'Biological male' is tautological. Let's not use it

Scientists and writers, some out of fear and some out of carelessness, have started to use the term "biological male," as if there are other kinds of male out there.  There aren't.

"Male" Is a Solely Biological Term

"Male" is a biological term.  It is defined by various aspects of biology such as genetics, embryology, phenotypic morphology, and especially sexual anatomy and the structure and types of sex cells.

"Male" is a phenotype in sexually dimorphic species that tends to produce numerous small gametes.  In mammals, males produce sperm (small, motile gametes) and have a penis and testicles that produce and ejaculate sperm in a fluid called semen during sexual intercourse.  Female mammals, on the other hand, produce larger ova in ovaries, tend to have enlarged breasts capable of lactation and (in placental mammals) a womb for fetal development and a birth canal where sperm is ejaculated and through which living offspring are delivered after a period of gestation.

Male and female mammals also tend to be differentiated genetically, in humans through the inheritance or X or Y chromosomes from their (male!) father.

There Is No Non-Biological Definition of Male or Female

There is no other definition of male or female.  There never has been.  While it is true that, in humans (and many other animals), males and females tend to have other statistically significant differences in attitudes, behaviors, aptitudes, etc., none of these differences rises to the level of definition of sex.

You might meet a man who loves gossiping, is a leading contributor to a sewing circle, wears skirts, and grows his hair long.  He may be as atypical of various male sexual stereotypes as he likes.  But if he is phenotypically male, producing numerous mobile gametes, then he's male.  No ifs, no buts, with some exceedingly rare intersex maybes.

This man may believe himself to be a woman.  He may wish above anything else to become a woman.  That would make him a delusional man who wants to be a woman.  He may have his penis and testicles surgically removed, which would make him a castrated delusional man who wants to be a woman.  He may add, through surgery, breast implants — which would make him a bizarre-looking castrated delusional man who wants to be a woman.  But nothing will ever make him a woman, or bring him any closer to being a woman, regardless of how extreme or tragic the act or desire.

Male and female are biological terms, and they signify biological realities.  Full stop.

It's Important because It Gives No Rhetorical Ground

You may be asking: "Does this really matter that much?  Why get on your high horse about such a commonplace use of language?"

Language may not matter that much to you.  You probably hold the rationalist position that reality defines language, and therefore you can't understand the fuss I'm making here.  But to relativist liberal leftists, language matters a great deal, because for them, language defines reality, not the other way around.

To implicitly concede that there are non-biological males implies to the woke, and to our audience, that we concede that "male" may be defined non-biologically.  We do not concede this.

In fact, one of the best lines of attack in an argument against a Woke gendrist is to ask: "So how do you define the word 'male'?"  Their squirming, contradictory, illogical response will provide you hours of joy in pointing out various reductiones ad absurdum.

It will also infuriate them, because reality angers the Woke.  It causes them deep intellectual discomfort, and there is nothing worse to a young socialist than being intellectually challenged and confronted with uncompromising and unchanging eternal truths.  We cannot make our websites safe spaces for such people.  We must confront their ideology in all we say and do.

It Wasn't Intentional, but Let's Be More Careful.

I implied earlier that some use the term "biological male" (or "biological female") because they are scared.  They want to placate and pander to anti-intellectual lefty apologists to avoid getting themselves canceled, doxxed, or otherwise pilloried.  Using terms like "biological male" — terms created by anti-science totalitarians — has just become so commonplace in the media that we don't even think about it anymore.

So consider this a rallying cry to say: we should think about it.  No more adoption of leftist language.  We give no ground, no quarter, have no clemency and show no mercy to the idiotic, illogical, scientifically illiterate arguments of the modern Left.  We must use deliberately meaningful, precise, and clear language, without compromising on meaning or accuracy for a second.  Tautologies are not welcome.

Sexual dimorphism is a fact of science, not only in humans, but in all sexually reproducing animals.  Male and female are biological sexual terms and have nothing to do with "gender" or any other amorphous, social-stereotypical nonsense.  Such it was at man's beginning, is now, and likely ever shall be:

... male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." (Genesis 1:27–28)

It is a truth that transcends politics, religion, or any other affiliation.  Like all truth, it is objective and rational.  We don't need to couch the words "male" or "female."  They are what they are; they can stand for themselves.

Florian Barbedienne is the pen name of a conservative who fears retaliation for his ideas.

