I think I said this before but that isn’t actually that clear.
For one there is a problem with the word “assigned” and secondly, the word you are avoiding using is still included in the definition.
If you want to use “assigned male at birth” it means you still need to define the word you find problematic as well as the concept of “assigning” sex which is by no means uncontroversial or inoffensive.
I’m sorry you have trouble with the definition of “assigned male at birth”. Are others confused on the meaning of that?
Regardless of whether assigning sex at birth is controversial or offensive, it basically happens all the time. And, if you have an issue with the definition of “male” in “assigned male at birth”, how do you expect to use it without even the timing qualifier?
I don’t see how, I’m not responsible for how others choose to define their terms. If you are suggesting that confusion can arise from not agreeing on a definition in the first place, or with people using terms to mean multiple things then I think you’ll find that has been my point from the start.
What do you mean by “assigned” what do you mean by “male”?
Because you say that female means one thing, but WB says it means something else. AFAB and transman (depending on the conversation) seems much clearer than female with discussing trans-related issues.
But, I’m really getting tired of this semantics argument. I hardly interact with any transgendered people in my life (that I know of), and just about everything I’ve learned about the terminology, the issues, and transphobia has been from this message board. I think the language part of it is the easiest part of it, but you and others seemed determined to make it difficult.
OK, I see you’re no longer serious about this conversation, so bye!
I interact with trans people all the time. I know transmen, transwomen, and a ton of non-binary people. I sometimes stumble over names and pronouns, but i agree that these language questions are easy.
I can elaborate on what I said before. The term “female,” when used about humans and without qualifiers, has always referred to both sex and gender. This is because we used to think they were one and the same.
Plus, it’s not uncommon for a trans person to change their biology through hormones and/or surgery. So they wind up having fewer “male” or “female” characteristics than they were born with. I even mentioned intersex women who have XY chromosomes, despite being assigned female at birth.
You already seem to accept that a trans man who phenotypically looks male is in fact male. Yet he still has a vagina and likely uterus, ovaries, and XX chromosomes. He’s just taken hormones and likely had top surgery to remove his breasts. The same would be true of a trans woman, except there are more surgeries possible for her: she may have a vaginoplasty to convert her penis into a vagina, and may have had a surgery to make it easier to speak in a higher range and/or to reduce an Adam’s apple. She also may have had breast implants, though the hormones themselves will add breasts.
The point is, when we use the term “female” or “male” today, we seem to always just go by how they look to us—how they present themselves. Trans men are not female, and trans women are not male.
If you need to refer to the biology, you’re just going to need to be more specific than assuming that there is one male biology and one female biology. There are traits that were classically assigned male and female, but no single “female biology” or “male biology.”
It sure seems to me that medical professionals are already working on the problem by simply by being specific. “People with vaginas” covers you even if you don’t have a uterus or are on masculinizing hormone therapy.
As for being “assigned” a gender at birth, I can explain that too. You were almost certainly assigned male at birth. The doctor or whoever was involved in the birthing process looked at you and said you were a boy, most likely simply looking at your genitals. And, from that point on. you were raised as if you were male. That’s assignment.
With a trans person, that assignment was incorrect, and they have chosen to make changes to fix that.
(For intersex people, it wasn’t actually uncommon for doctors to make genital alterations to make the baby’s genitals conform to the gender binary. That’s how pervasive the male/female dichotomy myth has been in our history. Few were actually assigned intersex at birth.)
I hope these end up as MAB and FAB so they are more word-like. Or MAAB and FAAB to keep all the base words, but in an order that can be said as a more naturally sounding word rather an acronym.
Personally, I don’t think AY-mab and AY-fab sound all that bad. (AY being the sound of the letter A, a being the a in cat)
I am absolutely serious, it is clear you are not serious about finding out the flaws in the language you are suggesting we use and the moment you are asked to define what you mean you choose not to.
I’ve been clear, you are not.
The reason I asked you to define what you mean by these two terms is that failure to do so and an insistence that they be used leads people into errors.
There are many physiological and biological markers that help determine biological sex. If at birth 100% of those markers were observed to be those of a male, that infant would (I’m sure you’ll agree) be biologically and physiologically male. You may wish to say that sex has been “assigned” to that infant. I’d say more that it had been “observed” or “determined” (as we would with say, blood type or number of fingers and toes).
There may also be infants who display traits of both sexes who, for reasons of medical expediency etc. may indeed be reasonably said to have been assigned a sex at birth.
