Random bit of trans vocabulary as I've recently seen people rejecting a phrase because they were confused by it.
"Socialized male" and "socialized female" aren't synonyms for someone's sex, they are experiences and culturally relevant.
People are confused because the term "socialize" has multiple meanings.
One is something done by you: "I was socializing with my friends"
One is something done to you: "I was socialized as a man"
To summarize Webster respectively:
The first is "to participate actively in a social group"
The second is "to fit or train for a social environment'
We say someone is "Socialized Male" or "Socialized Female" not to indicate what their sex is, but to indicate that in their formative years they were saddled with the expectations and treatment associated with "male" or "female" in our society.
The trans women getting confused think it means something like "grew up as men" or that our social groups were men, and that's not at all it.
It means we were treated as men.
We usually grew up with more women in our social circles than men, even if we didn't know we were trans yet. We were often seen as an exception, which means even our acceptance was flavored by it.
What "socialized male" means to me is that I grew up being labeled a predator and a threat by default.
Even if I wasn't specifically raised such, I was still affected by the fact that so many men were raised to believe it was okay to lie, cheat, and manipulate to abuse women. And because of that there was literally nothing I could say or do to convey that I was being genuine because far too many were dishonest about it.
I had to build entire patterns and routines of behavior around how to behave around women to make them feel safer, almost always to my personal detriment.
I to this day am still anxious and hesitant in so many interactions because for decades of my life they were forbidden to me because they were far too likely to make someone I care about feel unsafe.
When I say I was "socialized male" it means that was something done to me. I had to figure out how to navigate life and survive while being forced into a traumatic box by society that didn't remotely fit me.
This is a good and useful reminder: the word "socialize" is context-dependent. Would it be productive to try and use "enculturate" instead for the second meaning (training somebody in acceptable social behaviour)?
@Charlie Stross enculturate might be more accurate in some ways, but it feels much less familiar which means it requires more explanation.
But I do think the lack of context is probably what's throwing people off, particularly in that they're so many steps removed from the definition.
"Socialized male" is basically shortened from "they socialized me male" (transitive verb form) vs people are confusing it with "I socialized with men" (intransitive verb form)
"Indoctrinate" is a pretty good word and pretty close, but I honestly think it's too dramatic and is way more active than what we're talking about.
"Socialization" in general is a process we all go through in which we're introduced to and steeped in our cultural norms and values. Not all of it is accepted, not all of it takes, but it all affects us. Like how as an american I was steeped in US propaganda far more intensely than someone in the UK.
The term is talking about how during socialization we were also immersed in the expectations of manhood and masculinity.
@cstross Off-topic, but this reminds me of the way you sometimes hear younger journalists confusing “this is in the public interest” with “the public will find this interesting”.
@Tattie That's why I pointed out that it's non synonymous with assigned sex and is a perfect example!
Most trans women unfortunately are, at least in western society. Many if not most of us don't even realize we're trans until adulthood, so we grow up being treated as men by society.
For those like yourself who were treated otherwise, I'm grateful knowing that not all of us did.
This is in response to people who were interpreting "socialized male" as them socializing as men or primarily socializing with men, neither of which being the meaning of the term. If it meant that, it would be accurate to push back against it as we were never men and we very often socialize primarily with other women.
In it's accurate meaning, it's an important term and important to understand especially for cases like yours to define what makes your experience different. But also so that between our two experiences we can highlight what parts of our experience is inherent to being a trans woman and what parts are specific to being socialized male.
ok but I'm confused why you're grateful I wasn't socialized male? Being treated as a girl is grim. Being talked over, expected to do emotional labour for your male peers and for adults, having to work harder for less recognition. Being sexualised by adults at a young age. Being denied agency.
there was like this pattern where I'd go somewhere new and for like half an hour people would treat me as a boy, and it would be weird and confusing for everyone, and then there would be this "click point" and they'd switch to the way that everyone always treated me, as a strange boygirl creature.
