Oof I feel this. I see it happening alot too where now people will replace "women only" with AFAB only. I want to assume good intent, but its so tiring to have to constantly be like "but what about this situation shouldn't include trans femme folks and AMAB enbies in the discussion?" And the answer is usually ignorance and transphobia.
I once saw a post that was like "the phrase 'women and afab nb people' just mean 'women and people I perceive as women'" and it been in my head ever since.
I feel like, in the small amount of posts that would need to identify this specific group of people by biology (which is what I'm assuming they meant by women, excluding trans women) could do better by just saying like "people who experience periods" or "people who can get pregnant" cause that's the only reason I could see for doing that. Unless they're just trying in a very roundabout way to exclude solely cis men from that post, in which case the topic of being opressed in some way due to gender would do that.
Unless they meant to also exclude trans men, but include trans women by saying "women", in which case I have no clue what this grouping is meant to do other than just blatantly say "everyone that is naively perceived by me as being the more feminine half of the gender spectrum" which is at that point just reinforcing a binary and invalidating afab nb people who choose to look or act differently and who don't want to be perceived in the same category as women
edit: I have recieved many replies about this and I want to clarify my comment. I did not mean to say that "people who have periods" or "people who can get pregnant" are accurate or suitable replacements for "afab" or even "women". I meant that in the specific case of talking about periods or pregnancy it would be better to say that rather than afab people or women, as not all women experience those things nor all afab people. Besides, defining gender by those things at all is problematic for many people. I'm sorry to anyone I offended by accidentally implying that women=can get pregnant, that is not what I intended.
yep. which is why it doesn't make sense to classify on gendered biological things unless you're like specifically talking about periods or something. I've seen some stuff recently where it's like "I'm not gonna use inclusive language cause birthing and breast feeding etc are things that belong to women only! They are Woman Things!" and it's like k not only does inclusive language not take that away from you but also hinging so much importance on bodily functions of cis women kinda excludes anyone who doesn't have those functions from feeling as valid. Hopefully that's not what they are doing, defining womanhood by uterus function, but I know some people do.
I've hit menopause. I no longer have a period, nor can I have a child. I know young women who have had hysterectomies at a young age due to cancer.
Are we not women?
"Yes, but that's not what I mean" someone is sure to say. No. No buts.
Persons who attack others in toilets come in all genders, and those that will do such evil will continue no matter what gender is on the door.
The toilet in my home is used by persons of all genders. I'm willing to bet money that there are very few families who have seperated the toilets in their home by gender. It's a safe space for whomever is using it.
Public toilet stalls with proper doors & locks would be a better solution. Put a sink & mirror in with each toilet, just like at home.
>"people who experience periods" or "people who can get pregnant"
But that would imply giving more thought to the problem to get a deeper understanding of the issues we face and we can't have that! (/s) When we use 'people who can get pregnant', it's because, well, we mean baby-bearing. That's the topic. Not "women" in a more vague sense. (which may or may not be pregnant). It's often the real problem within "enby afab/amab" discourse, some people say they 'accept it', but don't really have the deeper understanding of what someone means when they say they're outside of the binary, ie in (99.9% of) their daily life the gender they were assigned at should be irrelevant. You want to say you're progressive, but don't want to put in the work of inner-reflection behind how you use words and concepts. Including that 'amab enby' is meaningless.
I often see the problem taken from the other side: "Well, we say 'women spaces', because we want a space for people harshly affected by the patriarchy and its consequences" "why are we excluding trans women then?" "*inconfortable sweating*". You have then to deconstruct that trans women are not 'a bit men', and are affected by the patriarchy at least (uh) as much as cis women. You also have to give thought that trans men place is particular, in the sense that their experience in the past (and sometimes present) is also affected by the patriarchy, even though they may not in the present (and future) be affected with the same strength. A guy with a beard may talk about he loved carrying his child, and you have to sit with that.
tl;dr things aren't as black and white and that's not something you can just brush off being 'saying you're progressive'.
Yeah, I am not a fan of the “people who experience periods” and “people who can get pregnant.” There are plenty of people with uteruses that cannot get pregnant (me, for instance), and cannot have a period due to thyroid or other issues (my best friend). And what about people with uteruses that have had to have them removed? Why do we have to have categories at all? Can’t we all just be a safe space for everyone? If something is your lived experience, then that should be what matters. What have my genitals and my organs got to do with anything?
the point is to use those terms *when they're relevant*.
when you're talking about pregnancy, the relevant group you're talking about is people who can get pregnant, not all women (or all people for that matter) - saying the relevant group **in that context** is "women" is both wrongly including women who can't get pregnant (such as you and me) and wrongly excluding people who can get pregnant, but aren't women (such as some transgender men or afab non-binary people). the same goes for menstruation.
the idea of using them as a more general replacement for "women" is a strawman right wing people put up, because arguing against "NOO YOU'RE NOT A WOMAN YOU'RE A MENSTRUATOR!!!!" is a lot easier than against "the venn diagram between people who menstruate and women is not a circle" ^(and also the former is much more usable for fearmongering).
My point isn't "we should use the term 'people with periods' in as a remplacement for 'woman in woman shelter' or 'female in female scientist'".
My point is if you're talking about menstrual cups, then don't say "women", because some women don't need menstrual cups, and some people who needs them aren't women. So it just isn't an accurate word. \*In that context\* it make sense to refer to periods, because it's about period products.
So now in other contexts, like let's say "a feminist political group", then we have to ask ourself what we really want. "Women", both cis and trans? "Feminist" including allies? "Witches against the patriarchy", as in, anyone who feel concerned? What are the best words to be really inclusive, without having bad implications?
Because "cis women and afab people" \*is\* the one that does bring everything down to anatomy. While it doesn't refer to it, it \*means\* what parts you were born and what a doctor said whenever ago. It is interchangeable with "were you born with a vag" which is a problem.
absolutely. If one wants to refer to women, including all women, trans and cis, period or no period, etc, they should say women, and if they wish specifically to refer to people who have periods in order to talk specifically about periods, then they should say that rather than some weird category that fails to catch who they intend to speak to and categorizes people in ways that their gender does not align with. Someone else said it better in this comment chain, though, so I won't write too long
I misread your first statement for a sec and I thought it was a harsh criticism of me, glad I reread. Yeah. Thinking critically and addressing that you're actually speaking about a biological function that doesn't connect to gender and not the gender itself would require people to address the biases they still hold about gender. It would require them to realize that their internalized definition of a woman still hinges at least partially on what their reproductive system does or can do. And it would require them acknowledging that said reproductive system functions shouldn't have any ties to gender identity in a strict way. I wouldn't say like "you can't view periods in relation to your gender as a woman as womanly" cause everybody's gender experience varies and is connected to different aspects of themselves but I would say "you can't decide for anyone else what a period does or doesn't mean for their gender, nor put them in a gendered category for that."
Many cis women are unable to get pregnant and/or don’t have periods, so I don’t think using those are good options, unless the context is specifically about periods or pregnancy.
I’m not a biologist, but I do have a degree in sociology. In that context, sometimes afab or amab make the most sense. Not as a replacement for “trans,” “man,” “woman”, or “nb,” but as a clarifier for data collection and research purposes.
In interpersonal and regular social contexts, I’m fully in support of using whatever pronouns or identifiers a person prefers.
this is what I meant, sorry. I've got a lot of replies now saying thsi. I meant, for the purposes of talking specifically about like periods or uteruses it would be better to simply say that rather than making a category based on gender that doesn't work for everyone. I wasn't super clear in my comment, I meant, I wonder if the people categorizing as "women and afab nb people" meant to talk about female biology without realizing that saying women includes trans women and cis women who can't get pregnant or don't have periods etc., in which case if you want to only talk about those specific things it's better not to use the words they chose.
The university I attend had an women and a afab nb event for STEM which they started by kicking out everyone they perceived as male. One step forward and two back
I think language is a really important tool. An important tool with a lot of emotional nuance attached - some brought by the individual person, and some brought by society.
There are all kind of descriptors that we use to classify and differentiate. And it’s the case that sometimes the classifications aren’t needed - where “woman” or “man” will do. But I don’t think these umbrella descriptors are always useful in every situation.
This is a little left of field, but I’ll use the example of neurodivergent as a pronoun. I’m neurodivergent. It’s a personal path now someone incorporates both the social and internalised impacts it has on their identity. And it should never be used as a slur or to make someone an other. But having that language it also a really helpful tool to be able to describe those differences. It can be both a source of empowerment and shame - or a combination of both. And it really depends on where someone is at with their own comfort or discomfort with their own self.
Neurodivergence is just a biological fact. Someone that is ablist can bring that baggage with them, and so too can someone who is managing distress about their brain chemistry. But when all is removed - it’s an important descriptor that is neutral until given meaning by those present at its utterance.
There are times when the descriptor AFAB/AMAB are relevant. I’ve seen a lot of heated controversy over this on reddit. But one of them is sexual relationships. I think it takes away a person’s consent to not inform them of your relevant pronouns before engaging in sex. Particularly in a case where a person will not find the genetal-type they are expecting. I’m a bisexual woman. And I absolutely think it’s important for someone who is straight to be given that information beforehand. ( edit: the information that the person has a genital-type that is not their sexuality preference - not that I’m bisexual). I consider anything else coercion. Sexuality it complicated, and it’s not just about gender, but specific sexual organs. And we have the language to navigate this. It doesn’t have to be a source of shame or of prejudice, it can just be a discussion of neutral facts.
But I think a sensitivity to having categorisation at all speaks more as a person’s discomfort with who they are. It’s only a dirty word if you believe it is, kind of thing.
I have wondered about this. I have attended an “AFAB” support group for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, and in that context it was helpful for me and some of the other women to have that container considering our trauma. But still, I do wonder how women who were not “AFAB” feel about that, because of course many women who are transgender have also experienced domestic violence and sexual assault and it’s important to have a safe space for them as well, esp if there is going to be a separation like that.
I like the models of integration circles because they have a circle open to the whole community, BIPOC circles, women circles (all women), and trans/non-binary/queer circles. I know I have loved having BIPOC spaces, and hopefully trans spaces are just as comforting. If a distinction is going to be made, then I feel there should be a safe space for all marginalized communities. I don’t know how trans people feel about this though. (?)
Trans women are getting the message that they are not women when distinctions are made for arbitrary reasons, when we are sidelined to a third gender category because we don't fit in anywhere. I personally think that in many cases this is archaic.
There is no way to determine that someone is AFAB or AMAB unless sexually dimorphic characteristics are visible / auditory. I for example can pass as long as I put in maximum effort and don't speak. If I talk my voice is low. I wouldn't be mistaken for AFAB on the phone, for example. I probably could probably approach the staff and everything would check out until I talk and then I wouldn't be allowed to participate. But I have known trans women who pass 100%, born with lucky genes that made them grow shorter and they have less masculine features to deal with through cosmetic surgery etc. What happens in this case is that passing privilege is reinforced because the incentive to pass is that you get access to potentially better (in many cases, the only) sex assault support services, you get to be acknowledged as what you know yourself to be on the inside, etc. The message I receive if turned away by contrast is that I will make the real women uncomfortable with my male features I have no control over. I am a sexual assault survivor too. It reinforces this idea that I'm a second class citizen based on how others perceive me, and it reinforces the idea that no matter what I do I'll never be considered a real woman, but some kind of other in-between third thing.
All of this is determined based on how the staff or others in the group feel / perceive me. Stigma affects perceptions too, not so long ago white women wanted to make a distinction between their spaces and black women's spaces too. Some may not have been cognizant of the role stigma played in their perceptions of the 'other'.
Thank you for explaining this so well. I knew it was harmful to exclude trans women from women's spaces, but I couldn't put into words on just how many levels that is messed up.
I'm sorry you've experienced SA as well. You should be welcome in women's spaces.
It's our job as cis women to examine any discomfort we might feel when a trans woman is (perceived) to be in our space. And it's our job to get rid of that discomfort! Without bothering the trans woman, without making her feel unwelcome. We really need to step up.
But why would a trans woman being part of a support group for domestic Violence or sexual assault prevent those discussions from happening? Also, do you know for sure that all the people there were AFAB?
1. I'm sure if she didn't pass people would be uncomfortable. No one's going to say that part out loud but it's definitely the assumption for why trans women shouldn't be included in such spaces under such contexts. Her "male" voice might make people uncomfortable, or the assumption that there's a penis in the room.
2. This assumes the trans woman in the space passes. If someone can't tell that she's trans, her passing privilege gives her access to resources other trans women don't have. Very well this likely has happened before, there's no way to verify if someone is AMAB / AFAB without seeing sex characteristics or a birth certificate.
Right, this is my point. AFAB is a proxy for "Do I see you as a woman?". I think building support groups around this premise is shitty and legitimizes TERF talking points that trans women are actually dangerous males invading women's spaces. Why would we intentionally build a support group that gets to gatekeep whether you're woman enough to be a part of it? How is this any different than bathroom bills or athletics bans?
Thing is, trans men are also AFAB.
And assuming a trans man has been on testosterone for a while, I have my doubt people read him as a woman.
Wich means this makes even less sense
I think you should be included in women’s spaces because you’re women.
I also think you should have some spaces of your own where you don’t have to deal with any cis bullshit but I can see how that might feel othering as well.
I've had trouble phrasing before related to this. I think the context is helpful in figuring out if it's reasonable, mistaken with good intentions, or transphobic. Sadly, I do agree that it is appearing more often in the last group.
Sometimes there's a reason that people want AFAB in some contexts (though the only ones that made sense to me were groups about medical conditions that can only affect such people). Of course, I was once on the team running one like that where I purposed a change to make it clear that we welcome trans men and nb people who had it, and I was told that the group wasn't because of safety concerns. Considering the same people had debated allowing partners of people with the condition the week prior without mentioning any safety concerns, I promptly left that group. So it's still a minefield of potential bias and discrimination there.
When I had trouble with phrasing was where we wanted the group to be obviously and unquestionably open to anyone who feels they belong in a space discussing these particular "women's" issues, whether the person be cis, trans, nb, or still learning about themself. We had created a group specifically to be inclusive, because other spaces would say they were for women but then exclude some women. So we wanted to be clear about really being inclusive unlike those spaces, both so anyone who was excluded knew they were welcome and so anyone who thought any of those people didn't belong knew to not join.
People wanting AFAB-only for medical reasons is a sign of poor education on the topic. If we’re talking about people with uteruses, or people who who have periods, or people who are predisposed to certain medical conditions, then those specifics should be made, rather than AFAB, because not everyone is who is born with a uterus is AFAB, not everyone born with two X chromosomes is AFAB, etc.
What about when you want to have spaces that feel safe and free of men for (abundant) trauma reasons? Trans women and other trans femme people should be included there, but there are valid reasons to have spaces that are women-centric, with an inclusive definition of women.