Scientists and writers, some out of fear and some out of carelessness, have started to use the term "biological male," as if there are other kinds of male out there.  There aren't.

"Male" Is a Solely Biological Term

"Male" is a biological term.  It is defined by various aspects of biology such as genetics, embryology, phenotypic morphology, and especially sexual anatomy and the structure and types of sex cells.

"Male" is a phenotype in sexually dimorphic species that tends to produce numerous small gametes.  In mammals, males produce sperm (small, motile gametes) and have a penis and testicles that produce and ejaculate sperm in a fluid called semen during sexual intercourse.  Female mammals, on the other hand, produce larger ova in ovaries, tend to have enlarged breasts capable of lactation and (in placental mammals) a womb for fetal development and a birth canal where sperm is ejaculated and through which living offspring are delivered after a period of gestation.

Male and female mammals also tend to be differentiated genetically, in humans through the inheritance or X or Y chromosomes from their (male!) father.

There Is No Non-Biological Definition of Male or Female

There is no other definition of male or female.  There never has been.  While it is true that, in humans (and many other animals), males and females tend to have other statistically significant differences in attitudes, behaviors, aptitudes, etc., none of these differences rises to the level of definition of sex.

You might meet a man who loves gossiping, is a leading contributor to a sewing circle, wears skirts, and grows his hair long.  He may be as atypical of various male sexual stereotypes as he likes.  But if he is phenotypically male, producing numerous mobile gametes, then he's male.  No ifs, no buts, with some exceedingly rare intersex maybes.

This man may believe himself to be a woman.  He may wish above anything else to become a woman.  That would make him a delusional man who wants to be a woman.  He may have his penis and testicles surgically removed, which would make him a castrated delusional man who wants to be a woman.  He may add, through surgery, breast implants — which would make him a bizarre-looking castrated delusional man who wants to be a woman.  But nothing will ever make him a woman, or bring him any closer to being a woman, regardless of how extreme or tragic the act or desire.

Male and female are biological terms, and they signify biological realities.  Full stop.

It's Important because It Gives No Rhetorical Ground

You may be asking: "Does this really matter that much?  Why get on your high horse about such a commonplace use of language?"

Language may not matter that much to you.  You probably hold the rationalist position that reality defines language, and therefore you can't understand the fuss I'm making here.  But to relativist liberal leftists, language matters a great deal, because for them, language defines reality, not the other way around.

To implicitly concede that there are non-biological males implies to the woke, and to our audience, that we concede that "male" may be defined non-biologically.  We do not concede this.

In fact, one of the best lines of attack in an argument against a Woke gendrist is to ask: "So how do you define the word 'male'?"  Their squirming, contradictory, illogical response will provide you hours of joy in pointing out various reductiones ad absurdum.

It will also infuriate them, because reality angers the Woke.  It causes them deep intellectual discomfort, and there is nothing worse to a young socialist than being intellectually challenged and confronted with uncompromising and unchanging eternal truths.  We cannot make our websites safe spaces for such people.  We must confront their ideology in all we say and do.

It Wasn't Intentional, but Let's Be More Careful.

I implied earlier that some use the term "biological male" (or "biological female") because they are scared.  They want to placate and pander to anti-intellectual lefty apologists to avoid getting themselves canceled, doxxed, or otherwise pilloried.  Using terms like "biological male" — terms created by anti-science totalitarians — has just become so commonplace in the media that we don't even think about it anymore.

So consider this a rallying cry to say: we should think about it.  No more adoption of leftist language.  We give no ground, no quarter, have no clemency and show no mercy to the idiotic, illogical, scientifically illiterate arguments of the modern Left.  We must use deliberately meaningful, precise, and clear language, without compromising on meaning or accuracy for a second.  Tautologies are not welcome.

Sexual dimorphism is a fact of science, not only in humans, but in all sexually reproducing animals.  Male and female are biological sexual terms and have nothing to do with "gender" or any other amorphous, social-stereotypical nonsense.  Such it was at man's beginning, is now, and likely ever shall be:

... male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." (Genesis 1:27–28)

It is a truth that transcends politics, religion, or any other affiliation.  Like all truth, it is objective and rational.  We don't need to couch the words "male" or "female."  They are what they are; they can stand for themselves.

Florian Barbedienne is the pen name of a conservative who fears retaliation for his ideas.