I think maybe I went thru a phase of "male socialisation" for a few years during university? And it didn't bring me any more happiness than my childhood had. But then slowly I started hanging out with more and more woman-dominated friendship groups and being treated as an "honourary" one of them. And then I transitioned.
@shiri, this looks very much like “$ITEM is releasing on $DATE” vs. “$ITEM will be released on $DATE” to me. I'm quite sure that people just don't see or possibly even understand the difference.
I'm never quite sure why, exactly, $ITEM is holding on to $DATE, and I'm never quite sure what happens if $ITEM doesn't release $DATE – do we just skip that day?
@shiri, … hmm. Rereading, I see that I didn't properly account for having put “on” in both. Too used to Americans (in particular) omitting it, I suppose… regardless, it's intended to show doing vs. being/having done to.
@shiri, ah. No subject (or object; I always get the two labels confused). “With others” doesn't half do a good impression of being one, though… IT'S A TRAP!!!1!!one
I don't think people reject that phrase because they misunderstand it. One big reason to reject it is because transphobes, especially the TERFy sort, use it as a way of saying that trans women act like men, particularly that they are entitled, violent, and dangerous. More broadly, socialization is not a simple unidirectional process. Not just how society treats you and what expectations it has, but also how you respond to that treatment, and how society reacts to your upholding or failing to uphold those expectations. Trans girls don't have the same socialization as cis boys. They don't have the same socialization as cis girls, either. You could say that we are "socialized trans female", I suppose. Of course, no two people have identical socialization, so we are talking about consistent patterns of similarity. Are there similarities between trans female and cis male socialization? Certainly, but I believe there are also consistent differences that make it worth drawing a distinction there. The end result, at least, is very different.
@Juniper 🏳️⚧️ In regards to the transphobes, any term or phrase about our experience will get used in that way. Not because the term in any way implies it, but because they will bend over backwards to make that claim about us any way they can.
So I don't see any point in dancing around transphobes, all we get down that road is a semantic treadmill.
And yes, how we respond to it varies greatly. The term is unidirectional because it refers only to what was done to us, not how we responded to it.
We all have wildly different responses and experiences, same as anyone else.
The phrase is talking about how we were treated and what expectations were put on us by society.
And "Socialized Trans Female" is a step backwards because not all trans women dealt with male socialization, just the vast vast majority. (Example: a girl who transitions at a young age and is supported in her transition is socialized female)
This is an all too frustratingly common case of people complaining that a simplified phrase doesn't perfectly encompass a whole paragraph's of concept.
If we throw out this term we simply lose a tool to explain and describe our experiences, nothing gets improved.
If someone can come up with a better term to mean "Grew up with society/guardians treating you with the expectations it associates with <gender>" then we'll all hop on board.
you are writing as though this phrase is commonly used by trans people in this sense. That has not been my experience. I have known far more trans people who actively reject the idea that they are socialized as their AGAB. Your experience may be different, but that is where I am coming from. And I don't think that this is dancing around transphobes; in my experience it is primarily used in a transphobic way, so that is the first way I expect it to be understood. My objection is not that the phrase is insufficiently descriptive, but that it is actively inaccurate.
I was not socialized male. Coming to understand that has been a significant part of my transition. I spent a long time with the self-conception that I was "not like other guys". Realizing that I am actually a pretty standard trans woman has been a trip. And I've also come to realize that I was not treated or even seen on the same way as the cis boys around me. I remember my mom saying once (not to me), after she had babysat her nephews for an afternoon, that now she understood what it was really like to have boys. This fits a pattern that was present throughout my childhood: people did not quite see me as a boy, even though they thought they should. And consequently, they didn't quite treat me as a boy, though they certainly didn't treat me as a girl.