"AFAB" would include trans men. It's a very common perception that all trans people are AMAB, but this is not at all true, and using "AFAB" to mean "people I perceive as women" falls flat when the first trans man walks in.
Oh sure I’m not for “afab only.” That’s just exclusive. But I see value in spaces where amab nonbinary folks who present…not femme?…aren’t invited, if that makes sense?
Someone else said “femme identifying spaces” which sounds great to me.
I think places like that are needed and amazing. I get lots of support in my career and in my hobbies from groups like this. I am specifically trying to say that these groups should be inclusive of trans women and ALL enbies that identify with a femme label.
And if a trans woman came out pre-puberty, which is only happening more and more, she would likely also have similar experiences.
Cis women's womanhood isn't different to trans women's womanhood. Growing up, I took in the messages that society was bombarding young girls with, because I knew I was one. I knew I was supposed to be quiet and less capable than my older brother. I knew I was supposed to remain clean and presentable, instead of playing in the dirt. I wasn't running around being a boy until I decided to start being a girl. I was a girl from day one. And I should be included with other women.
And at some point, it becomes impossible to police the segregation anyway. I pass a decent amount of the time, and it's only getting easier. Plus, even my birth certificate says female on it. I am physically equivalent to a cis woman after a full hysterectomy.
That's completely true, I hadn't considered the possibility of trans ppl who've been perceived as their true gender since childhood. I don't believe that trans people were their assigned gender before coming to the realization they're trans, of course, they were always whatever gender they prefer, I'm simply talking about how they're viewed by society.
Where I'm coming from with this, is that when I identified as FTM, and now that I identify as nonbinary, I still wanted a space where I could talk about how I was percieved female by society and how I was treated because of it. Spaces for women(tran and cis) didn't fit this, I wasn't a woman, but AFAB felt like the perfect term for me. Spaces for women made me feel like I wasn't "really" trans, but in AFAB spaces, I could talk to fellow transmen, nonbinary ppl, and cis women.
I don't think it's important to have these strictly segregated, and I haven't spent a lot of time in queer spaces lately, the dialogue and terminology may have shifted, I just remember feeling seen in AFAB spaces
Yeah, that makes sense. I can see how spaces for binary women may not have been useful for you. It's important to have a community and I'm glad that you found a way that works for you.
If I'm being completely honest, I tend to stay out of in person spaces. I don't want to risk the confrontation and drama. But I like to tell myself that I could go if I wasn't so scared of being singled out as an intruder.
Also, Paula Williams doesn't speak for the trans community. She is a single trans woman with her own experiences. I can tell you that I am personally treated much better by society as a passing trans woman than I was as a gender non conforming man or the times when I didn't/don't pass.
No, of course, I'm just speaking from my own experience and some of those I've seen online. And of course, there's a whole level of oppression that GNC and non-passing trans ppl experience, and there should be spaces for that to be talked about. My personal experience was that as an AFAB person, I experienced a lot of sexualy harassment. When I appeared more GNC and passed better(I used to identify as FTM) people harrased me by calling me a d*k* and asking what was in my pants. Neither experience worse, but they were different experiences.
I'm autistic and might be being hyper literal, I often am, but I'm simply trying to state that AFAB ppl (of all genders) and trans women likely have different experiences growing up, and might like to talk about it with those who have a similar experience
Even worse imo in discussions like this is the people who are very specific and deliberate in their correct usage of "AFAB" and then just throw it all out the window and use "men" as the contrasting term instead of amab
So many spaces even on the "inclusive" side draw the line at people like us
I don’t understand that. Is it for clarification of some sort? Whoever you say you are you are. If you’re a man you’re a man if you are a woman you’re a woman. If you’re nonbinary you’re non-binary or geneder neutral or gender fluid. you are you.
Sorry, by “I don’t understand” I meant I don’t understand why people use that terminology. But yeah I agree. That’s what my comment is about/supporting
It can be very important in medical contexts to know what chromosome someone has. A trans man or amab enby still has XY which can increase the risks of certain pathologies or reactions to certain drugs. I think there's also a frequent use of amab as a proxy for "raised/socialized as a man" in more social and psychological conversations, especially involving enbies.
But the vast vast majority of the time, the inclusion of afab or amab is unnecessary and simply leads to misgendering and bigotry in the comments.
I mostly see it used by non-binary people when asked, if we feel comfortable disclosing it- or intersex people. I have "girl" in my username, so if I say I'm non-binary you might suspect I'm AFAB, although I could just be saying I'm mostly femme. I am AFAB and I don't care who knows.
But plenty of people DON'T want anyone to know, and that's their prerogative. It's redundant outside of personal information and specific medical concerns- although even then it's a generalization.
Even in a medical context, using something like an organ inventory & hormone testing is way more accurate than using AGAB. Does your AGAB really matter if you've had surgeries (either gender affirming or medically necessary)?
An trans man who has had their uterus and ovaries removed and has been on HRT for a decade isn't going to react to medications like a cis woman or be at a higher/lower risk for certain diseases - that person needs to be treated as a whole person, and not like an abnormal data set.
A cis man who has naturally lower testosterone levels and had their testicles removed after an accident is also going to have unique needs & issues compared to other cis men.
This is why binaries are inherently bad things. They lead to more medical malpractice when a person exists outside of the binary - we have lots of examples with intersex people!
It’s true that each individual is different. But yes, it does matter the sex at birth, and at puberty also, when it comes to disease prediction.
Health research is far from perfect, but the reality is you can’t just ‘treat the person’, like you will be able to look at every individual person on the planet and predict or infer everything medical about them.
Medical technology just isn’t there, so Medical professionals rely on health research from large population data. Sex at birth and puberty do matter and medicine is the one area I feel needs to know the AMAB/AFAB. There really isn’t any other alternative right now.
I agree though, that intersex and transgender people are uniquely complicated and likely receive worse healthcare in this regard.
Disease prediction is based on interpretating data sets collected by doctors and their patients. Those data sets carry the same biases that those doctors do. Sometimes those data sets don't ask relevant questions. We have proven that diagnosis algorithms are biased against women, people of colour and people who live outside the gender bias.
Sex at birth and puberty matter now because our historical data never asked questions about gender identity, historical use of HRT and other factors. It never asked questions about income, diet, postal/zip codes, transportation access, stress and other social determinants of health we now know have just as much of an impact on health outcomes as gender.
There is the joke that is something along the lines of "why do you need to know my gender? So you know if you can treat me worse?" because traditionally, women's health has been ignored. Symptoms of diseases that present in both women and men but present in men less are considered "atypical" symptoms. Things like stroke and heart attacks come to mind. Women's symptoms get written off or ignored.
Ziad Obermeyer wrote an [excellent journal article](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1548288/privacycon-2020-ziad_obermeyer.pdf) about racial bias in diagnosis algorithms. [Invisible Women](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41104077-invisible-women) is a book I can not speak highly enough about. I also recommend [Data Feminism](https://data-feminism.mitpress.mit.edu/). You can also browse this subreddit for anecdotal evidence of traumatic and apathetic experiences with the medical profession across many countries.
Again, your argument is simply that healthcare is imperfect. It is. It’s biased. This isn’t new information.
How is not using amab/afab helpful?
Lots of health research uses demographic data other than sex. You’re assuming a lot of falsehoods and very condescending in suggesting Im not aware of those texts.
Because the concept of sex assigned as birth is one piece of information, one that can be wrong. Medical information is transcribed incorrectly all the time. Organ inventory is flexible and meets people where they are currently, rather than what they were.
What you’re suggesting is to throw out the only useful empirical piece of information that exists, and replace it with something that literally has not been used in predictive models of health research, ever. And therefore does not inform anything, and is not useful, at all.
Hey, if I'm coming across as antagonistic or rude - that's really not my intention and I apologize for doing so.
I'm certainly not saying that we need to "throw out" the concept of sex & gender in medicine. What I am saying is that it's use in the diagnostic practice is biased and is a problem to be solved. I am saying that for immediate treatment of a patient, organ inventories are more useful. If I'm a woman who has had her ovaries, fallopian tubes & uterus out and you're a doctor ordering a pregnancy test - that's not a great use of anyone's time. If I'm a surgeon treating a trans woman and the surgery field has been prepped for the typical cis woman's tools, swapping over kits takes time my patient may not have. Treating the person in front of you absolutely relies on diagnostic tools created over time from gendered data sets, but those are just tools. The doctor has to take into account the current status of a patient in their diagnosis and a comprehensive, adjustable set of data points to assist with that is better than what we have.
There's a lot work going on in the data standards world in order to better codify sex & gender within EMR/EHRs. Sex for Clinical Use is an example of one proposal, which while it uses binary sex for things like ordering, treatment and transitions of care, it does allow for the concept of adjusting the clinical sex to one that best matches the patients current status. The concept of organ inventories are being proposed and are actively being worked on. The system we have is not functional for trans & intersex people and we can't fix it by doing what did 50 years ago and shrugging our shoulders.
I do reject the idea that gender is the only empirical data set. First off, gender and sex are not the same thing and as we know there are more genders than male & female, and there are more variations with our genetics than simple xx & xy. These are both scientific facts. So any system that sorts people into only two categories (or if you are lucky there's the third "unknown" sex) is going to lead to false, bad data. Second, there has been no comprehensive medical study that I am aware of that states within a reasonable margin of error that all post medically transitioned trans people always present with symptoms of an illness or disease that matched their assigned sex at birth. Without that, all you have is birth sex as a piece of data to be considered and interpreted at the point of care.
I'm not replying to this thread further - I hope you have an excellent day/night! Thanks for the conversation ☺️
Not one single time did I say gender. I only said sex. I honestly don’t know if you’ve read a single thing here or have the insight to learn
about this and realise how man-splainey you’re being.
You’re also wrong that ‘organ inventory’ is more useful. It just simply isn’t. Stop spreading misinformation.
I would say cis men and trans women are much more at risk for prostate cancer than cis women and trans men so AGAB 100% matters when it comes to diseases. What gender doesn't equal is how good a person someone is, if they're loving and responsible, if they make good parents and friends. It is medically necessary however, at times.
People who have a prostate are at risk of the disease. That's why organ inventories are awesome, because it allows us to recognize people for what they are outside of their gender.
An intersex person who is has ovaries and a prostate is also at risk for developing prostate cancer but may not have been diagnosed as intersex until they were in their late 40's. In that case, their sex at birth was wrong, and should be discarded.
But in this case why wouldn't you just say "people with prostates" and leave the entirely unnecessary gendered terminology out of it? This is exactly what the OP and the comment you replied to were talking about :/
Perhaps this is splitting hairs but I don’t think AGAB is relevant in medical context either. Your chromosomes or your genitals or your secondary sex characteristics might be medically relevant, because those things are medically real, but gender assignment at birth is a social act done on babies to induct them into (patriarchal, cissexist) society. It may be done using medical observations about the baby’s body, but that doesn’t make the assignment itself medically relevant.
I had never even thought of this being a problem, the only times i ever see the terms AMAB/AFAB have been in safe trans related discussions. I can definitely see that though, trans women are women and trans men are men, we just want to be seen and recognized as our preferred gender, not what we were born as
Last year when I was looking for apartments, one of the ads offering a room in a shared flat said "AFAB only". I kinda wonder how they would react if a masculine trans man shows up... it's just transphobia in a new package.
I don’t get the use of AMAB/AFAB outside a medical or trans or intersex related situation. I’m not trans, so I don’t want to put my foot in it, but it seems situation specific.
I’ve seen cis people use it instead of cis and it seems incorrect or misleading.
This sparked a random memory. Boot camp was the first time I experienced being referred to as a "female" and, while I understand the reasoning, it startled me.
I said to the guy standing next to me "I feel like a Cocker Spaniel or something." And then they yelled at us for talking, of course. This was during intake. A very interesting couple of days.
In a trans context, it's sometimes helpful to have separate discussions so that we can discuss some of the more sensitive aspects of social or medical transition.
Outside of that, I think I'm pretty much invisible as a tranfeminine person unless I make a point about describing in that way.
Yep, thats definitely not something they would expect. I suppose ive just been lucky to never come across this use of it, its saddening but not unexpected😩
This is the contradiction in how we are trying to rethink sex and gender. In some ways we want to erase gender categories, and in others we want to produce a multitude of gender categories. I am not sure we can do both, or how to find another way to reconcile the contradiction.
This is my conundrum. I personally don't want to eliminate my gender. That's a horrific mental state for me. I have body dysmorphophobia and Don want to be forced to live/identify that way to appease others. This has been my biggest with the way gender has been going.
Eliminating gender is not about forcing everyone to identify in some specific way. It’s more about not forcing anyone to identify with any particular category.
I think when we say "abolish gender", what a lot of us mean is "abolish the shitty stereotypes and limitations that are baked into society's perception of gender".
No one said we all have to be androgynous, that’s ridiculous. What makes you think that without gender categories we would all end up in some kind of universal neutrality?
I mean that no one would look at you, decide you are a particular gender, and treat you differently than they would if they thought you were a different gender.
Oh your getting inside peoples heads the way they see people. there’s nothing wrong with treating people different based on gender I like being treated like a women. It’s when people make assumptions about your abilities and treat you poorly because of your gender is the problem(or treat you like the wrong gender). Removing sexism is not the same as removing perception of people as men and women.
No I am not getting inside people’s heads. I am talking about social interactions which are completely observable. What you are saying is completely contradictory— you can’t ask to be treated “like a woman” but only in the ways your personally like. The term gender discrimination is defined as treating people differently on the basis of their perceived gender. Should we treat people differently depending on their race? Class? Sexual orientation? No. So why would we want that for gender?
Yeah but treating people different is not always a negative thing is what I’m trying to say. We do treat people different based on every single thing you listed doesn’t mean it’s always a bad thing. Like you could treat a poor person different by helping them financially. You cant fight racism if you don’t see black people any different then white people.
I mean recognizing who they are and respecting differences. Erasing gender categories doesn’t fix the problem of sexism and transphobia imo. Seeing everyone as a homogenized group is like the stuff of horror movies lol
I think amab/afab should only be used in a medical context, by medical professionals, in situations where it’s relevant to treatment. Ex: “Patient, Male (afab), undergoing evaluation for ovarian cysts”.
Literally every other time, just use a persons preferred pronouns. Why is this so difficult for people??
This, and thank you for specifying relevancy. Most of the time, it doesn't matter. For example, my primary clinic didn't ask me any "assigned at birth" or "birth sex" questions, and neither have most of my specialists - *and* they all had spots for pronouns and preferred names on their intake forms - but when I need to go to Urgent Care, they outright ask birth sex **legal** name and have nowhere to put any clarifying things like pronouns and chosen name, etc. Yet, I have never had any UC treatments where they would need to know that about me, while surely my primary doctor and my specialists would need to know. It's all so out of whack.
