The fact that they literally think that me critiquing their language got them to question if I were either a "transphobe or ally" is very questionable. I'm literally a transfeminine (AMAB) enby myself. Nothing of what I said was trans exclusionary. The statement "Some AFABs are men" is literally very trans inclusive. Separating AFABs and men as two mutually exclusive groups, however, isn't trans inclusive. It's clearly a pretentious and performative attempt at inclusion because that's functionally no different than typical TERF-drivel.
"You sound like you spend too much time on tumblr" RED FLAG, MASSIVE CHUD ALERT, PROBABLY SECRETLY A TERF OR SOMETHING
I mean that's some 2016 gamergate type shit.
lmao This is exactly why the word "theyfab" was coined. To be precise: Simultaneously claiming that femaleness is based on birth assignment, which is just basic transphobia, and also professing a nonbinary identity without any attempt to reconcile this contradiction is a kind of egoism born out of a half-hearted understanding of transfeminism. And of course it always ends in transmisogyny, because if all AFABs get a "happy woman's day", what gender is left for the rest of us?
As an AMAB enby, this is a glimpse into me finally understanding why some binary trans people, especially trans women, have developed enbyphobic views. Not that I'm justifying their enbyphobia, but I've always been a pretty outspoken opponent of enbyphobia, especially in the context of infighting within the trans community specifically. I always thought this whole thing about "AFAB enbies sometimes seeming just like TERFy cis women" was a myth until I experienced this. However, that being said, I know this is a loud minority. There are tons of AFAB enbies themselves who would object to this bullshit, and at the end of the day, regardless if you're cis or trans, binary or non-binary, just keep the problematic, divisive language out of fighting our battles against oppression. That shit helps no one.
I'm going to say this as carefully as possible:
There are trans men who do this as well, and it literally puts amabs in physical danger. I was threatened with death by strangulation for wanting to quit, and he never used my chosen pronouns. I've also had one (my ex husband) threaten to call the cops on me and say that he doesn't feel safe with me in the house then kicking me out all because he wouldn't leave my room so I pushed him out of it
I give all trans afabs I see love and support, but I will never fucking trust them. They have a privilege that they've demonstrated they will use against me when it most suits them and will hurt me the most and will do it without thinking twice.
I’ve wished several trans men happy international women’s day
all cap, this person doesn’t know any trans men, this is pure claiming to have a minority friend to justify some bigoted shit
Yeah they clearly have no argument. What an annoying little fucker
They're getting dunked on by some other comments, and now they're screeching about how all those responders are "Tumblr liberals engaging in oppression olympics". Good God, this is so ironic that it hurts.
I heard someone say recently that the only major, sticky divide in the trans community is basically this. People who do this weird shit where they reinvent the wheel of discrimination and bioessentialize based on AGAB vs the "it's all socially constructed?"
people.I'm bad at explaining it but you know what I mean. The bioessentialist types are firmly in the "I want nothing to do with you" camp in my book. Honestly except in the limited circumstances where it makes a practical difference, any reference to AGAB is sus to me. Don't make that your identity, why are you even trans if you're gonna just identify with your agab all the time anyhow?
Even then, you don't need AGAB to explain a lot of the things people are asking, but you can derive it from the language otherwise.
Examples:
- I'm non-binary, and I just started estrogen! I'm so excited! (Likely AMAB)
- I'm non-binary, and I want to cut my hair to look more masculine. It'll really help with my dysphoria. (Likely AFAB)
- I'm non-binary, and I like how deep my voice has been getting since starting HRT. (Likely AFAB)
People who go out of their way to characterize AGAB as making you a "certain kind of enby" or just a weird spin on cis (or, in some cases, even trans) people of your assigned sex give me an awful headache.
Seems like they just don't understand what AFAB means. Like they think it's a person's true gender, that they may have been born male but transitioned to their true birth gender of female
well no, but actually kinda. Judging by later replies I dont think they are actually confused as to what AFAB means. But implicitly they are acting like AGAB is an intrinsic trait, and basically the more true one in terms of "shared experiences". its like theyre trying to draw a distinction between sex and gender and say that sex is essential/unchngeable but refuse to use common language for it
I got that feeling too. It sounds like they were too embarrassed to admit they just didn't know what the term meant and just dug themselves deeper and deeper into a hole, getting more obnoxious and awful the more they refused to admit that they could not know something.
I think your perception of the optics here are way out of line, my friend. This person isn't the "ally" you think they are and they're screeching at even honest, gentle, sincere, and good faith clarifications of why their language is actually not as inclusive as they think it is. It's highly self-centered language, and the fact of the matter is that OP only phrased it this way because they personally relate to the sentiment of being an AFAB non-binary person that relates to struggles within womanhood. There is nothing "inclusive" about only utilizing yourself as an individual as the mode of finding out the best way to reach a broader scope of inclusion. The bioessentialist outlook is crucial to question in good faith whenever you want to be truly inclusive. Trans women are being ignored here, and the statement in and of itself is trans-exclusionary for sure even if it isn't explicitly expressing animosity towards trans women. You do not need to bluntly say transmisogynistic things to come off as forgetful of the concerns of trans women; exclusion isn't a binary.