I don't entirely understand your objection to using " trans female socialization". Certainly it is true that trans girls who have their gender recognized young will have a different experience of socialization than those who do not. But trans girls also have a significantly different experience of socialization than cis boys, and putting them into that box is more harmful than having a concept of trans female socialization that is not 100% universal. (No such concept will ever be completely universal. It will certainly differ along other axes like race, region, and socioeconomic status.) 1/2
So overall, saying that trans women have male socialization is inaccurate and harmful. It ascribes a similarity to the experience of cis boys that does not exist, and it gives license to treat trans women as being really or essentially men. I think that what you are talking about fits better under what I understand as gender assignment rather than socialization. I think it is common to treat gender assignment as something that happens in the moment when an M or an F is recorded on our birth certificates and then is done. But really in just about every social interaction we have (there may be some spaces, particularly queer ones, where this happens less), the people around us will try to figure out what gender box we fit into. They assign us a gender. From that assignment, they will derive expectations of how we will act and how they should treat us. Because most people's gender boxes are a strict binary, many trans girls will have the experience of being assigned male across many interactions, same as cis boys. But they will often not react to this assignment in the way that cis boys do, so they will not receive the same socialization as cis boys. 2/2
@Juniper 🏳️⚧️ ugh... socialization has absolutely no reference to how we respond to it.
This is an actual academic sociology/psych term and is entirely about the environment we were raised and the expectations we were raised with.
For instance, someone who grows up in a conservative household and community is socialized conservative, this is regardless of whether they ever accepted any of it.
If you're assigned male across the majority of your interactions growing up, that's what this means. It doesn't mean you are a man, it means you had to deal with the traumas of being treated as one.
And yes, this is something that's shared with cis boys, because it's not about how we responded to it.
Like I've said elsewhere, if we transition early and are accepted then we don't deal with it because we get socialization that matches our real identity.
Saying trans female socialization literally means that we were raised with the expectations that we would act and behave as other trans femmes.
I'm American, I was socialized hyper-capitalist... does that make me a capitalist? No. It means I dealt with the expectations and trauma of hyper-capitalist expectations being put on me.
What about being socialized Christian (which basically means growing up in a Christian, even non-practicing, home), does that make me not Jewish? Nope. Do I get "Christian Privilege" for it? Hell no. Does that mean people can call me Christian? Still no.
And we do end up with many of the traumas of cis boys/men, the difference is for us is that it's in stark relief as we move away from those expectations and re-socialize ourselves.
Socialization is explicitly the expectations that were put on us and not how we responded to them.
If you want to talk about socialization specifically in how we responded to it? It's failed socialization, they wanted us to be men and we rejected it, they failed. But failure doesn't mean we didn't deal with them trying, it just means it didn't take.
Samsung makes ads on $3,499 smart fridges official with upcoming software update Update introduces two ways for the fridges to show ads. arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/1…
Cette maxime est difficile à retracer, car elle peut s'exprimer de multiples façons. La première correspondance connue apparaît dans une lettre de 1874 du poète et romancier allemand Berthold Auerbach, qui attribua cette maxime à l'homme politique allemand Heinrich Simon.
«Il n'y a pas de mauvais temps, il n'y a que de bons vêtements», disait le grand esprit Heinrich Simon, noyé dans le lac Wallensee, dans son proverbe, et cela s'applique aussi à moi.
La première occurrence trouvée pour ce "proverbe" date de 2011. A l'époque, il était décrit comme un proverbe chinois. Cependant, il est inconnu en Chine. Il ne s'agit pas non plus d'un proverbe amérindien. Il s'agit d'une citation anonyme.
😱 *Smile 2* is a chilling sequel that dives deeper into trauma, fame, and fear. Naomi Scott is outstanding, and the scares are smart and relentless. Creepy, stylish, and intense—definitely worth a watch. To Get More Detail Review Visit The Blog...
"Jonah Hex" (2010) is a lackluster superhero film that tries to blend Western and supernatural elements but ends up feeling disjointed and underwhelming. Despite a gritty premise and some stylized action, the film's weak plot, uneven tone, and poor CGI hinder its impact, making it a forgettable entry in the genre. Mediocre superhero Western with potential that falls flat. For More Review Of This Movie Visit My Blog...
Creepy and unsettling horror with a memorable premise—"Smile" (2022) delivers chilling scares and tense atmosphere. For More Review Of This Movie Visit My Blog...