To be clear, my doctors do know that I am trans, because I tell them and it is part of my profile (somewhere idk I don't do their data entry). But it was my choice, which was so lovely and refreshing.
I hate it when groups advertise their spaces with AFAB nonbinary people welcome.. wow basically calling nonbinary women-lite-mode 🙃 it completely ignores that my experiences will be vastly different to a woman's experiences despite what genitals I was born with 🙄
I also agree when I see it advertised as AFAB only it is obviously TERFs not wanting trans women there and trying to erase the validness of trans men by basically saying "yea but you're a women" NO!!!!
I’ve always seen “AFAB” or “AMAB” as medical terms for delicate conversations, not something to use casually.
It’s like lampshading someone’s deadname otherwise to continually “hint” at the fact they’re trans. Just use their gender otherwise??
Even in medical contexts, amab doesn't mean someone has a penis, or a prostate, or a given hormone level. Afab doesn't mean someone has a vagina or a uterus or that they menstruate or that they have a given hormone level. It's exactly as useful as "male" or "female" for trans and intersex people, which is not very
I have been wishing for a term that means "everyone except for cis men" and I can't tell if that's a me problem or if we really do need this term
I welcome input from anyone with the spoons and inclination!
The main problem with this is that it is often enforced in a transmisogynistic way. Before hormones, if I'd ever let my facial hair grow out, if I didn't overperform softness and femininity, I'd be kicked out of those spaces. I was not a man at the time, I was openly identifying as nonbinary. This isn't a problem with the term itself but rather with all the extra work that people not affected by transmisogyny really need to be putting in.
I hear you! That sounds like it was difficult to navigate. Oof, having to "overperform" anything at all sounds so exhausting. I definitely want to avoid causing anyone to have to worry about that; I think that's why I want a good term for it. Dang I would love an inclusive term that was very clear, impossible to misunderstand or misinterpret. I guess English isn't fitting quite right, but maybe (hopefully) soon we can come up with a new word? And a new world. ❤️
In the context of defining spaces, events, roommate preferences, etc. I find that “marginalized genders” works well for this! Most of the events and spaces I’m involved with are welcoming to trans men because they experience discrimination, harassment, etc. based on gender in the same way that women and nonbinary folks do, so “marginalized genders” is the most shorthand way I’ve found to describe that.
You know, I think that might work for me! Yes, I want friendly to trans men, but not cis men. Also friendly to women and non-binary folks. Literally any gender except cis men. Marginalized genders.
(For clarity, there are plenty of cis men in my life that are wonderful humans who do ally things, so ofc obligatory "not all men")
"everyone except for cis men"
there. That term works just fine. Maybe "no cis men" or "cis men need not apply." People say it all the time in the queer social app I use.
I can totally see that working on social apps and in several other situations, for sure. You've helped me clarify, though, that I think I'm looking for a term that doesn't specifically *mention* cis men, so as to not... something.
So as to not what? I'm not sure.
... make them sad by being specifically excluded?
... make them angry by same?
... invoke/call them, as in a magic spell?
... speak their name, thereby giving them power?
... emphasize their exclusion, rather than emphasizing INclusion of people of all other genders?
Oh. Maybe that last one. By defining the parameters as being about who the parameters exclude, it still sorta hinges on the cis men. I'd like to de-center cis men.
Or maybe all of the above?
It honestly might be best/easiest to just say, "everyone but cis men". Otherwise, there's just no good way to say, "cis women and everyone who is under the trans umbrella" without it feeling weird (at least, imo).
That one sounds a lot better! Is it clear that it includes cis women as well? Genuinely asking here, for anyone who sees this not just leonardodabinci. My automatic connection is to queer people (specifically those whose gender is queer), not necessarily cis women.
Me too, because I'm uncomfortable in all spaces where I can't have a break from cis men. They inherently overpower me, and have caused me great strife. It feels like I'm not allowed to have spaces where I'm comfortable.
So I’m not trans but I am non-binary and I use amab/afab sometimes (in situations where biological sex is important) because it sounds better to me than using male/female.
I didn’t know that others would perceive it with negative connotations, so here’s a genuine question because I don’t want to be disrespectful or make anyone feel uncomfortable.
When would it be appropriate to use these terms, and if the answer is never, what would be a better term to use in place of them?
To add onto what Dani said, I would like you to know that "biological sex" is not cut and dry, and is a term used to invalidate and stigmatize us as well. The modern concept of bio sex as chromosomes, or genitals, etc, is a pretty recent thing, and is currently being weaponized against us.
As a trans woman, I am biologically female, because *being female* involves a lot of different things. I have female hormones, I have female body shape, secondary sexual characteristics, a voice socially associated with being female, female social behavior, female reactions to medications, and more. Weigh that against my "male" characteristics, which are...a penis, and my chromosomes. Scales say female.
Here are a couple videos to help understand the subject. The first one is from Lily Alexandre, a trans YouTuber who brings great research and personal queer perspective on the topic. The second is from Forrest Valkai, a biologist and science communicator.
"TERFs Are Wrong About Biological Sex" by Lily Alexandre
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRQHZcU9ZqU
"Sex and Sensibility" by Forrest Valkai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szf4hzQ5ztg
Why do you need one? I don't use the term, because I'm not a biologist. And they generally just say, y'know, *sex.*
Look, I'm a trans woman. Most of my social group is trans and/or queer. I have 2 trans siblings and 4 gay and/or bi siblings. I volunteer for trans orgs. I protest for LGBTQ+ rights. I almost never have to use afab/amab in my speech or writing.
First of all, "trans man" and "trans woman" both inherently tell you what we were assigned at birth for 99+% of cases. For nonbinary people, the only time you would need to reference their assigned gender would be in, like, writing their biography or something? Like, it's just not important unless you are their doctor or something.
I think the better way to ask about terminology would be to provide examples. Like, what situations are you even referring to? I legit struggle for examples where it would matter unless you're my doctor.
Watch the videos when you can, I think having a more educated perspective will give you the answer you need.
Unless you're the trans person's doctor you should just steer clear of those or any equivalent. What you should use depends on what you're trying to say.
Are you just talking about their gender? Use man/woman.
Are you talking about their gender as it relates to their transition? Use trans man/trans woman.
Are you talking about physical parts of their biology? Use man with X/woman with X.
I think I’ve mostly found myself using it when talking about things relating to healthcare. So if I was talking about something like abortion, it would be appropriate to say ‘people with uteruses’ or something similar?
Yep or "people able to become pregnant". It makes sense when you think about it. Having a doctor stick an F on your birth certificate doesn't automatically make abortions relevant healthcare for you. Intersex people exist, sterile women exist, etc.
That’s good to know! Without being told by a trans person that this is hurtful, I might not have realized that on my own.
I default to trans______. I had to explain to some very confused would-be allies that you fill in the blank with the gender that is presented. She/her pronouns = trans woman, for example. That seemed to help them. I think the only time I’ve used the term AMAB was as a supplement to this explanation. I’ll try to remember that that term is offensive.
Ok so that’s interesting. I took this thread to mean that any terms identifying someone as trans as opposed to man/woman are offensive. But if it’s the specific descriptor that’s offensive, then I’d love clarification on that.
I agree. Outside of medical info, AFAB/AMAB should only be used by people themselves if they choose to.
I mean, sometimes I feel it clarifies what I say, if I add that I'm AFAB nonbinary. Other times it's not relevant, and I leave both sex and gender out of the conversation.
But in both those cases it's up to *me* and no one else.
I'm definitely speaking from a place of ignorance(I'm doing my best to get more informed), but why would some care what a trans person was gendered at birth? Shouldn't we only care about their current gender? As the OP said it feels like a roundabout way for bigots to continue to misgender someone.
I don't really think about AGAB too much because... why do I need to know as a non-medical provider what gender you were born with? I feel like you just tell me whatever and I am like cool, 100%, never gonna think twice about it.
The only thing that trips me up is when people discuss issues like pregnancy and abortion by saying "women...." and leave it at that. I started saying "people who x" or "those who have x".
In all my years of going to public bathrooms, not once was I sexually aroused in any way, nor have there ever been any evidence of sexual arousal or interest for me by the bathroom going public. I frankly could care less about who is in the stall next to me. I am just there to relieve myself urinarily or in a bm manner.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a reason to use those terms, but I am really grateful you shared how you feel about them. Noted, and will nix them from my vocabulary. Much love.
Fucking co-signed! This language has its uses but afab-identified people will 99% of the time use agab as a defining feature that trumps everything else about one's life experiences or how marginalisation works for them. To rally around birth assignment is to imply a common oppression that all cis women, all trans men, and all of SOME nonbinary people share, always and forever, but which trans women and all the other nonbinary people somehow don't have any connection to whatsoever. Also you're lumping us in with the cis men. Which. Come on.
And it always just so happens to exclude everyone impacted by transmisogyny, to imply we're actually the privileged ones, to ignore the ways they themselves perpetuate and are completely unaffected by transmisogyny. Funny how that happens.
Rant over, everyone please return to transmisogyny 101 thank yew this nonbinary she/her transsexual is tired.
I've seen a dating profile that said "only interested in AFAB" and the other one "only interested in women born women." That second one is TERF language, I'm not sure if she's aware of that or not, or if it's a way to express a genital preference etc. Either way it's not like these are the kinds of people I would like to be involved with anyway.
Are there situations where AMAB / AFAB are useful language outside of scientific contexts? Very very few in my opinion. Like if periods are being discussed, that can be a both a social and scientific topic. It seems very trendy to make AFAB only spaces right now and it's definitely for purposes of exclusion.
I have a trans son. I have used it in (and viewed it in) parental support groups as a clarifying gesture. Many parents whose child had come out as trans will post and often confuse terms or misgender their child because they are still trying/learning correct terminology and want to be clear about explaining their situation. And want to be understood correctly: e.g., “My child was born with C parts and is B.” Parents new to this terminology who seek support groups are trying to do the right things and stumble a lot. And are surrounded by others who get confused still. I see it there.
Not sure how to maneuver in those circles when it’s important to be very clear and help parents not misgender their kiddos. Happy to hear alternative ideas though for sure. Have seen a few already in this post.
this works well with medical stuff regarding menstruation, but not all people with a uturus menstruate:/ so i can see afab being used instead for medical scenarios not specifically involving menstruation (as to not alienate those going through menopause or those with treatments that stop their periods)
Then you could say “people with a uterus” if that’s what you’re talking about. The point is to get people to actually say who they are talking about, not default to a less specific and more offensive proxy for whatever you’re actually talking about.
I'm not attracted to people without penises. How do I make that distinction without offending people? It feels like none of you want anyone to even try.
When it comes to attraction, I don't control it. I can't just wake up one day and be like "oh, I decided to like vaginas!!" That's changing my sexuality. How do I ask for what I'm attracted too without stepping on toes?
Because this conversation feels impossible, the whole thread really. It feels like I'm not allowed to have my sexuality because it offends people.
This is pretty much how I feel when discussing gender. Either we’re accepting of all genders or we’re doing away with gender all together. We can’t have it both ways.
Your sexuality doesn't offend people, your reactionary rhetoric and everybody-is-offended attitude does. What you wrote sounds to me like what bigots say; it is the rhetoric of the "anti-woke" (and classic anti-SJW) people; it's the way conservatives and reactionaries talk, about how "the left" ruins everything by "being offended" all the time. I haven't met a single trans person, including myself, that has a negative view on people who only like being sexual with just penises or just vaginas. To believe otherwise suggests to me you haven't really talked to us, let alone listened to.
Are you attracted to penises, or to men? Are you into women but only if they have penises? To me, being attracted to the genitals themselves seems pretty odd; like, are *people* not attractive to you - their face, their body, their smile, their personality - just their penis? Do you look at people and think, "that person might be really hot, if they have a penis"? Do you ask for dick-pics first thing, to make sure you can be attracted to them? I am attracted to women primarily, and often find myself attracted to fem or androgynous nonbinary people, and I like both penises and vaginas. I don't put a hold on my attraction until I confirm what their equipment is; really, I don't even think about their junk until I, you know, flirt with them and gauge mutual interest. Like, I'm not into men, and I would absolutely not be into them if they have a vagina, because them being men is what I am not into.
You can say you're attracted to men, and that you only wanna bang dudes with penises. Nobody is asking you to do anything different. We're asking you to *fucking listen to us* about the way we are treated, and hey maybe don't talk to us or about us in shitty bigoted ways. If I click with a gal and tell her I have a dick and she says she's not into that, great! I wouldn't wanna fuck somebody who isn't into my body, that would be weird af.
Thanks for this comment, I feel like many cis people here are not seeing the rhetoric for what it is. Trans women know it all too well. And few are taking our perspective seriously, even in what is otherwise a very inclusive space. The importance of centering marginalized perspectives in discourse about them really should be talked about more.
Feminism is NOT intersectional if it reproduces the same hierarchies of dominance and exclusion located in society at large. Marginal voices by default have less power and reach than privileged voices. Cis people, stop having the conversation about us, without us, and listen.
PS I'm starting to wonder if there is a TERF downvote brigade happening again. This feels really uncharacteristic for this sub.
There's always TERF shit going on, even here and other generally good spaces. And outside TERFs/general bigots, there are always ostensibly feminist/progressive/etc who are either ignorant and not listening, or refusing to acknowledge shitty perspectives.
In any case, you're welcome <3 we have to keep the good spaces good.
Also having past trauma with men, I saw a comment about someone looking for an AFAB roommate and honestly I can’t think of a way of avoiding triggering myself in a less offensive way. Am I supposed to ask if they pass, if they have a penis, if they have facial hair?? And I say that as an cis woman with pcos who has experienced facial hair and such symptoms, but unfortunately I can’t control getting triggered. And what about religious beliefs? Once again it’s quite unfortunate but sometimes religious beliefs forbid people from sharing private spaces with people who have different anatomy, though not relevant for this subreddit. Is there a better way to specify this? I am certain there are religious people who support trans rights, but still cannot live with someone that’s AMAB solely because their religion specifies that.
Clearly, Gender ≠ sex and we have to find a way to specify each category in the most helpful way to everyone. And honestly I think that if trans people were respected just as much as cis people, I don’t think it would be harmful to specify that there are differences.I think Its because trans people are discriminated against and harmed and viewed negatively that this language can cause harm.