The problem comes if one wants to talk about the biological and physiological traits specifically of that former group, particularly as that may relate to say sports, or other areas to which they may be relevant.
If you are suggesting that AMAB is to be used when referring to the former, how is that not also implicitly including the latter? A group to whom the issues under discussion might not apply.
A specific term of “male/female” or “biologically male/female” seems perfectly reasonable to use in such limited and specific circumstances.
I was going to ask why the phrases “genetic male” and “genetic female” haven’t caught on. Yes, I know that there are intersex people for whom this is not so easily binary (my apologies if I didn’t phrase that well), but it would work for the great majority.
But then I realized a much bigger objection: To use the phrase “genetic male” or “genetic female” accurately, some sort of DNA test would be involved, and the vast majority of people have never had one. To use those phrases without DNA verification would just worsen the whole situation, because it means that we’re presuming that the not-yet-done DNA test will match the person’s outward appearance.
What does “I” mean? Do you mean the Freudian ego? Just the letter I out of context? Did you misspell “eye”?
What does “am” mean? Is it the first person version of “to be”? Ante meridian? Amplitude modulation?
What does “absolutely” mean? In every possible sense? Only positive numbers? Measured in Kelvins?
What does “serious” mean? Do you mean like a “serious medical condition”? A serious play? Something to do with the dog star?
I mean, language, wow, man.
You already seem to accept that a trans man who phenotypically looks male is in fact male.
Actually no, their gender may be man (or male if you like) but I would not accept that they were biologically male on looks alone. In 99% of situations though that would be irrelevant and certainly so in any social interactions I had with them.
Yet he still has a vagina and likely uterus, ovaries, and XX chromosomes. He’s just taken hormones and likely had top surgery to remove his breasts. The same would be true of a trans woman, except there are more surgeries possible for her: she may have a vaginoplasty to convert her penis into a vagina, and may have had a surgery to make it easier to speak in a higher range and/or to reduce an Adam’s apple. She also may have had breast implants, though the hormones themselves will add breasts.
This is an interesting thought. To what degree does (or can) medical intervention change someone from a biological male to a biological female or vice-versa?
Do you think that it is possible for someone born male, a 100% set of male sexual markers, no intersex or female traits at all, to then have zero medical intervention and yet be validly referred to as a “female” in the biological sense?
If so then it seems that you aren’t defining the concept of biological sex in any meaningful way. If not then there must be a measure by which “male” or “female” can be determined and that would be useful to understand.
others appear able to engage sensibly, no-one is forcing you to post.
Modnote: OK, that is really overdoing it, isn’t it? If you don’t want to share your opinion in good faith on this, please refrain from posting in this thread.
Sure. Sorry.
meanwhile…
There is a lack of uniform attitude and belief within the LGBTQIA community on the use of general terms such as “sex” and specific terms such as “male” and “female”, as indicated by the often-used “gender unicorn” poster on the one hand and the concerns voiced upthread about misgendering on the other.
I personally don’t like “AMAB” / “AFAB” because it puts the focus on how other people labeled one at a specific time, and that may not reflect one’s current physiological architecture.
I acknowledge that there are people who consider it inappropriate to inquire about anyone’s current physiological plumbing. But we should not extrapolate from that to toss a burqua over physiological plumbing such that no one is allowed to identify or reference their own without being accused of generically misgendering other people by implying that if they possess similar physiological architecture, it means they “should” consider themselves to be of that same signifier w/regards to sex if not gender.
I don’t think that anyone has a deliberate agenda to make anything difficult. But as you yourself point out, words can mean different things to different people, and if someone is offended because I used a word that I thought to be not-offensive, I can’t fault them for reacting.
A lot of this thread reminds me of another thread we had recently, on whether or not the term “Jew” is derogatory. I am Jewish, and I never felt the word to be offensive, but other people were raised in other cultures / communities / regions / whatever then I was, and I can’t fault them for how they feel.
Are you actually confused by ‘assigned male at birth’?
Is there actual uncertainty as to what that phrase means in a discussion about transgender issues?
Or, is there theoretical uncertainty, if you squint really hard and pretend to be excessively dense?
Language is about communicating ideas, and AMAB successfully communicates an idea. If you don’t like the idea, don’t think that idea hits the important discussion points of the topic, then say that. Smugly pretending that you don’t get it doesn’t help the discussion.