The Global Biologics Market Report is a comprehensive report on the Biologics market, offering key insights on business strategies, current trends, and presenting qualitative and quantitative analysis of the Biologics market. This report offers in-depth research insights on key and significant aspects of the Biologics market, providing an in-depth analysis of key drivers, restraints, restraints, growth prospects, threats, and risks. The report also includes an in-depth analysis of the competitive landscape and regional scope of the Biologics market.
The global Biologics Market report employs an extremely extensive and perceptive process that analyzes statistical data relating to services and products offered in the market. The research study is a pivotal document in understanding the needs and wants of the clients. The report is comprised of significant data about the leading companies and their marketing strategies. The Biologics industry is witnessing an expansion and change of dynamics owing to the entry of several new players.
The study outlines the rapidly evolving and growing market segments along with valuable insights into each element of the industry. The industry has witnessed the entry of several new players, and the report aims to deliver insightful information about their transition and growth in the market. Mergers, acquisitions, partnerships, agreements, product launches, and joint ventures are all outlined in the report.
Key Companies Profiled in the Report are
Amgen AbbVie Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Celltrion Healthcare Eli Lilly Hoffmann La-Roche GlaxoSmithKline Johnson & Johnson Novo Nordisk Sanofi Samsung BioLogics Biologics Market, Till 2035: Distribution by Type of Product (2-Ethylhexyl Biologics, Butyl Biologics, Ethyl Biologics, Methyl Biologics), Type of Grade (Chemical Grade, Pharmaceutical Grade, Standard Grade, and, Technical Grade), Type of Application (Adhesive & Sealants, Fabrics, Paints & Coating, Papers & Paperboard, Personal Care Products, Plastics, Textiles, Others) Type of End User (Automotive, Construction, Consumer Goods, Electronics, Healthcare, Packaging, Textiles).
The research report offers a comprehensive regional analysis of the market with regards to production and consumption patterns, import/export, market size and share in terms of volume and value, supply and demand dynamics, and presence of prominent players in each market.
Regional Analysis Covers:
North America (U.S., Canada) Europe (U.K., Italy, Germany, France, Rest of EU) Asia Pacific (India, Japan, China, South Korea, Australia, Rest of APAC) Latin America (Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Rest of Latin America) Middle East & Africa (Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., South Africa, Rest of MEA) To know more about the report, visit @
Furthermore, the report provides analytical data in an organized format segmented into charts, tables, graphs, figures, and diagrams. This enables readers to understand the market scenario in an easy and beneficial manner. Moreover, the report aims to impart a prospective outlook and draw an informative conclusion to assist the reader in making lucrative business decisions. The report, in conclusion, provides a detailed analysis of the segments expected to dominate the market, the regional bifurcation, the estimated market size and share, and comprehensive SWOT analysis and Porter’s Five Forces Analysis.
Thank you for reading our report. For further queries, please connect with us, and our team will provide you the report best suited to your requirements.
About Roots Analysis
Roots Analysis is a global leader in the market research. Having worked with over 750 clients worldwide, including Fortune 500 companies, start-ups, academia, venture capitalists and strategic investors for more than a decade, we offer a highly analytical / data-driven perspective to a network of over 450,000 senior industry stakeholders looking for credible market insights. All reports provided by us are structured in a way that enables the reader to develop a thorough perspective on the given subject. Apart from writing reports on identified areas, we provide bespoke research / consulting services dedicated to serve our clients in the best possible way.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Shiri Bailem • •For those familiar with dog training:
Your dog socializes with other dogs.
You socialize your dog to teach it how to behave in public.
One is something the dog does, the other is something you do to the dog.
Quixoticgeek reshared this.
Charlie Stross
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Charlie Stross • •@Charlie Stross enculturate might be more accurate in some ways, but it feels much less familiar which means it requires more explanation.
But I do think the lack of context is probably what's throwing people off, particularly in that they're so many steps removed from the definition.