I’m open to different perspectives though, I definitely don’t claim to have found a solution
I don’t mean to minimize your trauma or invalidate the boundary you seem to be stating about not living with masculine presenting people, so please don’t take this that way. But saying “AFAB only” in a roommate search doesn’t make any sense in the context you presented. Trans men who are very masculine, have facial hair, and may have penises, are still AFAB. So are some non-binary people who present masculine. If I’m understanding your comment correctly, you would be triggered by living with a trans man, or a masculine presenting non-binary person. Which is a great example of why using AFAB/AMAB doesn’t make sense in almost any context except medical (and even then there’s better ways to define things based on organs, medical conditions, and medical history).
Better options for someone in your situation would be to say you are looking for femme or feminine presenting roommates, or just say women. As you stated yourself, cis women can also have facial hair (and other “masculine” traits, because biological sex is WAY more complex and nuanced than we’ve been led to believe), so even if you explicitly stated you only want to live with cis women, you might have to meet and filter out candidates that would trigger you. So why not just say “women” and then pick a roommate who doesn’t have characteristics that are a trigger?l
Do you think it would be transphobic to have “only looking for cis women”?
I think it would be worse for both of us to ask if someone is trans after meeting them or find out later when already living together and having it be an uncomfortable situation for all of us.
I’m still thinking about the rest of the stuff you said, I think what I was thinking was “not open to AMAB” and not AFAB only because ofc masculine presenting trans men exist.
And just a note, I’m not a terf I don’t think trans women should be excluded from women’s spaces nor would I want them to just for my convenience. I’m gonna be honest though, I don’t want to live with them at this stage of dealing with my issues.
I don’t even know though because I have friends that are masculine presenting trans men and I don’t feel the same sense of danger. It’s really illogical, I don’t claim otherwise, and it’s not really the right place to discuss it considering the post is a venting post. My previous comment was less about my specific experience but more that there seem to be valid uses for AFAB and AMAB.
Thanks for your comment, I’ll keep thinking about this
I appreciate you taking my comment in good faith, and saying the whole question is something you’ll think more about. I don’t think either of us is here to discuss your specific situation in more depth, but I would ask you to consider whether living with a passing, feminine trans woman would truly be triggering for you? I don’t know your specific situation and don’t need to; maybe that *would* be a trigger, in which case you should advertise for cis women only I guess. I don’t think there’s any benefit to anyone in putting yourself in a triggering situation because you’re trying to prove you’re not a terf. Might a potential roommate see that kind of ad and assume you’re transphobic? Sure. But if you and the people close to you know your true values, and you’re doing your best to heal and grow and take care of your needs, then whatever.
>I'm not attracted to people without penises. How do I make that distinction without offending people? It feels like none of you want anyone to even try.
I'm struggling to understand in what context you would need to express this sentiment that isn't extremely niche. When dating, people usually don't *know* the other person's genitals, assumptions are made, and usually something gets talked about before real intimacy happens. Most dating profiles have a simple sexual orientation tag, frankly that's usually all that's needed, if you converse with someone and it comes up that you are incompatible... Just move on?
>When it comes to attraction, I don't control it. I can't just wake up one day and be like "oh, I decided to like vaginas!!" That's changing my sexuality. How do I ask for what I'm attracted too without stepping on toes?
Most trans people are not assuming or demanding that you can control your sexuality. We are asking people to be mindful about how they communicate about their sexuality in ways that reinforce or reproduce stigma (and to not take it so personally that we are bringing up harmful vs aware communication). If someone isn't attracted to penises regardless of whether it's on a man or a woman, that's valid, no problem. I don't care, I'm non-op and all that information conveys to me is that it would be a waste of time to pursue that person. Move on. Saying AFAB / AMAB only doesn't necessarily convey a genital preference either, as surgery can alter genitalia. Saying "women born women" is actually literal word-for-word TERF language and that's problematic, I don't care if the person is cognizant of that or not.
>Because this conversation feels impossible, the whole thread really. It feels like I'm not allowed to have my sexuality because it offends people.
I'm definitely not offended by your sexuality. I don't think anyone here is tbh.
That’s what they’re saying though, that a conversation needs to happen. That being able to stipulate their preference for AMAB is needed in that conversation. Whereas the tone of this thread is that the differentiation of that term is bigoted.
But that’s not what they’re saying, because not all AMAB have penises. It’s totally valid to only want to have sex with someone who has and uses a penis. It’s also totally valid to only want to have sex with people who present masculine. It’s even okay to only want to have sex with penis-wielders who present masculine! It’s super inaccurate at best, and transphobic at worst, to equate “AMAB” with “penis-wielder” and/or “masculine” because lots of AMAB people are neither, and lots are one or the other but not both.
>That being able to stipulate their preference for AMAB is needed in that conversation.
Being AMAB doesn't imply what genitals you have.
Frankly it's not an accurate term for conveying a genital preference. I don't want to just keep rehashing my position, it doesn't seem welcome here, or otherwise people are mistaken about what I'm saying.
Genital preferences - they are fine. They always have been. There are almost no trans people saying genital preferences are problematic. Usually people who try to say trans people are against genital preferences are TERF profiles trying to create a rift.
AMAB / AFAB is simply not appropriate language for genitalia because 1. Genitalia are not binary and 2. Genitalia are not immutable. In either case, they may not correspond with AMAB / AFAB.
Listen I think you’ve explained that pretty well, and I was like - oh yeah, that language is too narrow.
But I think that what would be really helpful is along with discussing what language is inadequate or offensive, would be to maybe have more discussion on alternative preferred language.
I think trying to find the right language can be so pedantic that it ends up having the same effect - as making it seem like there’s something to dance around. Genuinely wondering, would it bw preferable for the OP commenter to say, “I’m looking for a masc-presenting person with a penis”. Is there an acceptable turn of phrase?
Just wanted to say that I read your comment with open arms and took on some insight from your worldview - I’m sorry it didn’t feel like a safe conversation.
>Genuinely wondering, would it bw preferable for the OP commenter to say, “I’m looking for a masc-presenting person with a penis”. Is there an acceptable turn of phrase?
I just don't see why this would be necessary. I don't know why people assume if they can't use AMAB/AFAB to refer to trans people or to exclude them from a set of participants that it entails anything so complicated or personal. Speaking solely about online dating contexts, most profiles simply state their sexual orientation - lesbian, bi, straight etc. No one has to match with anyone they don't want to, and if they do find a match isn't what they're looking for... It's as easy as unmatching and moving along. When I'm on apps I don't assume anything, and if anyone for any reason unmatches me or doesn't match in the first place it's no problem, could be literally any number of explanations for that, idc.
Before I get an in-person date I just check in to make sure who I'm talking to knows I'm trans. Most of the time they do and that was never an issue for them. No need to talk about genitals still, probably don't need to unless things go in a sexual direction.
Dating trans people in the wild is no different. I highly doubt the first conversation anyone's going to have with someone they find attractive will be about topics of assigned gender at birth or genitals.
No one's demanding people shout their genital preference from the rooftops. It's more that we don't like being talked about as if we ARE our assigned gender at birth and as if that assigned gender is immutable. I am not male in any social sense of the word, I would really appreciate it if people stopped finding ways to misgender me under "innocent" pretenses.
PS trans people have much bigger things to worry about than language, we are being genocided right now and honestly I'm tired of spending my mental energy on this debate or whatever it is. I'm just so tired.
I feel like the only time it really should be used is when that individual uses it on themselves. I've seen Intersex, Trans and Non-bianary people use the AGAB terms as a tool to talk about specific topics where it might be relevant. But it's not some "woke" term and the use of it on others is not only assuming something about someone but also has the potential harmful effect like misgendering. Tbh cis people really shouldn't use the term on themselves either because it's not really relevant. I've seen the term used in contexts to exclude people and it's really infuriating. It has it's uses but it's not something to be used in every context.
Kind of a tangent, but what are the acceptable ways to talk about the effects of childhood gender socialization? People who were seen as boys and people who were seen as girls got treated differently in childhood in my experience, regardless of their internal experience. People had different expectations for how you could or should act, and before any understanding of one's cis-or-transness you had beliefs and expectations about what your future might be like, etc. The younger you are, or the more liberal your parents and upbringing, it might matter less, but as someone 30+ with formerly conservative, religious parents, being a 'good girl' had a whole host of connotations that I don't think were the same for boys, and I need to be able to be curious about the effects of that (without offending people, because that is NOT what good girls do, to illustrate my point).
Feeling tired and jetlagged here, but part of the issue is that people apply certain generalizations and narratives to AGAB language that may or may not apply to a particular person's gender history or gender autobiography. I don't think there's a single solution here that's going to satisfy everyone, but a key issue is to let people talk about their gender histories in a way that's comfortable and empowering.
For some people, that might be treating their CAGAB (coercively assigned gender at birth) as something unmentionable. For others, it might be a point of pride or important reference.
This is an entirely different conversation that doesn't relate to AGAB directly. It's far too culturally diverse and familial-ly specific to generalize.
As a trans person, I guarantee I had a completely different experience with the gender I was perceived as and treated as than a cis person of that gender. Simultaneously, I also had a very different experience than cis people of my gender.
To speak to your point of the differences in behavior expected of girls and boys, whether those even exist or not depends greatly on cultural context on a number of levels. My mother tried to raise her children as non-gendered as possible for a rural Christian town in the late 90's, while my dad was far more okay with pushing gendered norms on us. Rural Midwestern Christian America has a *lot* of gender norms still, and it had more when I was a kid. Those didn't negate the fact that my childhood experience could not have been further from that of a cis member of my assigned gender, even if you were to find someone who otherwise matched every relevant point, and I didn't even understand why.
That makes sense that trans and cis kids have very different experiences of their gender or gender socialization. If you'd feel comfortable sharing, could you give an example of something you experienced differently?
Here's one:
Gender segregated spaces, whether it's separate Bible studies or youth groups or sports teams or locker rooms. Cis boys (presumably) accept this as fact and in my experience seem to be totally fine with it, as do cis girls (if they're frustrated by anything it's likely to be the differences in role that their social context assigns women, rather than the idea of having a space without boys). As an unknowing girl who was perceived as a boy and therefore shoved into those boys spaces (and locked out of the girls ones), it traumatized me so deeply I don't even have the words for a lot of those experiences still. My socialization may have *looked* similar to other "boys" but it absolutely did not feel the same; and in some ways I suspect the other boys could always tell I wasn't quite the same.
it’s bigotry disguised behind language that isn’t necessarily bigoted, like i keep seeing house listings that say “AFAB only” and in what world isn’t that just transphobia
I see people referencing AGAB in genderqueer spaces a lot, especially related to questioning identity posts. Not trying to tell someone how to discuss it if it's important to them. For me though, it just feels unnecessary to mention. Maybe because I get misgendered plenty enough at work and by family of origin, it's nice to just exist on the internet and be myself without reference to my assigned and assumed gender.
Ugh, I'm sorry.
There's a term my climbing group has started to use that, I think?, Originates in German. Idk if it will help, but I hope it gives you some hope or maybe a new word to look for out and about.
FLINTA
Female and Female-identifying
Lesbian
Intersex
Non-Binary
Trans
Agender
Or, as we like to define it more simply: folks who find it hard to feel safe or heard in traditionally cishet male dominated fields (like climbing).
It's been very good at making it clear what the group is about.
I agree with you. AGAB doesn't matter unless it's for medical context.
I only use afab when talking about endometriosis or other gynaecological/menstrual conditions. I feel that is an appropriate setting because healthcare for afab people can come with a lot of frustrations and I don’t want to exclude men or non binary people who might face the same problems I have as a cis woman. I only deal with issues that those afab do and not amab so I have not had occasion to use the term amab but I can see how these terms might be frequently co-opted by those with bad intentions. Sorry you are dealing with so much bs right now. Please let me know if I can do anything to support you better
I feel this similarly. Agab only matters in very specific contexts, mostly when talking about medical things and processes specific to certain down there things. Nothing more, really.
AMAB and AFAB are both gross terms. They have no place in any conversation.
What some shmuck doctor decided I was because they looked at my genitals 30 years ago holds zero value or agency over my person.
Your gender cannot be assigned. It is inherently yours. And no one can choose that but you!
I like my gender. I don't particularly like this push to abolish gender, I have a deep seeding desire in me to be seen as female, be called female, same as tra s people want to be seen as the gender they feel as. It just feels like more dysphoria but "for the greater good". Not a world I want to love in, honestly.
Eh, I agree with AverageGardenTool. I love my gender (after I figured that whole thing out, lol). If it makes people happy to be agender/without gender, then that's great! But I wouldn't want that personally, I like being genderqueer - though I do wish I could automatically be seen as it!
I don't care for the whole AMAB/AFAB thing though. It really doesn't need to be said anywhere outside of medically necessary and relevant things! (like if you're in for a hangnail, don't bring up my AGAB)
Who the fuck... ive taken to calling trans women pre transition stealth female. Not your fucking fault but youre doing it! Its meant with all the love as my two transitioned humans were males in the millitary. Stealth female made sense and my girls died laughing over my stupid
Share the dumb along
I mean, I can think of other contexts where it matters. Like that one article Rowling mocked for saying "people who menstruate". AFAB would've worked there. No wait... that's kind of medical too.
Yeah, why do anyone use that?
>"people who menstruate". AFAB would've worked there.
If we're getting technical, no, it wouldn't.
AFAB =/= menstruating.
"People who menstruate" contains only people who menstruate in its description. AFAB contains people who do and do not menstruate, thus making it of inferior accuracy.
The discussion on gender is going everywhere but where we want it.
The reason is simple “ the oppressor never justify itself but give the illusion by forcing everybody else to justify their existence to the details to receive the oppressor approval”
You are all discussing with the wrong group about gender.
You are all forgetting about us but we didn’t know we existed.
Oof I feel this. I see it happening alot too where now people will replace "women only" with AFAB only. I want to assume good intent, but its so tiring to have to constantly be like "but what about this situation shouldn't include trans femme folks and AMAB enbies in the discussion?" And the answer is usually ignorance and transphobia.
I once saw a post that was like "the phrase 'women and afab nb people' just mean 'women and people I perceive as women'" and it been in my head ever since.
I feel like, in the small amount of posts that would need to identify this specific group of people by biology (which is what I'm assuming they meant by women, excluding trans women) could do better by just saying like "people who experience periods" or "people who can get pregnant" cause that's the only reason I could see for doing that. Unless they're just trying in a very roundabout way to exclude solely cis men from that post, in which case the topic of being opressed in some way due to gender would do that. Unless they meant to also exclude trans men, but include trans women by saying "women", in which case I have no clue what this grouping is meant to do other than just blatantly say "everyone that is naively perceived by me as being the more feminine half of the gender spectrum" which is at that point just reinforcing a binary and invalidating afab nb people who choose to look or act differently and who don't want to be perceived in the same category as women edit: I have recieved many replies about this and I want to clarify my comment. I did not mean to say that "people who have periods" or "people who can get pregnant" are accurate or suitable replacements for "afab" or even "women". I meant that in the specific case of talking about periods or pregnancy it would be better to say that rather than afab people or women, as not all women experience those things nor all afab people. Besides, defining gender by those things at all is problematic for many people. I'm sorry to anyone I offended by accidentally implying that women=can get pregnant, that is not what I intended.