We are talking about the context of International Women's Day, a day that has a very crucial emphasis among progressive circles on the inclusion of transgender women because transgender women have found themselves being pitted against disgustingly vile cisheteronormative standards that are being reinforced by the patriarchy as well. Obviously, non-binary people, regardless of assigned sex at birth, are included within these struggles, but to narrow down the essence of misogynistic oppression to bioessentialism that is strictly linked to sex assigned at birth isn't truly supportive of acknowledging the messy intricacies of oppression on the basis of gender.
This is you genuinely assuming too much good faith if you think some simple-minded Instagram commenter clearly took all these nuances into genuine consideration. If your perception of the statement is "Some AFABs are literally men" is anything but the validation of trans men, you are the one overcomplicating it, not me. That statement is literally, at face value, bluntly recognizing the acknowledgement of trans men. The very thing that makes a trans man different than a cis man, by definition, is that they were assigned-female-at-birth rather than assigned-male-at-birth.
Critiquing language, even if done with fervency and aggression, is not the same thing as controlling it, and it can definitely serve as a valid critique of the language in and of itself. This is why "tone policing" is a term. The essence of what I'm saying doesn't deviate merely on the basis of how "rude" or "kind" it comes across, and in either instance, there is no sense of "controlling" language. I can't "control" language, but I can critique language in whichever way I see fit.
To say that "someone who was assigned female at birth can be a man" is absolutely NOT, IN ANY WAY CONCEIVABLE, a trans-exclusionary position, and the fact that you literally are asserting this makes me skeptical of how much you understand what terminology within trans discourse means to begin with.
Whether or not I phrase my arguments as an imperative, such as the "PLEASE STOP THIS" phrasing I used, doesn't actually speak on what they have to do, so it's extremely disingenuous for you to center this around me mandating things.
If my critiques are extremely ambiguous to a degree that this foolish enby who tried to tailor their "inclusive" language only in the context of literally their own comfort, that doesn't mean that my phrasing is ambiguous to everyone. Hell, it sure as hell wasn't ambiguous to many people besides you, which is indicative that it's not a "me" thing. This is a simple instance of you lacking the proper knowledge to approach this subject appropriately while being under the false perception that you do understand it.
I'm definitely one to be aware of the nature of linguistic evolution. I bring that up in discourse more than anyone else at this point, but this is a totally irrelevant point in the context of this conversation. The way "AFAB" was meant here is not meant to be any different than what it means in the context of the typical viewer. And as I read your pathetic attempt to defend these foolish remarks, I'm starting to question if you even understand the impact of the words used here to begin with. If you took this logic at face value, this is literally misgendering trans men, so your argument, once again, actually makes the comment seem more exclusionary, not less. The usage of the term in the way you are interpreting this literally strives to take trans-inclusive ideas like the notion that someone who was AFAB can be a man and someone who was AMAB can be a woman and throw it in the trash, by making these groups diametrically opposed to one another in a way.
Like I said, the take, "Some AFABs are men.", is literally very simple to interpret and not ambiguous whatsoever. Misinterpreting it as anything besides "Trans men exist." isn't a fault of myself but a fault of other people who do not understand any of the terminology at play here.
This is crucial because we are talking about "International Women's Day" for crying out loud. Trans men being associated with such can be very much in the form of erasure and ignore all the struggles that they have in the grand scheme of things.
My "kind" critique to you is as follows:
Learn. In order for your needlessly extensive attempt to defending this wording to even make any sense, we'd have to start at ground zero. The optics you are using within this context are, seemingly, in good faith, but they're very, very poor and open the door for the worst uses of this kind of language imaginable. Hell, I'm sure that hardly matters to you, though. I even took the time in the post to acknowledge that I thought OP meant well, but I guess that's not relevant.
Did this person edit their comment and insert their own “Removed by mod”? Because I don’t see the removal in the modlog.
I hit ban and checked off remove content. This unfortunately doesn't leave a good modlog trail. Don't worry though, I can guarantee you I whacked them myself.
Ah so it’s about the order of operations. It seems I’ll do anything but read the Rust source code
lemmy is... I'll be kind and say "quirky". So ultimately the only way to know what any function is doing under the hood is to read the source, because docs are almost nonexistent and many things just aren't quite self-documenting
Imagine defending obvious terf shit. No, we do not have to get an electron microscope to find every hint and trace of possible good faith from some obvious bullshit. If you can't handle being called out on bullshit you have absolutely no place here, and you were never welcome. I look forward to never seeing your sorry ass around here again lmao
:
