out of terminology. Because that doesn't help anyone.
To repeat myself, what makes them more valuable, cissexist words that they are, than phrases like "people with penises" or "people with XX chromosomes" or "people with breasts," which are actually much more accurate and precise and, yes, objective than words like "male" or "female" which could be referring to any one of dozens of characteristics--
Actually, based on your previous reasoning above, the inverted penis arguers can easily use the "people with penises" to continue to brand even post SRS trans women as such.
Basing it on layman phrases doesn't really remove the risk of bigots and cissexist folk trying to twist it. Basing it on biological phrases at least bases it on a very specific and technical system that has an authority beyond what bigots can claim.
Also, breasts, penis, and vagina are not the only traits often wished to be changed by transitioning folk. Once again, the problem for many of us is the entire package, i.e. the bodily structure normally created by a certain development path (in my case, XY development path). That phrase is defined as male in biology (anatomical context).
Perfectly objective.
None of this really means that I'm not all for just using those phrases. The thing that I am solidly against is not changing definitions or using various different phrases that may have more benefit. It is applying self referential definitions to words and making them meaningless. That's all. Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was a linguistic penny pusher who thinks all words should stay rigidly where they are.
characteristics which by the way are, arguably, perfectly aligned with the people who use those words to identify their bodies in only a minority of the cases among cis people as well as trans people?
Technically, the terms in question refer to the results of a given development path which have some give and take but tend to have a set of organs. Missing a few doesn't change much (biologists made allowances for accidents, surgery and us actually, so a lack of uterus isn't a problem), it's the presence of things that changes stuff.
But really, if only a minority of trans and cis people use these terms then why is it that I keep on hearing the insistence that male/female should have the same self referential definition that people want to give to gay, lesbian, trans and etc?
If these words were so uncommon, the urge to change them would be uncommon too, wouldn't you say?