“AMAB” and “AFAB” language needs to die

Like a lot of things, it's hard to say when "agab" terminology first was used. Wikipedia links a tumblr post talking about it being used back in 2008, but has been used maybe back in 2002, and one blog claims it started as a joke by some trans women and a cis lesbian. Even Wikipedia says that article is not up to its standard, although I'm inclined to believe that it's fair enough.

But it doesn't matter. No matter where it came from, whether it was originally used for trans or intersex people or whether or not it was a joke, this language has its claws in trans communities and very many trans-affirming medical spaces.

To me, AMAB and AFAB language feels like a stepping stone in the right direction. I'd much rather be called AFAB than I would "trans-identified female", but I'd rather be called a trans man than I would be called AFAB transmasc. They're stepping stones in the right direction of giving trans people the language we need to describe our experiences and allowing us a room to get things through insurance that might not be otherwise accessible, but they aren't great. They have a lot of flaws that need to be criticized more than they are, and they need to be criticized in a constructive way, not just by someone who wants to go back to how things were before.

CAFAB and CAMAB stand for "coercively assigned male/female at birth", referring to the way doctors will "correct" visibly intersex babies at birth to get them to fit into a binary.

Trans people use AMAB and AFAB to describe the way sex is determined for us based on visible characteristics, and that designated sex assigns us a gender role in society which is expected to be unmoving and unchanging for the rest of our lives.

Unfortunately, that's not always how it's used.

In the last few years, it seems as though we're using the words AMAB and AFAB to refer to some kind of objective sex, using words separate from gender identity instead.

Rather than saying women's bodies, we say AFAB bodies, and vice versa, in the name of inclusivity and trans acceptance. Not only does this defeat the purposes of that terminology, it also erases intersex people and transsexuals fighting for recognition of their bodies.

It treats sex as something inherent, one or other(or close enough), and something immediately relevant at all times. There are two sexes, AMAB and AFAB, and occasionally the vague "intersex" when we remember they exist at all. It also treats it as unchangeable- trans people, no matter their genitals or secondary sex characteristics, are still lumped in with their birth sex as though they all have the same thing in common.

One of the supposed uses for this language is medical settings, for things that are sex based. But we don't want to use TERF language, so we don't say sex based, we say relevant to our AGAB.

And you can see why that would make sense. There are some unique issues that affect only people who are assigned female at birth, correct? Like breast cancer or gynecology or abortions? And people assigned male at birth have unique needs like prostate cancer? So that language is a better way to categorize people's unique needs without forcing trans people to fit into cisgender models of healthcare.

Only that's what it seems to be doing. Instead of women's health it's AFAB health, instead of men's health it's AMAB health, intersex people are treated as a monolith.

One thing I've found particularly interesting is the way that while medical transition is seen as the minimum, it's only supposed to be a certain amount, and if you go too far then you're abandoned by trans activism almost entirely. The idea is that once you've transitioned enough you're basically cis, or vou at least you have enough privilege over other trans people to never be considered when thinking about "the trans experience".

It's like a pendulum that swings back and forth. Transition, though almost always considered repulsive in recent history, was expected to be respected. Then we worked on that idea, inside both medical and social fields, and with new conceptions of "passing privilege" being popularized, it swung the other way. The stigma of transition was changed from "it's disgusting but if you must" to "don't for a billion other reasons!" with a progressive spin on it.

The problem with these kinds of discussions is that it's hard to talk about them without letting two contradicting things exist at once. Yes, medical transition is considered disgusting and repulsive. Yes, trans people are discouraged from medically transitioning. It is also true that trans people who don't medically transition aren't treated any better. It is also true that trans people who don't transition are punished for being more than gender non conforming, that they're mistreated within their own community. It's the cannibalistic cycle of queer groups, like the ouroboros. We are constantly turning in on ourselves. No matter your transition status you're hated, just with different methods and justifications of said hatred. So while I'm talking about the stigmatization of medical transition and the erasure of transsexuals, please know that I'm not implying that means non-transitioning people have it easier in any way.

I don't think infighting is necessarily an intentional method to get us to spend our energy on pointless things, like whether or not bisexual women should be welcome in lesbian spaces, rather than whether or not bisexuals and lesbians have legal protections from discrimination. I think it's encouraged because it has that effect, distracting us from material problems by bothering us with immaterial problems. It's bound to happen in any large group, especially online ones, because when you focus mostly on social interaction vour biggest issue can be validity.

That's all "AMAB" and "AFAB" language is. It's language that divides us into groups and tries to act as though everyone can fit into two boxes, but this time it's two new boxes with different labels on them!

It could be useful but it's not. It can be useful for intersex people to describe the experience of violently being assigned a sex and forced into that box, but the way it's used starts with the assumption that sex is inherent, "real", binary and unchanging. We talk about sex being something that's assigned but we still talk about it as if it's immune to social construction, as if sex hast been constructed violently through dominant culture as well explained in this video by Alexander Avila.

It's also important to note that transgender people are notorious for being transsexual- defined here as someone who medically transitions. HRT changes things biologically, but people even underestimate how vast that change is. For testosterone HRT your vocal cords thicken, you grow facial hair there's bottom growth, everything down to the smell of your sweat can change. For estrogen HRT you can grow breasts, have a hormonal cycle, completely change the way you gain(or don't gain) muscle, how your genitalia functions changes in ways that aren't widely discussed. And that's just HRT!

Further surgeries, like phalloplasty, metoidioplasty, vaginoplasty, nullification surgery, and so many more combinations also change your medical needs. Post-OP trans women do need gynecological care, something that isn't talked about as much. The general stigma of having a vagina combined with being transgender and it being a neo-vagina culminates to a view of vaginoplasty as a rotting wound, sometimes even called a bleeding pocket out of disgust.

On both tumblr and twitter there was a post going around by @bouscal pictured below-

Which is something I'd posted about in the past and was relieved to see other people talk about it and get more attention. Mulitgender blogs I follow have talked about how when surveys or studies are done and they ask for gender, it's frustrating that there is always a nebulous "other" but never a checklist for someone who wants to select two or more genders as theirs. It's nice to see people abandon simplicity and replace it with better options.

"AFAB" and "AMAB" as language is only useful in medical contexts so long as you erase almost every intersex variation and look over every transsexual and assume everyone is of a binary sex instead of gender and never changes. An individualized approach would be better for the unique needs of everyone and create systematic change, switching the M/F/X system for a checkbox of relevant characteristics to give doctors to treat intersex and trans people with more accuracy and precision.

The trans community has a tendency to fall into simplistic slogans. Like "love is love", we have phrases and ideas that take very little introspection or interrogating. People say "trans women are women" and "trans rights are human rights", but while that support is appreciated it doesn't really do much to understand us at all.

With the general rise of video essays and their popularity, I hope that this means people will be more excited to academically engage with social politics with a critical and introspective gaze, and I hope we're able to embrace the world as complicated as it is without trying to simplify it for convenience.