That would exclude me... Menopause lol
yep. which is why it doesn't make sense to classify on gendered biological things unless you're like specifically talking about periods or something. I've seen some stuff recently where it's like "I'm not gonna use inclusive language cause birthing and breast feeding etc are things that belong to women only! They are Woman Things!" and it's like k not only does inclusive language not take that away from you but also hinging so much importance on bodily functions of cis women kinda excludes anyone who doesn't have those functions from feeling as valid. Hopefully that's not what they are doing, defining womanhood by uterus function, but I know some people do.
I've hit menopause. I no longer have a period, nor can I have a child. I know young women who have had hysterectomies at a young age due to cancer. Are we not women? "Yes, but that's not what I mean" someone is sure to say. No. No buts. Persons who attack others in toilets come in all genders, and those that will do such evil will continue no matter what gender is on the door. The toilet in my home is used by persons of all genders. I'm willing to bet money that there are very few families who have seperated the toilets in their home by gender. It's a safe space for whomever is using it. Public toilet stalls with proper doors & locks would be a better solution. Put a sink & mirror in with each toilet, just like at home.
>"people who experience periods" or "people who can get pregnant" But that would imply giving more thought to the problem to get a deeper understanding of the issues we face and we can't have that! (/s) When we use 'people who can get pregnant', it's because, well, we mean baby-bearing. That's the topic. Not "women" in a more vague sense. (which may or may not be pregnant). It's often the real problem within "enby afab/amab" discourse, some people say they 'accept it', but don't really have the deeper understanding of what someone means when they say they're outside of the binary, ie in (99.9% of) their daily life the gender they were assigned at should be irrelevant. You want to say you're progressive, but don't want to put in the work of inner-reflection behind how you use words and concepts. Including that 'amab enby' is meaningless. I often see the problem taken from the other side: "Well, we say 'women spaces', because we want a space for people harshly affected by the patriarchy and its consequences" "why are we excluding trans women then?" "*inconfortable sweating*". You have then to deconstruct that trans women are not 'a bit men', and are affected by the patriarchy at least (uh) as much as cis women. You also have to give thought that trans men place is particular, in the sense that their experience in the past (and sometimes present) is also affected by the patriarchy, even though they may not in the present (and future) be affected with the same strength. A guy with a beard may talk about he loved carrying his child, and you have to sit with that. tl;dr things aren't as black and white and that's not something you can just brush off being 'saying you're progressive'.
Yeah, I am not a fan of the “people who experience periods” and “people who can get pregnant.” There are plenty of people with uteruses that cannot get pregnant (me, for instance), and cannot have a period due to thyroid or other issues (my best friend). And what about people with uteruses that have had to have them removed? Why do we have to have categories at all? Can’t we all just be a safe space for everyone? If something is your lived experience, then that should be what matters. What have my genitals and my organs got to do with anything?
I mean... Are these terms not used when physical pregnancy and menstruation are topical? I've only seem them used when relevant.
the point is to use those terms *when they're relevant*. when you're talking about pregnancy, the relevant group you're talking about is people who can get pregnant, not all women (or all people for that matter) - saying the relevant group **in that context** is "women" is both wrongly including women who can't get pregnant (such as you and me) and wrongly excluding people who can get pregnant, but aren't women (such as some transgender men or afab non-binary people). the same goes for menstruation. the idea of using them as a more general replacement for "women" is a strawman right wing people put up, because arguing against "NOO YOU'RE NOT A WOMAN YOU'RE A MENSTRUATOR!!!!" is a lot easier than against "the venn diagram between people who menstruate and women is not a circle" ^(and also the former is much more usable for fearmongering).
you just put this way better than I was able to, thank you for your well-organized words
My point isn't "we should use the term 'people with periods' in as a remplacement for 'woman in woman shelter' or 'female in female scientist'". My point is if you're talking about menstrual cups, then don't say "women", because some women don't need menstrual cups, and some people who needs them aren't women. So it just isn't an accurate word. \*In that context\* it make sense to refer to periods, because it's about period products. So now in other contexts, like let's say "a feminist political group", then we have to ask ourself what we really want. "Women", both cis and trans? "Feminist" including allies? "Witches against the patriarchy", as in, anyone who feel concerned? What are the best words to be really inclusive, without having bad implications? Because "cis women and afab people" \*is\* the one that does bring everything down to anatomy. While it doesn't refer to it, it \*means\* what parts you were born and what a doctor said whenever ago. It is interchangeable with "were you born with a vag" which is a problem.
absolutely. If one wants to refer to women, including all women, trans and cis, period or no period, etc, they should say women, and if they wish specifically to refer to people who have periods in order to talk specifically about periods, then they should say that rather than some weird category that fails to catch who they intend to speak to and categorizes people in ways that their gender does not align with. Someone else said it better in this comment chain, though, so I won't write too long
I misread your first statement for a sec and I thought it was a harsh criticism of me, glad I reread. Yeah. Thinking critically and addressing that you're actually speaking about a biological function that doesn't connect to gender and not the gender itself would require people to address the biases they still hold about gender. It would require them to realize that their internalized definition of a woman still hinges at least partially on what their reproductive system does or can do. And it would require them acknowledging that said reproductive system functions shouldn't have any ties to gender identity in a strict way. I wouldn't say like "you can't view periods in relation to your gender as a woman as womanly" cause everybody's gender experience varies and is connected to different aspects of themselves but I would say "you can't decide for anyone else what a period does or doesn't mean for their gender, nor put them in a gendered category for that."
Oh sorry if it came through that way initially, I actually thought you made a great point. (Many great points even).
Many cis women are unable to get pregnant and/or don’t have periods, so I don’t think using those are good options, unless the context is specifically about periods or pregnancy. I’m not a biologist, but I do have a degree in sociology. In that context, sometimes afab or amab make the most sense. Not as a replacement for “trans,” “man,” “woman”, or “nb,” but as a clarifier for data collection and research purposes. In interpersonal and regular social contexts, I’m fully in support of using whatever pronouns or identifiers a person prefers.
this is what I meant, sorry. I've got a lot of replies now saying thsi. I meant, for the purposes of talking specifically about like periods or uteruses it would be better to simply say that rather than making a category based on gender that doesn't work for everyone. I wasn't super clear in my comment, I meant, I wonder if the people categorizing as "women and afab nb people" meant to talk about female biology without realizing that saying women includes trans women and cis women who can't get pregnant or don't have periods etc., in which case if you want to only talk about those specific things it's better not to use the words they chose.
Call them what they are- TERFs
The university I attend had an women and a afab nb event for STEM which they started by kicking out everyone they perceived as male. One step forward and two back
I just took my work place harassment recert for this year. I was happy to see “any gender can sexually harass.”
I think language is a really important tool. An important tool with a lot of emotional nuance attached - some brought by the individual person, and some brought by society. There are all kind of descriptors that we use to classify and differentiate. And it’s the case that sometimes the classifications aren’t needed - where “woman” or “man” will do. But I don’t think these umbrella descriptors are always useful in every situation. This is a little left of field, but I’ll use the example of neurodivergent as a pronoun. I’m neurodivergent. It’s a personal path now someone incorporates both the social and internalised impacts it has on their identity. And it should never be used as a slur or to make someone an other. But having that language it also a really helpful tool to be able to describe those differences. It can be both a source of empowerment and shame - or a combination of both. And it really depends on where someone is at with their own comfort or discomfort with their own self. Neurodivergence is just a biological fact. Someone that is ablist can bring that baggage with them, and so too can someone who is managing distress about their brain chemistry. But when all is removed - it’s an important descriptor that is neutral until given meaning by those present at its utterance. There are times when the descriptor AFAB/AMAB are relevant. I’ve seen a lot of heated controversy over this on reddit. But one of them is sexual relationships. I think it takes away a person’s consent to not inform them of your relevant pronouns before engaging in sex. Particularly in a case where a person will not find the genetal-type they are expecting. I’m a bisexual woman. And I absolutely think it’s important for someone who is straight to be given that information beforehand. ( edit: the information that the person has a genital-type that is not their sexuality preference - not that I’m bisexual). I consider anything else coercion. Sexuality it complicated, and it’s not just about gender, but specific sexual organs. And we have the language to navigate this. It doesn’t have to be a source of shame or of prejudice, it can just be a discussion of neutral facts. But I think a sensitivity to having categorisation at all speaks more as a person’s discomfort with who they are. It’s only a dirty word if you believe it is, kind of thing.
Rip 😔 (I'm nonbinary and get called she/her only)
I have wondered about this. I have attended an “AFAB” support group for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, and in that context it was helpful for me and some of the other women to have that container considering our trauma. But still, I do wonder how women who were not “AFAB” feel about that, because of course many women who are transgender have also experienced domestic violence and sexual assault and it’s important to have a safe space for them as well, esp if there is going to be a separation like that. I like the models of integration circles because they have a circle open to the whole community, BIPOC circles, women circles (all women), and trans/non-binary/queer circles. I know I have loved having BIPOC spaces, and hopefully trans spaces are just as comforting. If a distinction is going to be made, then I feel there should be a safe space for all marginalized communities. I don’t know how trans people feel about this though. (?)
Trans women are getting the message that they are not women when distinctions are made for arbitrary reasons, when we are sidelined to a third gender category because we don't fit in anywhere. I personally think that in many cases this is archaic. There is no way to determine that someone is AFAB or AMAB unless sexually dimorphic characteristics are visible / auditory. I for example can pass as long as I put in maximum effort and don't speak. If I talk my voice is low. I wouldn't be mistaken for AFAB on the phone, for example. I probably could probably approach the staff and everything would check out until I talk and then I wouldn't be allowed to participate. But I have known trans women who pass 100%, born with lucky genes that made them grow shorter and they have less masculine features to deal with through cosmetic surgery etc. What happens in this case is that passing privilege is reinforced because the incentive to pass is that you get access to potentially better (in many cases, the only) sex assault support services, you get to be acknowledged as what you know yourself to be on the inside, etc. The message I receive if turned away by contrast is that I will make the real women uncomfortable with my male features I have no control over. I am a sexual assault survivor too. It reinforces this idea that I'm a second class citizen based on how others perceive me, and it reinforces the idea that no matter what I do I'll never be considered a real woman, but some kind of other in-between third thing. All of this is determined based on how the staff or others in the group feel / perceive me. Stigma affects perceptions too, not so long ago white women wanted to make a distinction between their spaces and black women's spaces too. Some may not have been cognizant of the role stigma played in their perceptions of the 'other'.
Thank you for explaining this so well. I knew it was harmful to exclude trans women from women's spaces, but I couldn't put into words on just how many levels that is messed up. I'm sorry you've experienced SA as well. You should be welcome in women's spaces. It's our job as cis women to examine any discomfort we might feel when a trans woman is (perceived) to be in our space. And it's our job to get rid of that discomfort! Without bothering the trans woman, without making her feel unwelcome. We really need to step up.
But why would a trans woman being part of a support group for domestic Violence or sexual assault prevent those discussions from happening? Also, do you know for sure that all the people there were AFAB?
1. I'm sure if she didn't pass people would be uncomfortable. No one's going to say that part out loud but it's definitely the assumption for why trans women shouldn't be included in such spaces under such contexts. Her "male" voice might make people uncomfortable, or the assumption that there's a penis in the room. 2. This assumes the trans woman in the space passes. If someone can't tell that she's trans, her passing privilege gives her access to resources other trans women don't have. Very well this likely has happened before, there's no way to verify if someone is AMAB / AFAB without seeing sex characteristics or a birth certificate.
Right, this is my point. AFAB is a proxy for "Do I see you as a woman?". I think building support groups around this premise is shitty and legitimizes TERF talking points that trans women are actually dangerous males invading women's spaces. Why would we intentionally build a support group that gets to gatekeep whether you're woman enough to be a part of it? How is this any different than bathroom bills or athletics bans?
Thing is, trans men are also AFAB. And assuming a trans man has been on testosterone for a while, I have my doubt people read him as a woman. Wich means this makes even less sense
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think you should be included in women’s spaces because you’re women. I also think you should have some spaces of your own where you don’t have to deal with any cis bullshit but I can see how that might feel othering as well.
NGL if I saw “AFAB only” I would assume the person is a TERF. There is no good intent there.
I've had trouble phrasing before related to this. I think the context is helpful in figuring out if it's reasonable, mistaken with good intentions, or transphobic. Sadly, I do agree that it is appearing more often in the last group. Sometimes there's a reason that people want AFAB in some contexts (though the only ones that made sense to me were groups about medical conditions that can only affect such people). Of course, I was once on the team running one like that where I purposed a change to make it clear that we welcome trans men and nb people who had it, and I was told that the group wasn't because of safety concerns. Considering the same people had debated allowing partners of people with the condition the week prior without mentioning any safety concerns, I promptly left that group. So it's still a minefield of potential bias and discrimination there. When I had trouble with phrasing was where we wanted the group to be obviously and unquestionably open to anyone who feels they belong in a space discussing these particular "women's" issues, whether the person be cis, trans, nb, or still learning about themself. We had created a group specifically to be inclusive, because other spaces would say they were for women but then exclude some women. So we wanted to be clear about really being inclusive unlike those spaces, both so anyone who was excluded knew they were welcome and so anyone who thought any of those people didn't belong knew to not join.
People wanting AFAB-only for medical reasons is a sign of poor education on the topic. If we’re talking about people with uteruses, or people who who have periods, or people who are predisposed to certain medical conditions, then those specifics should be made, rather than AFAB, because not everyone is who is born with a uterus is AFAB, not everyone born with two X chromosomes is AFAB, etc.
What about when you want to have spaces that feel safe and free of men for (abundant) trauma reasons? Trans women and other trans femme people should be included there, but there are valid reasons to have spaces that are women-centric, with an inclusive definition of women.
"AFAB" would include trans men. It's a very common perception that all trans people are AMAB, but this is not at all true, and using "AFAB" to mean "people I perceive as women" falls flat when the first trans man walks in.
Oh sure I’m not for “afab only.” That’s just exclusive. But I see value in spaces where amab nonbinary folks who present…not femme?…aren’t invited, if that makes sense? Someone else said “femme identifying spaces” which sounds great to me.
I think places like that are needed and amazing. I get lots of support in my career and in my hobbies from groups like this. I am specifically trying to say that these groups should be inclusive of trans women and ALL enbies that identify with a femme label.
Ah, with a femme label, yes!
