seen from Switzerland
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from China
(1/2) Trans/nonbinary/non-cis people: How do you usually feel when a social group, piece of content, etc is labeled as being for "AFABs only" or "AMABs only" even when a person's biological sex isn't relevant to the group/activity/etc?
It's a helpful/useful label to distinguish the target audience/what it's for
It's a way to make sure specific people feel safe and seen in those settings
The terms are useful despite sometimes getting misused to mean "male/female"
The terms themselves are useful, but often used just to exclude trans people
It's a cop-out. Indicates that speaker just sees trans ppl as their assigned sex
The concept of identifying ppl that way is straight up transphobic
I think people's original biological sex is ALWAYS relevant
I feel another specific way
I don't care
I'm not sure/I've never encountered this/show results
Not applicable/show results
A couple examples:
A reader-insert fanfiction tagged as "AFAB reader" rather than "female reader," but makes no reference to how they were born/doesn't make that difference relevant in any way
A support group billed as "for AFABs," which denies entry to non-stealth trans women
Anon finds this usage of the terms extremely irritating and wants to know if others feel similarly.
–
We ask your questions anonymously so you don’t have to! Submissions are open on the 1st and 15th of the month.
Text: decoupling pregnancy from femininity means accurate and more inclusive language and treatment, but it also allows cis women to refuse motherhood without refusing womanhood, which is great for feminism and terrifying for misogyny.
--THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS. As a sterile cis woman who doesn’t want to have children anyway I feel this is every ounce of my being. “Define woman” types tend to do so in a way that excludes me too, so I got to stand with my trans sisters.
Ten days ago, I organized an "Inclusive French" workshop in Paris, to discuss how you can be more inclusive (feminism, gender neutral) in both written and spoken French!
It was so cool, about 40 people showed up and we talked about how to talk about nonbinary people, strategies to be more inclusive of women especially when talking about groups...
So cool in fact that I decided to host an online one for people who aren't in Paris.
The first online workshop will be on Saturday, January 31st at 6pm CET (so 5pm GET, 12pm EST and 9am PST)
To get the link you can just sign up here :)
graffiti found in my local gender neutral bathroom. WHO’S AFRAID OF THE WORD PERIOD?
we need to start being really pushy about inclusive language again. pericis people are far too comfortable with excluding trans, nonbinary, and intersex people from conversations and it feels like there's nowhere near enough pushback.
I want to have a conversation about this. Any hostile comments will be removed.
Cis women doesn't get brought up in every conversation. The same people who say "cis women is degrading" will refuse to call trans women just women. Also normalizing inclusive language isn't degrading. These terms are helpful for transmasculine people who have children and can help them feel less bad about it. Now my thoughts are is her issue with them being used on her or them existing in general. "I respect trans people" yet they let people be EXTREMELY transphobic about transfems and transmascs in their comments sections.
Why bring this up? Inclusive language is not being used for no reason. Its not degrading, I can understand not wanting you to be having these terms pushed onto you if you don't like it but these terms are NOT degrading.
if it's okay to ask, why is "ethnic" not okay? I understand exotic, but I hear people use "ethnic" about like aesthetics, features, food, cultural things all the time.
It is, of course, okay to ask, and I really appreciate you asking so respectfully and kindly.
Everyone has an ethnicity, so when the term ethnic is applied only to people, cultures, and traditions that are not white (which is how it's most commonly used), it becomes an issue of racial othering, of saying these people who are not white don't fit the default and therefore they are ethnic, they are other.
Ethnic and exotic are often used interchangeably and to the same end, which is most commonly to specify non-whiteness. Thus, you can see how this can become reductive and diminishes the multifaceted identities of peoples and their cultures to a blanket other.
It would be better to simply specify what one is speaking about. If you're talking about food, say where the food is from, don't just say ethnic food. Say Caribbean food, Vietnamese cuisine, etc. The same with cultural customs, i.e. "Jumping the broom is a common wedding custom among Black Americans," as opposed to "Jumping the broom is an ethnic tradition." Specificity and precise language is much better than using a blanket term like ethnic. When broader language is required though and you are speaking of POC, it's typically more respectful to forego "ethnic communities/ethnic people" in favor of "people/communities of color" or similar terms.
Ethnic, in the context of it being used to describe non-white people and cultures, paints such broad strokes, but at the same time it lumps all non-white peoples and cultures into one different, other world. It's also just not very nice to refer to a person as ethnic, and when it comes to referring purely to POC as ethnic, we're now heading into the territory of "is this a microaggression?" So, yes, it is generally better to default to more respectful and precise language.
[For readers' clarification, I think this ask was in reference/response to this ask, but I'm not 100% certain.]