"Socialized male" is basically shortened from "they socialized me male" (transitive verb form) vs people are confusing it with "I socialized with men" (intransitive verb form)
reshared this
Charlie Stross and Elyse M Grasso reshared this.
Charlie Stross
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
pixelbandito
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Charlie Stross reshared this.
Charlie Stross
in reply to pixelbandito • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Charlie Stross • •@Charlie Stross @pixelbandito I mean I think more people than can spell socialization correctly...
"Indoctrinate" is a pretty good word and pretty close, but I honestly think it's too dramatic and is way more active than what we're talking about.
"Socialization" in general is a process we all go through in which we're introduced to and steeped in our cultural norms and values. Not all of it is accepted, not all of it takes, but it all affects us. Like how as an american I was steeped in US propaganda far more intensely than someone in the UK.
The term is talking about how during socialization we were also immersed in the expectations of manhood and masculinity.
Isaac Freeman
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Tattie
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •in no context or meaning was I socialised male.
I accept that some trans women were. I accept that you may have been.
But I was treated closer to a girl than a boy, growing up.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Tattie • •@Tattie That's why I pointed out that it's non synonymous with assigned sex and is a perfect example!
Most trans women unfortunately are, at least in western society. Many if not most of us don't even realize we're trans until adulthood, so we grow up being treated as men by society.
For those like yourself who were treated otherwise, I'm grateful knowing that not all of us did.
This is in response to people who were interpreting "socialized male" as them socializing as men or primarily socializing with men, neither of which being the meaning of the term. If it meant that, it would be accurate to push back against it as we were never men and we very often socialize primarily with other women.
In it's accurate meaning, it's an important term and important to understand especially for cases like yours to define what makes your experience different. But also so that between our two experiences we can highlight what parts of our experience is inherent to being a trans woman and what parts are specific to being socialized male.
Tattie
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Tattie • •@Tattie I'm not grateful that it sounds like you were socialized female, tbh it kinda sucks for everyone all around.
But at least it sounds like you were socialized in a way that aligns with your identity.
Also I'm just generally grateful that it's not a uniform experience.
Tattie
in reply to Tattie • • •there was like this pattern where I'd go somewhere new and for like half an hour people would treat me as a boy, and it would be weird and confusing for everyone, and then there would be this "click point" and they'd switch to the way that everyone always treated me, as a strange boygirl creature.
I think maybe I went thru a phase of "male socialisation" for a few years during university? And it didn't bring me any more happiness than my childhood had. But then slowly I started hanging out with more and more woman-dominated friendship groups and being treated as an "honourary" one of them. And then I transitioned.
lp0 on fire
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •@shiri, this looks very much like “$ITEM is releasing on $DATE” vs. “$ITEM will be released on $DATE” to me. I'm quite sure that people just don't see or possibly even understand the difference.
I'm never quite sure why, exactly, $ITEM is holding on to $DATE, and I'm never quite sure what happens if $ITEM doesn't release $DATE – do we just skip that day?
Shiri Bailem
in reply to lp0 on fire • •@lp0 on fire ... that's the most confusing way I could imagine someone saying "I can't tell the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs"
merriam-webster.com/dictionary…
"socialize" in this context is definition 1 of the transitive form of the verb. People are confusing it with the definition of the intransitive form.
Or if you want to dive specifically into the word socialization itself: merriam-webster.com/dictionary…
They're confusing 1a with 1b.
lp0 on fire
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to lp0 on fire • •@lp0 on fire transitive/intransitive is not about the relationship to the subject.
Both "doing to" and "being done to" make a verb transitive. Which is the what you were showing.
Intransitive on the other hand is simply "doing" with explicitly no subject beyond the person doing it.
lp0 on fire
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Juniper 🏳️⚧️🌲 (baking?)
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Juniper 🏳️⚧️🌲 (baking?) • •@Juniper 🏳️⚧️ In regards to the transphobes, any term or phrase about our experience will get used in that way. Not because the term in any way implies it, but because they will bend over backwards to make that claim about us any way they can.