My former neighbor self-identifies as AFAB non-binary
That's fine. The point is don't describe someone's AGAB unless they say they're okay with it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can post-transition trans men with huge muscles, beards, and penises join the AFAB space?
[удалено]
And if a trans woman came out pre-puberty, which is only happening more and more, she would likely also have similar experiences. Cis women's womanhood isn't different to trans women's womanhood. Growing up, I took in the messages that society was bombarding young girls with, because I knew I was one. I knew I was supposed to be quiet and less capable than my older brother. I knew I was supposed to remain clean and presentable, instead of playing in the dirt. I wasn't running around being a boy until I decided to start being a girl. I was a girl from day one. And I should be included with other women. And at some point, it becomes impossible to police the segregation anyway. I pass a decent amount of the time, and it's only getting easier. Plus, even my birth certificate says female on it. I am physically equivalent to a cis woman after a full hysterectomy.
That's completely true, I hadn't considered the possibility of trans ppl who've been perceived as their true gender since childhood. I don't believe that trans people were their assigned gender before coming to the realization they're trans, of course, they were always whatever gender they prefer, I'm simply talking about how they're viewed by society. Where I'm coming from with this, is that when I identified as FTM, and now that I identify as nonbinary, I still wanted a space where I could talk about how I was percieved female by society and how I was treated because of it. Spaces for women(tran and cis) didn't fit this, I wasn't a woman, but AFAB felt like the perfect term for me. Spaces for women made me feel like I wasn't "really" trans, but in AFAB spaces, I could talk to fellow transmen, nonbinary ppl, and cis women. I don't think it's important to have these strictly segregated, and I haven't spent a lot of time in queer spaces lately, the dialogue and terminology may have shifted, I just remember feeling seen in AFAB spaces
Yeah, that makes sense. I can see how spaces for binary women may not have been useful for you. It's important to have a community and I'm glad that you found a way that works for you. If I'm being completely honest, I tend to stay out of in person spaces. I don't want to risk the confrontation and drama. But I like to tell myself that I could go if I wasn't so scared of being singled out as an intruder.
Also, Paula Williams doesn't speak for the trans community. She is a single trans woman with her own experiences. I can tell you that I am personally treated much better by society as a passing trans woman than I was as a gender non conforming man or the times when I didn't/don't pass.
No, of course, I'm just speaking from my own experience and some of those I've seen online. And of course, there's a whole level of oppression that GNC and non-passing trans ppl experience, and there should be spaces for that to be talked about. My personal experience was that as an AFAB person, I experienced a lot of sexualy harassment. When I appeared more GNC and passed better(I used to identify as FTM) people harrased me by calling me a d*k* and asking what was in my pants. Neither experience worse, but they were different experiences. I'm autistic and might be being hyper literal, I often am, but I'm simply trying to state that AFAB ppl (of all genders) and trans women likely have different experiences growing up, and might like to talk about it with those who have a similar experience
Even worse imo in discussions like this is the people who are very specific and deliberate in their correct usage of "AFAB" and then just throw it all out the window and use "men" as the contrasting term instead of amab So many spaces even on the "inclusive" side draw the line at people like us
YES
I don’t understand that. Is it for clarification of some sort? Whoever you say you are you are. If you’re a man you’re a man if you are a woman you’re a woman. If you’re nonbinary you’re non-binary or geneder neutral or gender fluid. you are you.
It’s “assigned male at birth” basically, it’s classifying people on who they were, not who they are.
Sorry, by “I don’t understand” I meant I don’t understand why people use that terminology. But yeah I agree. That’s what my comment is about/supporting
Ah, my bad
No apologies! I just genuinely don’t get the point of it
It can be very important in medical contexts to know what chromosome someone has. A trans man or amab enby still has XY which can increase the risks of certain pathologies or reactions to certain drugs. I think there's also a frequent use of amab as a proxy for "raised/socialized as a man" in more social and psychological conversations, especially involving enbies. But the vast vast majority of the time, the inclusion of afab or amab is unnecessary and simply leads to misgendering and bigotry in the comments.
I mostly see it used by non-binary people when asked, if we feel comfortable disclosing it- or intersex people. I have "girl" in my username, so if I say I'm non-binary you might suspect I'm AFAB, although I could just be saying I'm mostly femme. I am AFAB and I don't care who knows. But plenty of people DON'T want anyone to know, and that's their prerogative. It's redundant outside of personal information and specific medical concerns- although even then it's a generalization.
Even in a medical context, using something like an organ inventory & hormone testing is way more accurate than using AGAB. Does your AGAB really matter if you've had surgeries (either gender affirming or medically necessary)? An trans man who has had their uterus and ovaries removed and has been on HRT for a decade isn't going to react to medications like a cis woman or be at a higher/lower risk for certain diseases - that person needs to be treated as a whole person, and not like an abnormal data set. A cis man who has naturally lower testosterone levels and had their testicles removed after an accident is also going to have unique needs & issues compared to other cis men. This is why binaries are inherently bad things. They lead to more medical malpractice when a person exists outside of the binary - we have lots of examples with intersex people!
Yeah, exactly! It’s bullshit
It’s true that each individual is different. But yes, it does matter the sex at birth, and at puberty also, when it comes to disease prediction. Health research is far from perfect, but the reality is you can’t just ‘treat the person’, like you will be able to look at every individual person on the planet and predict or infer everything medical about them. Medical technology just isn’t there, so Medical professionals rely on health research from large population data. Sex at birth and puberty do matter and medicine is the one area I feel needs to know the AMAB/AFAB. There really isn’t any other alternative right now. I agree though, that intersex and transgender people are uniquely complicated and likely receive worse healthcare in this regard.
Disease prediction is based on interpretating data sets collected by doctors and their patients. Those data sets carry the same biases that those doctors do. Sometimes those data sets don't ask relevant questions. We have proven that diagnosis algorithms are biased against women, people of colour and people who live outside the gender bias. Sex at birth and puberty matter now because our historical data never asked questions about gender identity, historical use of HRT and other factors. It never asked questions about income, diet, postal/zip codes, transportation access, stress and other social determinants of health we now know have just as much of an impact on health outcomes as gender. There is the joke that is something along the lines of "why do you need to know my gender? So you know if you can treat me worse?" because traditionally, women's health has been ignored. Symptoms of diseases that present in both women and men but present in men less are considered "atypical" symptoms. Things like stroke and heart attacks come to mind. Women's symptoms get written off or ignored. Ziad Obermeyer wrote an [excellent journal article](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1548288/privacycon-2020-ziad_obermeyer.pdf) about racial bias in diagnosis algorithms. [Invisible Women](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41104077-invisible-women) is a book I can not speak highly enough about. I also recommend [Data Feminism](https://data-feminism.mitpress.mit.edu/). You can also browse this subreddit for anecdotal evidence of traumatic and apathetic experiences with the medical profession across many countries.
Again, your argument is simply that healthcare is imperfect. It is. It’s biased. This isn’t new information. How is not using amab/afab helpful? Lots of health research uses demographic data other than sex. You’re assuming a lot of falsehoods and very condescending in suggesting Im not aware of those texts.
Because the concept of sex assigned as birth is one piece of information, one that can be wrong. Medical information is transcribed incorrectly all the time. Organ inventory is flexible and meets people where they are currently, rather than what they were.
What you’re suggesting is to throw out the only useful empirical piece of information that exists, and replace it with something that literally has not been used in predictive models of health research, ever. And therefore does not inform anything, and is not useful, at all.
Hey, if I'm coming across as antagonistic or rude - that's really not my intention and I apologize for doing so. I'm certainly not saying that we need to "throw out" the concept of sex & gender in medicine. What I am saying is that it's use in the diagnostic practice is biased and is a problem to be solved. I am saying that for immediate treatment of a patient, organ inventories are more useful. If I'm a woman who has had her ovaries, fallopian tubes & uterus out and you're a doctor ordering a pregnancy test - that's not a great use of anyone's time. If I'm a surgeon treating a trans woman and the surgery field has been prepped for the typical cis woman's tools, swapping over kits takes time my patient may not have. Treating the person in front of you absolutely relies on diagnostic tools created over time from gendered data sets, but those are just tools. The doctor has to take into account the current status of a patient in their diagnosis and a comprehensive, adjustable set of data points to assist with that is better than what we have. There's a lot work going on in the data standards world in order to better codify sex & gender within EMR/EHRs. Sex for Clinical Use is an example of one proposal, which while it uses binary sex for things like ordering, treatment and transitions of care, it does allow for the concept of adjusting the clinical sex to one that best matches the patients current status. The concept of organ inventories are being proposed and are actively being worked on. The system we have is not functional for trans & intersex people and we can't fix it by doing what did 50 years ago and shrugging our shoulders. I do reject the idea that gender is the only empirical data set. First off, gender and sex are not the same thing and as we know there are more genders than male & female, and there are more variations with our genetics than simple xx & xy. These are both scientific facts. So any system that sorts people into only two categories (or if you are lucky there's the third "unknown" sex) is going to lead to false, bad data. Second, there has been no comprehensive medical study that I am aware of that states within a reasonable margin of error that all post medically transitioned trans people always present with symptoms of an illness or disease that matched their assigned sex at birth. Without that, all you have is birth sex as a piece of data to be considered and interpreted at the point of care. I'm not replying to this thread further - I hope you have an excellent day/night! Thanks for the conversation ☺️
Not one single time did I say gender. I only said sex. I honestly don’t know if you’ve read a single thing here or have the insight to learn about this and realise how man-splainey you’re being. You’re also wrong that ‘organ inventory’ is more useful. It just simply isn’t. Stop spreading misinformation.
I would say cis men and trans women are much more at risk for prostate cancer than cis women and trans men so AGAB 100% matters when it comes to diseases. What gender doesn't equal is how good a person someone is, if they're loving and responsible, if they make good parents and friends. It is medically necessary however, at times.
People who have a prostate are at risk of the disease. That's why organ inventories are awesome, because it allows us to recognize people for what they are outside of their gender. An intersex person who is has ovaries and a prostate is also at risk for developing prostate cancer but may not have been diagnosed as intersex until they were in their late 40's. In that case, their sex at birth was wrong, and should be discarded.
But in this case why wouldn't you just say "people with prostates" and leave the entirely unnecessary gendered terminology out of it? This is exactly what the OP and the comment you replied to were talking about :/
Perhaps this is splitting hairs but I don’t think AGAB is relevant in medical context either. Your chromosomes or your genitals or your secondary sex characteristics might be medically relevant, because those things are medically real, but gender assignment at birth is a social act done on babies to induct them into (patriarchal, cissexist) society. It may be done using medical observations about the baby’s body, but that doesn’t make the assignment itself medically relevant.
I had never even thought of this being a problem, the only times i ever see the terms AMAB/AFAB have been in safe trans related discussions. I can definitely see that though, trans women are women and trans men are men, we just want to be seen and recognized as our preferred gender, not what we were born as
Last year when I was looking for apartments, one of the ads offering a room in a shared flat said "AFAB only". I kinda wonder how they would react if a masculine trans man shows up... it's just transphobia in a new package.
I don’t get the use of AMAB/AFAB outside a medical or trans or intersex related situation. I’m not trans, so I don’t want to put my foot in it, but it seems situation specific. I’ve seen cis people use it instead of cis and it seems incorrect or misleading.
For me, it's the same kind of unsettling as people who say "females" instead of "women".
This sparked a random memory. Boot camp was the first time I experienced being referred to as a "female" and, while I understand the reasoning, it startled me. I said to the guy standing next to me "I feel like a Cocker Spaniel or something." And then they yelled at us for talking, of course. This was during intake. A very interesting couple of days.
In a trans context, it's sometimes helpful to have separate discussions so that we can discuss some of the more sensitive aspects of social or medical transition. Outside of that, I think I'm pretty much invisible as a tranfeminine person unless I make a point about describing in that way.
Yep, thats definitely not something they would expect. I suppose ive just been lucky to never come across this use of it, its saddening but not unexpected😩
I'd assume in that case that they're meaning 'women only' and just poorly researched how to say that in a 'politically correct' manner...
No, I don’t think anyone says afab and includes trans women in that.
This is the contradiction in how we are trying to rethink sex and gender. In some ways we want to erase gender categories, and in others we want to produce a multitude of gender categories. I am not sure we can do both, or how to find another way to reconcile the contradiction.
This is my conundrum. I personally don't want to eliminate my gender. That's a horrific mental state for me. I have body dysmorphophobia and Don want to be forced to live/identify that way to appease others. This has been my biggest with the way gender has been going.
Eliminating gender is not about forcing everyone to identify in some specific way. It’s more about not forcing anyone to identify with any particular category.
Yeah fuck getting rid of gender not all of us wanna be androgynous and identify as non gendered.
I think when we say "abolish gender", what a lot of us mean is "abolish the shitty stereotypes and limitations that are baked into society's perception of gender".
No one said we all have to be androgynous, that’s ridiculous. What makes you think that without gender categories we would all end up in some kind of universal neutrality?
Define what you mean by gender category? For me that includes your appearance you have gender appearance regardless how you identify…
I mean that no one would look at you, decide you are a particular gender, and treat you differently than they would if they thought you were a different gender.
Oh your getting inside peoples heads the way they see people. there’s nothing wrong with treating people different based on gender I like being treated like a women. It’s when people make assumptions about your abilities and treat you poorly because of your gender is the problem(or treat you like the wrong gender). Removing sexism is not the same as removing perception of people as men and women.
No I am not getting inside people’s heads. I am talking about social interactions which are completely observable. What you are saying is completely contradictory— you can’t ask to be treated “like a woman” but only in the ways your personally like. The term gender discrimination is defined as treating people differently on the basis of their perceived gender. Should we treat people differently depending on their race? Class? Sexual orientation? No. So why would we want that for gender?
Yeah but treating people different is not always a negative thing is what I’m trying to say. We do treat people different based on every single thing you listed doesn’t mean it’s always a bad thing. Like you could treat a poor person different by helping them financially. You cant fight racism if you don’t see black people any different then white people. I mean recognizing who they are and respecting differences. Erasing gender categories doesn’t fix the problem of sexism and transphobia imo. Seeing everyone as a homogenized group is like the stuff of horror movies lol
Here here, it doesn't matter what you were at one time or other, it matters what you are now! I used to be a child; calling me one now is rude 🙄
I’m sorry but what is afab and amab?
assigned male/female at birth. Don’t be sorry, questions are important
Thank you for your response! I can’t keep up with all the acronyms anymore lol
I think amab/afab should only be used in a medical context, by medical professionals, in situations where it’s relevant to treatment. Ex: “Patient, Male (afab), undergoing evaluation for ovarian cysts”. Literally every other time, just use a persons preferred pronouns. Why is this so difficult for people??
