v) Alongside what i said earlier about the meaning of "male" and "female" expanding to accommodate the way trans people choose to sex our bodies instead of just restricting that privilege to cis people (and occasionally wealthy trans women), i really think that those words are neither facing that great of a threat from us uppity trannies who don't follow the correct (read: cissexist) meanings of words nor so important as to be in the panicked state you seemingly are over the thought of them losing their meanings.
Like, as someone said to me a moment ago, and as i implied in my comment above, doctors are not so stupid that they can't figure out how to provide medical service without trans people saying "i am a male-bodied person who wants to emulate female bodies in form and function," so really, who is the loss of the words hurting?
Because, the way i'm seeing this, the loss of the meanings of the words--words used, again, to describe an eclectic arrangement of physiological characteristics that rarely all simultaneously fall into the ranges defined by your definitions for a given individual who identifies their body as such--as you seem to have defined them would help a great deal of people to see sex in a more accurate way, and in a way that doesn't, again, unsex the bodies of trans people.
The latter of these may not be too huge a concern for someone who can afford and has access to all of the medical aspects of the ~traditional MtF transitional path~, but i assure you that it is for many other trans people.
vi) The biological phrases and the specific, technical system which you are using are cissexist. There is no reason for "bigots and cissexists" to try to "twist it," especially not when they can get good little trannies to subscribe to it.
You're missing my point here: You are not "perfectly objective." No one has a single objective truth, especially when it comes to the language used to discuss it; there are only ways of describing reality as we observe and theorize about it that vary from person to person which can be cobbled together to form overarching paradigms and, in this case, classification systems.
People are subjective. While empirical research is obviously important, it is filtered through the researchers subjective perceptions when observed (and this is why, to give an example, forms of nonhuman biodiversity in sex and sexuality that would be considered "deviant" in humans went ignored by so-called "objective" scientists for centuries who couched it in other, more socially acceptable terms); objectivism and philosophical realism went out with Ayn Rand.
vii) Yes, biologists, and you, do tend to make allowances--but only for cissexual people.
The fact that it's not just a minority of trans and cis people who use the terms, inaccurately by your definitions, is precisely the problem, given the cissexist meaning they hold to so many people (including yourself).
I never said that the words were uncommon, just that a perfect match with the conditions set by you is hardly met by all people whose bodies are nonetheless identified as male or female.
Re: Part 2
v) Alongside what i said earlier about the meaning of "male" and "female" expanding to accommodate the way trans people choose to sex our bodies instead of just restricting that privilege to cis people (and occasionally wealthy trans women), i really think that those words are neither facing that great of a threat from us uppity trannies who don't follow the correct (read: cissexist) meanings of words nor so important as to be in the panicked state you seemingly are over the thought of them losing their meanings.
Like, as someone said to me a moment ago, and as i implied in my comment above, doctors are not so stupid that they can't figure out how to provide medical service without trans people saying "i am a male-bodied person who wants to emulate female bodies in form and function," so really, who is the loss of the words hurting?
Because, the way i'm seeing this, the loss of the meanings of the words--words used, again, to describe an eclectic arrangement of physiological characteristics that rarely all simultaneously fall into the ranges defined by your definitions for a given individual who identifies their body as such--as you seem to have defined them would help a great deal of people to see sex in a more accurate way, and in a way that doesn't, again, unsex the bodies of trans people.
The latter of these may not be too huge a concern for someone who can afford and has access to all of the medical aspects of the ~traditional MtF transitional path~, but i assure you that it is for many other trans people.
vi) The biological phrases and the specific, technical system which you are using are cissexist. There is no reason for "bigots and cissexists" to try to "twist it," especially not when they can get good little trannies to subscribe to it.
You're missing my point here: You are not "perfectly objective." No one has a single objective truth, especially when it comes to the language used to discuss it; there are only ways of describing reality as we observe and theorize about it that vary from person to person which can be cobbled together to form overarching paradigms and, in this case, classification systems.
People are subjective. While empirical research is obviously important, it is filtered through the researchers subjective perceptions when observed (and this is why, to give an example, forms of nonhuman biodiversity in sex and sexuality that would be considered "deviant" in humans went ignored by so-called "objective" scientists for centuries who couched it in other, more socially acceptable terms); objectivism and philosophical realism went out with Ayn Rand.
vii) Yes, biologists, and you, do tend to make allowances--but only for cissexual people.
The fact that it's not just a minority of trans and cis people who use the terms, inaccurately by your definitions, is precisely the problem, given the cissexist meaning they hold to so many people (including yourself).
I never said that the words were uncommon, just that a perfect match with the conditions set by you is hardly met by all people whose bodies are nonetheless identified as male or female.