So I don't see any point in dancing around transphobes, all we get down that road is a semantic treadmill.
And yes, how we respond to it varies greatly. The term is unidirectional because it refers only to what was done to us, not how we responded to it.
We all have wildly different responses and experiences, same as anyone else.
The phrase is talking about how we were treated and what expectations were put on us by society.
And "Socialized Trans Female" is a step backwards because not all trans women dealt with male socialization, just the vast vast majority. (Example: a girl who transitions at a young age and is supported in her transition is socialized female)
This is an all too frustratingly common case of people complaining that a simplified phrase doesn't perfectly encompass a whole paragraph's of concept.
If we throw out this term we simply lose a tool to explain and describe our experiences, nothing gets improved.
If someone can come up with a better term to mean "Grew up with society/guardians treating you with the expectations it associates with <gender>" then we'll all hop on board.
Juniper 🏳️⚧️🌲 (baking?)
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •you are writing as though this phrase is commonly used by trans people in this sense. That has not been my experience. I have known far more trans people who actively reject the idea that they are socialized as their AGAB. Your experience may be different, but that is where I am coming from. And I don't think that this is dancing around transphobes; in my experience it is primarily used in a transphobic way, so that is the first way I expect it to be understood. My objection is not that the phrase is insufficiently descriptive, but that it is actively inaccurate.
I was not socialized male. Coming to understand that has been a significant part of my transition. I spent a long time with the self-conception that I was "not like other guys". Realizing that I am actually a pretty standard trans woman has been a trip. And I've also come to realize that I was not treated or even seen on the same way as the cis boys around me. I remember my mom saying once (not to me), after she had babysat her nephews for an afternoon, that now she understood what it was really like to have boys. This fits a pattern that was present throughout my childhood: people did not quite see me as a boy, even though they thought they should. And consequently, they didn't quite treat me as a boy, though they certainly didn't treat me as a girl.
I don't entirely understand your objection to using " trans female socialization". Certainly it is true that trans girls who have their gender recognized young will have a different experience of socialization than those who do not. But trans girls also have a significantly different experience of socialization than cis boys, and putting them into that box is more harmful than having a concept of trans female socialization that is not 100% universal. (No such concept will ever be completely universal. It will certainly differ along other axes like race, region, and socioeconomic status.) 1/2
Juniper 🏳️⚧️🌲 (baking?)
in reply to Juniper 🏳️⚧️🌲 (baking?) • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Juniper 🏳️⚧️🌲 (baking?) • •@Juniper 🏳️⚧️ ugh... socialization has absolutely no reference to how we respond to it.
This is an actual academic sociology/psych term and is entirely about the environment we were raised and the expectations we were raised with.
For instance, someone who grows up in a conservative household and community is socialized conservative, this is regardless of whether they ever accepted any of it.
If you're assigned male across the majority of your interactions growing up, that's what this means. It doesn't mean you are a man, it means you had to deal with the traumas of being treated as one.
And yes, this is something that's shared with cis boys, because it's not about how we responded to it.
Like I've said elsewhere, if we transition early and are accepted then we don't deal with it because we get socialization that matches our real identity.
Saying trans female socialization literally means that we were raised with the expectations that we would act and behave as other trans femmes.
I'm American, I was socialized hyper-capitalist... does that make me a capitalist? No. It means I dealt with the expectations and trauma of hyper-capitalist expectations being put on me.
What about being socialized Christian (which basically means growing up in a Christian, even non-practicing, home), does that make me not Jewish? Nope. Do I get "Christian Privilege" for it? Hell no. Does that mean people can call me Christian? Still no.
And we do end up with many of the traumas of cis boys/men, the difference is for us is that it's in stark relief as we move away from those expectations and re-socialize ourselves.
Socialization is explicitly the expectations that were put on us and not how we responded to them.
If you want to talk about socialization specifically in how we responded to it? It's failed socialization, they wanted us to be men and we rejected it, they failed. But failure doesn't mean we didn't deal with them trying, it just means it didn't take.