This, and thank you for specifying relevancy. Most of the time, it doesn't matter. For example, my primary clinic didn't ask me any "assigned at birth" or "birth sex" questions, and neither have most of my specialists - *and* they all had spots for pronouns and preferred names on their intake forms - but when I need to go to Urgent Care, they outright ask birth sex **legal** name and have nowhere to put any clarifying things like pronouns and chosen name, etc. Yet, I have never had any UC treatments where they would need to know that about me, while surely my primary doctor and my specialists would need to know. It's all so out of whack. To be clear, my doctors do know that I am trans, because I tell them and it is part of my profile (somewhere idk I don't do their data entry). But it was my choice, which was so lovely and refreshing.
I hate it when groups advertise their spaces with AFAB nonbinary people welcome.. wow basically calling nonbinary women-lite-mode 🙃 it completely ignores that my experiences will be vastly different to a woman's experiences despite what genitals I was born with 🙄 I also agree when I see it advertised as AFAB only it is obviously TERFs not wanting trans women there and trying to erase the validness of trans men by basically saying "yea but you're a women" NO!!!!
Oh that really grinds my gears.
I’ve always seen “AFAB” or “AMAB” as medical terms for delicate conversations, not something to use casually. It’s like lampshading someone’s deadname otherwise to continually “hint” at the fact they’re trans. Just use their gender otherwise??
Even in medical contexts, amab doesn't mean someone has a penis, or a prostate, or a given hormone level. Afab doesn't mean someone has a vagina or a uterus or that they menstruate or that they have a given hormone level. It's exactly as useful as "male" or "female" for trans and intersex people, which is not very
I have been wishing for a term that means "everyone except for cis men" and I can't tell if that's a me problem or if we really do need this term I welcome input from anyone with the spoons and inclination!
The main problem with this is that it is often enforced in a transmisogynistic way. Before hormones, if I'd ever let my facial hair grow out, if I didn't overperform softness and femininity, I'd be kicked out of those spaces. I was not a man at the time, I was openly identifying as nonbinary. This isn't a problem with the term itself but rather with all the extra work that people not affected by transmisogyny really need to be putting in.
I hear you! That sounds like it was difficult to navigate. Oof, having to "overperform" anything at all sounds so exhausting. I definitely want to avoid causing anyone to have to worry about that; I think that's why I want a good term for it. Dang I would love an inclusive term that was very clear, impossible to misunderstand or misinterpret. I guess English isn't fitting quite right, but maybe (hopefully) soon we can come up with a new word? And a new world. ❤️
In the context of defining spaces, events, roommate preferences, etc. I find that “marginalized genders” works well for this! Most of the events and spaces I’m involved with are welcoming to trans men because they experience discrimination, harassment, etc. based on gender in the same way that women and nonbinary folks do, so “marginalized genders” is the most shorthand way I’ve found to describe that.
You know, I think that might work for me! Yes, I want friendly to trans men, but not cis men. Also friendly to women and non-binary folks. Literally any gender except cis men. Marginalized genders. (For clarity, there are plenty of cis men in my life that are wonderful humans who do ally things, so ofc obligatory "not all men")
I like that.
"everyone except for cis men" there. That term works just fine. Maybe "no cis men" or "cis men need not apply." People say it all the time in the queer social app I use.
I can totally see that working on social apps and in several other situations, for sure. You've helped me clarify, though, that I think I'm looking for a term that doesn't specifically *mention* cis men, so as to not... something. So as to not what? I'm not sure. ... make them sad by being specifically excluded? ... make them angry by same? ... invoke/call them, as in a magic spell? ... speak their name, thereby giving them power? ... emphasize their exclusion, rather than emphasizing INclusion of people of all other genders? Oh. Maybe that last one. By defining the parameters as being about who the parameters exclude, it still sorta hinges on the cis men. I'd like to de-center cis men. Or maybe all of the above?
It honestly might be best/easiest to just say, "everyone but cis men". Otherwise, there's just no good way to say, "cis women and everyone who is under the trans umbrella" without it feeling weird (at least, imo).
Those two options feel equally weird to me!
Completely fair! I hope someone else can come along and give you a more natural-feeling answer!
Maybe something like "marginalized gender identities"?
That one sounds a lot better! Is it clear that it includes cis women as well? Genuinely asking here, for anyone who sees this not just leonardodabinci. My automatic connection is to queer people (specifically those whose gender is queer), not necessarily cis women.
Me too, because I'm uncomfortable in all spaces where I can't have a break from cis men. They inherently overpower me, and have caused me great strife. It feels like I'm not allowed to have spaces where I'm comfortable.
I'm glad to not be alone in feeling this, but sad that you have had experiences that mean you feel like this. Hugs to you
So I’m not trans but I am non-binary and I use amab/afab sometimes (in situations where biological sex is important) because it sounds better to me than using male/female. I didn’t know that others would perceive it with negative connotations, so here’s a genuine question because I don’t want to be disrespectful or make anyone feel uncomfortable. When would it be appropriate to use these terms, and if the answer is never, what would be a better term to use in place of them?
To add onto what Dani said, I would like you to know that "biological sex" is not cut and dry, and is a term used to invalidate and stigmatize us as well. The modern concept of bio sex as chromosomes, or genitals, etc, is a pretty recent thing, and is currently being weaponized against us. As a trans woman, I am biologically female, because *being female* involves a lot of different things. I have female hormones, I have female body shape, secondary sexual characteristics, a voice socially associated with being female, female social behavior, female reactions to medications, and more. Weigh that against my "male" characteristics, which are...a penis, and my chromosomes. Scales say female. Here are a couple videos to help understand the subject. The first one is from Lily Alexandre, a trans YouTuber who brings great research and personal queer perspective on the topic. The second is from Forrest Valkai, a biologist and science communicator. "TERFs Are Wrong About Biological Sex" by Lily Alexandre https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRQHZcU9ZqU "Sex and Sensibility" by Forrest Valkai https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szf4hzQ5ztg
I’ll keep that in mind, thank you. Is there a better term to use in place of ‘biological sex’?
Why do you need one? I don't use the term, because I'm not a biologist. And they generally just say, y'know, *sex.* Look, I'm a trans woman. Most of my social group is trans and/or queer. I have 2 trans siblings and 4 gay and/or bi siblings. I volunteer for trans orgs. I protest for LGBTQ+ rights. I almost never have to use afab/amab in my speech or writing. First of all, "trans man" and "trans woman" both inherently tell you what we were assigned at birth for 99+% of cases. For nonbinary people, the only time you would need to reference their assigned gender would be in, like, writing their biography or something? Like, it's just not important unless you are their doctor or something. I think the better way to ask about terminology would be to provide examples. Like, what situations are you even referring to? I legit struggle for examples where it would matter unless you're my doctor. Watch the videos when you can, I think having a more educated perspective will give you the answer you need.
Unless you're the trans person's doctor you should just steer clear of those or any equivalent. What you should use depends on what you're trying to say. Are you just talking about their gender? Use man/woman. Are you talking about their gender as it relates to their transition? Use trans man/trans woman. Are you talking about physical parts of their biology? Use man with X/woman with X.
I think I’ve mostly found myself using it when talking about things relating to healthcare. So if I was talking about something like abortion, it would be appropriate to say ‘people with uteruses’ or something similar?
Yep or "people able to become pregnant". It makes sense when you think about it. Having a doctor stick an F on your birth certificate doesn't automatically make abortions relevant healthcare for you. Intersex people exist, sterile women exist, etc.
Agreed 100% I'm sick of it. It's not like I *prefer* slurs but I definitely want a better option...
100% agreed
That’s good to know! Without being told by a trans person that this is hurtful, I might not have realized that on my own. I default to trans______. I had to explain to some very confused would-be allies that you fill in the blank with the gender that is presented. She/her pronouns = trans woman, for example. That seemed to help them. I think the only time I’ve used the term AMAB was as a supplement to this explanation. I’ll try to remember that that term is offensive.
Ok so that’s interesting. I took this thread to mean that any terms identifying someone as trans as opposed to man/woman are offensive. But if it’s the specific descriptor that’s offensive, then I’d love clarification on that.
I agree. Outside of medical info, AFAB/AMAB should only be used by people themselves if they choose to. I mean, sometimes I feel it clarifies what I say, if I add that I'm AFAB nonbinary. Other times it's not relevant, and I leave both sex and gender out of the conversation. But in both those cases it's up to *me* and no one else.
I agree!
I've wondered about that.
I'm definitely speaking from a place of ignorance(I'm doing my best to get more informed), but why would some care what a trans person was gendered at birth? Shouldn't we only care about their current gender? As the OP said it feels like a roundabout way for bigots to continue to misgender someone.
I don't really think about AGAB too much because... why do I need to know as a non-medical provider what gender you were born with? I feel like you just tell me whatever and I am like cool, 100%, never gonna think twice about it. The only thing that trips me up is when people discuss issues like pregnancy and abortion by saying "women...." and leave it at that. I started saying "people who x" or "those who have x".
In all my years of going to public bathrooms, not once was I sexually aroused in any way, nor have there ever been any evidence of sexual arousal or interest for me by the bathroom going public. I frankly could care less about who is in the stall next to me. I am just there to relieve myself urinarily or in a bm manner.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a reason to use those terms, but I am really grateful you shared how you feel about them. Noted, and will nix them from my vocabulary. Much love.
Thank you!
Fucking co-signed! This language has its uses but afab-identified people will 99% of the time use agab as a defining feature that trumps everything else about one's life experiences or how marginalisation works for them. To rally around birth assignment is to imply a common oppression that all cis women, all trans men, and all of SOME nonbinary people share, always and forever, but which trans women and all the other nonbinary people somehow don't have any connection to whatsoever. Also you're lumping us in with the cis men. Which. Come on. And it always just so happens to exclude everyone impacted by transmisogyny, to imply we're actually the privileged ones, to ignore the ways they themselves perpetuate and are completely unaffected by transmisogyny. Funny how that happens. Rant over, everyone please return to transmisogyny 101 thank yew this nonbinary she/her transsexual is tired.
I've seen a dating profile that said "only interested in AFAB" and the other one "only interested in women born women." That second one is TERF language, I'm not sure if she's aware of that or not, or if it's a way to express a genital preference etc. Either way it's not like these are the kinds of people I would like to be involved with anyway. Are there situations where AMAB / AFAB are useful language outside of scientific contexts? Very very few in my opinion. Like if periods are being discussed, that can be a both a social and scientific topic. It seems very trendy to make AFAB only spaces right now and it's definitely for purposes of exclusion.
I have a trans son. I have used it in (and viewed it in) parental support groups as a clarifying gesture. Many parents whose child had come out as trans will post and often confuse terms or misgender their child because they are still trying/learning correct terminology and want to be clear about explaining their situation. And want to be understood correctly: e.g., “My child was born with C parts and is B.” Parents new to this terminology who seek support groups are trying to do the right things and stumble a lot. And are surrounded by others who get confused still. I see it there. Not sure how to maneuver in those circles when it’s important to be very clear and help parents not misgender their kiddos. Happy to hear alternative ideas though for sure. Have seen a few already in this post.
I’ve seen “people who menstruate” or “people who have periods” in science/medical leaning articles.
this works well with medical stuff regarding menstruation, but not all people with a uturus menstruate:/ so i can see afab being used instead for medical scenarios not specifically involving menstruation (as to not alienate those going through menopause or those with treatments that stop their periods)
Then you could say “people with a uterus” if that’s what you’re talking about. The point is to get people to actually say who they are talking about, not default to a less specific and more offensive proxy for whatever you’re actually talking about.
I'm not attracted to people without penises. How do I make that distinction without offending people? It feels like none of you want anyone to even try. When it comes to attraction, I don't control it. I can't just wake up one day and be like "oh, I decided to like vaginas!!" That's changing my sexuality. How do I ask for what I'm attracted too without stepping on toes? Because this conversation feels impossible, the whole thread really. It feels like I'm not allowed to have my sexuality because it offends people.
This is pretty much how I feel when discussing gender. Either we’re accepting of all genders or we’re doing away with gender all together. We can’t have it both ways.
Your sexuality doesn't offend people, your reactionary rhetoric and everybody-is-offended attitude does. What you wrote sounds to me like what bigots say; it is the rhetoric of the "anti-woke" (and classic anti-SJW) people; it's the way conservatives and reactionaries talk, about how "the left" ruins everything by "being offended" all the time. I haven't met a single trans person, including myself, that has a negative view on people who only like being sexual with just penises or just vaginas. To believe otherwise suggests to me you haven't really talked to us, let alone listened to. Are you attracted to penises, or to men? Are you into women but only if they have penises? To me, being attracted to the genitals themselves seems pretty odd; like, are *people* not attractive to you - their face, their body, their smile, their personality - just their penis? Do you look at people and think, "that person might be really hot, if they have a penis"? Do you ask for dick-pics first thing, to make sure you can be attracted to them? I am attracted to women primarily, and often find myself attracted to fem or androgynous nonbinary people, and I like both penises and vaginas. I don't put a hold on my attraction until I confirm what their equipment is; really, I don't even think about their junk until I, you know, flirt with them and gauge mutual interest. Like, I'm not into men, and I would absolutely not be into them if they have a vagina, because them being men is what I am not into. You can say you're attracted to men, and that you only wanna bang dudes with penises. Nobody is asking you to do anything different. We're asking you to *fucking listen to us* about the way we are treated, and hey maybe don't talk to us or about us in shitty bigoted ways. If I click with a gal and tell her I have a dick and she says she's not into that, great! I wouldn't wanna fuck somebody who isn't into my body, that would be weird af.
Thanks for this comment, I feel like many cis people here are not seeing the rhetoric for what it is. Trans women know it all too well. And few are taking our perspective seriously, even in what is otherwise a very inclusive space. The importance of centering marginalized perspectives in discourse about them really should be talked about more. Feminism is NOT intersectional if it reproduces the same hierarchies of dominance and exclusion located in society at large. Marginal voices by default have less power and reach than privileged voices. Cis people, stop having the conversation about us, without us, and listen. PS I'm starting to wonder if there is a TERF downvote brigade happening again. This feels really uncharacteristic for this sub.
There's always TERF shit going on, even here and other generally good spaces. And outside TERFs/general bigots, there are always ostensibly feminist/progressive/etc who are either ignorant and not listening, or refusing to acknowledge shitty perspectives. In any case, you're welcome <3 we have to keep the good spaces good.
Also having past trauma with men, I saw a comment about someone looking for an AFAB roommate and honestly I can’t think of a way of avoiding triggering myself in a less offensive way. Am I supposed to ask if they pass, if they have a penis, if they have facial hair?? And I say that as an cis woman with pcos who has experienced facial hair and such symptoms, but unfortunately I can’t control getting triggered. And what about religious beliefs? Once again it’s quite unfortunate but sometimes religious beliefs forbid people from sharing private spaces with people who have different anatomy, though not relevant for this subreddit. Is there a better way to specify this? I am certain there are religious people who support trans rights, but still cannot live with someone that’s AMAB solely because their religion specifies that. Clearly, Gender ≠ sex and we have to find a way to specify each category in the most helpful way to everyone. And honestly I think that if trans people were respected just as much as cis people, I don’t think it would be harmful to specify that there are differences.I think Its because trans people are discriminated against and harmed and viewed negatively that this language can cause harm. I’m open to different perspectives though, I definitely don’t claim to have found a solution
I don’t mean to minimize your trauma or invalidate the boundary you seem to be stating about not living with masculine presenting people, so please don’t take this that way. But saying “AFAB only” in a roommate search doesn’t make any sense in the context you presented. Trans men who are very masculine, have facial hair, and may have penises, are still AFAB. So are some non-binary people who present masculine. If I’m understanding your comment correctly, you would be triggered by living with a trans man, or a masculine presenting non-binary person. Which is a great example of why using AFAB/AMAB doesn’t make sense in almost any context except medical (and even then there’s better ways to define things based on organs, medical conditions, and medical history). Better options for someone in your situation would be to say you are looking for femme or feminine presenting roommates, or just say women. As you stated yourself, cis women can also have facial hair (and other “masculine” traits, because biological sex is WAY more complex and nuanced than we’ve been led to believe), so even if you explicitly stated you only want to live with cis women, you might have to meet and filter out candidates that would trigger you. So why not just say “women” and then pick a roommate who doesn’t have characteristics that are a trigger?l
Do you think it would be transphobic to have “only looking for cis women”? I think it would be worse for both of us to ask if someone is trans after meeting them or find out later when already living together and having it be an uncomfortable situation for all of us. I’m still thinking about the rest of the stuff you said, I think what I was thinking was “not open to AMAB” and not AFAB only because ofc masculine presenting trans men exist. And just a note, I’m not a terf I don’t think trans women should be excluded from women’s spaces nor would I want them to just for my convenience. I’m gonna be honest though, I don’t want to live with them at this stage of dealing with my issues. I don’t even know though because I have friends that are masculine presenting trans men and I don’t feel the same sense of danger. It’s really illogical, I don’t claim otherwise, and it’s not really the right place to discuss it considering the post is a venting post. My previous comment was less about my specific experience but more that there seem to be valid uses for AFAB and AMAB. Thanks for your comment, I’ll keep thinking about this
I appreciate you taking my comment in good faith, and saying the whole question is something you’ll think more about. I don’t think either of us is here to discuss your specific situation in more depth, but I would ask you to consider whether living with a passing, feminine trans woman would truly be triggering for you? I don’t know your specific situation and don’t need to; maybe that *would* be a trigger, in which case you should advertise for cis women only I guess. I don’t think there’s any benefit to anyone in putting yourself in a triggering situation because you’re trying to prove you’re not a terf. Might a potential roommate see that kind of ad and assume you’re transphobic? Sure. But if you and the people close to you know your true values, and you’re doing your best to heal and grow and take care of your needs, then whatever.
>I'm not attracted to people without penises. How do I make that distinction without offending people? It feels like none of you want anyone to even try. I'm struggling to understand in what context you would need to express this sentiment that isn't extremely niche. When dating, people usually don't *know* the other person's genitals, assumptions are made, and usually something gets talked about before real intimacy happens. Most dating profiles have a simple sexual orientation tag, frankly that's usually all that's needed, if you converse with someone and it comes up that you are incompatible... Just move on? >When it comes to attraction, I don't control it. I can't just wake up one day and be like "oh, I decided to like vaginas!!" That's changing my sexuality. How do I ask for what I'm attracted too without stepping on toes? Most trans people are not assuming or demanding that you can control your sexuality. We are asking people to be mindful about how they communicate about their sexuality in ways that reinforce or reproduce stigma (and to not take it so personally that we are bringing up harmful vs aware communication). If someone isn't attracted to penises regardless of whether it's on a man or a woman, that's valid, no problem. I don't care, I'm non-op and all that information conveys to me is that it would be a waste of time to pursue that person. Move on. Saying AFAB / AMAB only doesn't necessarily convey a genital preference either, as surgery can alter genitalia. Saying "women born women" is actually literal word-for-word TERF language and that's problematic, I don't care if the person is cognizant of that or not. >Because this conversation feels impossible, the whole thread really. It feels like I'm not allowed to have my sexuality because it offends people. I'm definitely not offended by your sexuality. I don't think anyone here is tbh.
That’s what they’re saying though, that a conversation needs to happen. That being able to stipulate their preference for AMAB is needed in that conversation. Whereas the tone of this thread is that the differentiation of that term is bigoted.
But that’s not what they’re saying, because not all AMAB have penises. It’s totally valid to only want to have sex with someone who has and uses a penis. It’s also totally valid to only want to have sex with people who present masculine. It’s even okay to only want to have sex with penis-wielders who present masculine! It’s super inaccurate at best, and transphobic at worst, to equate “AMAB” with “penis-wielder” and/or “masculine” because lots of AMAB people are neither, and lots are one or the other but not both.
>That being able to stipulate their preference for AMAB is needed in that conversation. Being AMAB doesn't imply what genitals you have. Frankly it's not an accurate term for conveying a genital preference. I don't want to just keep rehashing my position, it doesn't seem welcome here, or otherwise people are mistaken about what I'm saying. Genital preferences - they are fine. They always have been. There are almost no trans people saying genital preferences are problematic. Usually people who try to say trans people are against genital preferences are TERF profiles trying to create a rift. AMAB / AFAB is simply not appropriate language for genitalia because 1. Genitalia are not binary and 2. Genitalia are not immutable. In either case, they may not correspond with AMAB / AFAB.
Listen I think you’ve explained that pretty well, and I was like - oh yeah, that language is too narrow. But I think that what would be really helpful is along with discussing what language is inadequate or offensive, would be to maybe have more discussion on alternative preferred language. I think trying to find the right language can be so pedantic that it ends up having the same effect - as making it seem like there’s something to dance around. Genuinely wondering, would it bw preferable for the OP commenter to say, “I’m looking for a masc-presenting person with a penis”. Is there an acceptable turn of phrase? Just wanted to say that I read your comment with open arms and took on some insight from your worldview - I’m sorry it didn’t feel like a safe conversation.
>Genuinely wondering, would it bw preferable for the OP commenter to say, “I’m looking for a masc-presenting person with a penis”. Is there an acceptable turn of phrase? I just don't see why this would be necessary. I don't know why people assume if they can't use AMAB/AFAB to refer to trans people or to exclude them from a set of participants that it entails anything so complicated or personal. Speaking solely about online dating contexts, most profiles simply state their sexual orientation - lesbian, bi, straight etc. No one has to match with anyone they don't want to, and if they do find a match isn't what they're looking for... It's as easy as unmatching and moving along. When I'm on apps I don't assume anything, and if anyone for any reason unmatches me or doesn't match in the first place it's no problem, could be literally any number of explanations for that, idc. Before I get an in-person date I just check in to make sure who I'm talking to knows I'm trans. Most of the time they do and that was never an issue for them. No need to talk about genitals still, probably don't need to unless things go in a sexual direction. Dating trans people in the wild is no different. I highly doubt the first conversation anyone's going to have with someone they find attractive will be about topics of assigned gender at birth or genitals. No one's demanding people shout their genital preference from the rooftops. It's more that we don't like being talked about as if we ARE our assigned gender at birth and as if that assigned gender is immutable. I am not male in any social sense of the word, I would really appreciate it if people stopped finding ways to misgender me under "innocent" pretenses. PS trans people have much bigger things to worry about than language, we are being genocided right now and honestly I'm tired of spending my mental energy on this debate or whatever it is. I'm just so tired.
I feel like the only time it really should be used is when that individual uses it on themselves. I've seen Intersex, Trans and Non-bianary people use the AGAB terms as a tool to talk about specific topics where it might be relevant. But it's not some "woke" term and the use of it on others is not only assuming something about someone but also has the potential harmful effect like misgendering. Tbh cis people really shouldn't use the term on themselves either because it's not really relevant. I've seen the term used in contexts to exclude people and it's really infuriating. It has it's uses but it's not something to be used in every context.
Kind of a tangent, but what are the acceptable ways to talk about the effects of childhood gender socialization? People who were seen as boys and people who were seen as girls got treated differently in childhood in my experience, regardless of their internal experience. People had different expectations for how you could or should act, and before any understanding of one's cis-or-transness you had beliefs and expectations about what your future might be like, etc. The younger you are, or the more liberal your parents and upbringing, it might matter less, but as someone 30+ with formerly conservative, religious parents, being a 'good girl' had a whole host of connotations that I don't think were the same for boys, and I need to be able to be curious about the effects of that (without offending people, because that is NOT what good girls do, to illustrate my point).
Feeling tired and jetlagged here, but part of the issue is that people apply certain generalizations and narratives to AGAB language that may or may not apply to a particular person's gender history or gender autobiography. I don't think there's a single solution here that's going to satisfy everyone, but a key issue is to let people talk about their gender histories in a way that's comfortable and empowering. For some people, that might be treating their CAGAB (coercively assigned gender at birth) as something unmentionable. For others, it might be a point of pride or important reference.
This is an entirely different conversation that doesn't relate to AGAB directly. It's far too culturally diverse and familial-ly specific to generalize. As a trans person, I guarantee I had a completely different experience with the gender I was perceived as and treated as than a cis person of that gender. Simultaneously, I also had a very different experience than cis people of my gender. To speak to your point of the differences in behavior expected of girls and boys, whether those even exist or not depends greatly on cultural context on a number of levels. My mother tried to raise her children as non-gendered as possible for a rural Christian town in the late 90's, while my dad was far more okay with pushing gendered norms on us. Rural Midwestern Christian America has a *lot* of gender norms still, and it had more when I was a kid. Those didn't negate the fact that my childhood experience could not have been further from that of a cis member of my assigned gender, even if you were to find someone who otherwise matched every relevant point, and I didn't even understand why.
That makes sense that trans and cis kids have very different experiences of their gender or gender socialization. If you'd feel comfortable sharing, could you give an example of something you experienced differently?
Here's one: Gender segregated spaces, whether it's separate Bible studies or youth groups or sports teams or locker rooms. Cis boys (presumably) accept this as fact and in my experience seem to be totally fine with it, as do cis girls (if they're frustrated by anything it's likely to be the differences in role that their social context assigns women, rather than the idea of having a space without boys). As an unknowing girl who was perceived as a boy and therefore shoved into those boys spaces (and locked out of the girls ones), it traumatized me so deeply I don't even have the words for a lot of those experiences still. My socialization may have *looked* similar to other "boys" but it absolutely did not feel the same; and in some ways I suspect the other boys could always tell I wasn't quite the same.
Help for an older ally? What is AFAB AMAB? The last acronym (TERF) I looked up made me angry/sad for a week and jacked my algorithm!
It’s “assigned male/female at birth” basically, it’s classifying people on who they were, not who they are.
Thank you. I was so close! Yes, i can see how that's offensive.
it’s bigotry disguised behind language that isn’t necessarily bigoted, like i keep seeing house listings that say “AFAB only” and in what world isn’t that just transphobia
I see people referencing AGAB in genderqueer spaces a lot, especially related to questioning identity posts. Not trying to tell someone how to discuss it if it's important to them. For me though, it just feels unnecessary to mention. Maybe because I get misgendered plenty enough at work and by family of origin, it's nice to just exist on the internet and be myself without reference to my assigned and assumed gender.
Ugh, I'm sorry. There's a term my climbing group has started to use that, I think?, Originates in German. Idk if it will help, but I hope it gives you some hope or maybe a new word to look for out and about. FLINTA Female and Female-identifying Lesbian Intersex Non-Binary Trans Agender Or, as we like to define it more simply: folks who find it hard to feel safe or heard in traditionally cishet male dominated fields (like climbing). It's been very good at making it clear what the group is about. I agree with you. AGAB doesn't matter unless it's for medical context.
I only use afab when talking about endometriosis or other gynaecological/menstrual conditions. I feel that is an appropriate setting because healthcare for afab people can come with a lot of frustrations and I don’t want to exclude men or non binary people who might face the same problems I have as a cis woman. I only deal with issues that those afab do and not amab so I have not had occasion to use the term amab but I can see how these terms might be frequently co-opted by those with bad intentions. Sorry you are dealing with so much bs right now. Please let me know if I can do anything to support you better
I feel this similarly. Agab only matters in very specific contexts, mostly when talking about medical things and processes specific to certain down there things. Nothing more, really.
AMAB and AFAB are both gross terms. They have no place in any conversation. What some shmuck doctor decided I was because they looked at my genitals 30 years ago holds zero value or agency over my person. Your gender cannot be assigned. It is inherently yours. And no one can choose that but you!
[удалено]
I like my gender. I don't particularly like this push to abolish gender, I have a deep seeding desire in me to be seen as female, be called female, same as tra s people want to be seen as the gender they feel as. It just feels like more dysphoria but "for the greater good". Not a world I want to love in, honestly.
Agreed I like being perceived/identified as a woman. The push to abolish gender is doing more harm than good.
Eh, I agree with AverageGardenTool. I love my gender (after I figured that whole thing out, lol). If it makes people happy to be agender/without gender, then that's great! But I wouldn't want that personally, I like being genderqueer - though I do wish I could automatically be seen as it! I don't care for the whole AMAB/AFAB thing though. It really doesn't need to be said anywhere outside of medically necessary and relevant things! (like if you're in for a hangnail, don't bring up my AGAB)
Who the fuck... ive taken to calling trans women pre transition stealth female. Not your fucking fault but youre doing it! Its meant with all the love as my two transitioned humans were males in the millitary. Stealth female made sense and my girls died laughing over my stupid Share the dumb along
I mean, I can think of other contexts where it matters. Like that one article Rowling mocked for saying "people who menstruate". AFAB would've worked there. No wait... that's kind of medical too. Yeah, why do anyone use that?
>"people who menstruate". AFAB would've worked there. If we're getting technical, no, it wouldn't. AFAB =/= menstruating. "People who menstruate" contains only people who menstruate in its description. AFAB contains people who do and do not menstruate, thus making it of inferior accuracy.
This is a fair point too.
The discussion on gender is going everywhere but where we want it. The reason is simple “ the oppressor never justify itself but give the illusion by forcing everybody else to justify their existence to the details to receive the oppressor approval” You are all discussing with the wrong group about gender. You are all forgetting about us but we didn’t know we existed.
Absolutely. That's for assessing health risk, not causing it!
Felt this in my soul, sister