Assigned Female at Birth - AFAB

[ShugarTits]

AIBU to get the actual rage every time I see this written down? Often in reputable sources.

Obviously this has come about due to people differentiating between gender and sex - I understand needing clarity between those two when talking to or questioning people.

but every single bloody time I read it I can only think of the horrific female infanticide statistics. AIBU to think ‘assigned female at birth’ is fucking offensive to women, as so many of us are killed at birth ONLY because we are female. Nobody assigned those infants a female sex, they didn’t just randomly pick half of the babies and murder them.

can’t we agree as a society to call out AFAB and AMAB as being horrific and change it? Happy to hear alternatives. Observed female/male at birth sounds reasonable to me if you need to specify birth sex vs gender.

Assigned sex at birth. Agree with you, I think most people do OP. Nonsense. Absurd. People aren’t ‘given’ a sex at birth. They are a certain sex. Like they aren’t assigned eye colour, they have a certain eye colour.

People can present as a different sex. But they can’t change sex. The fact that the establishment is currently proliferating a myth that people can change sex, particularly to children in schools, is criminal.

The cult of transgenderism reminds me of religion. No facts involved.

and when that safety is meaningfully impacted people will listen

How many assults is your bench mark?
How many women & children need to be harmed physically or mentally before you feel it is a meaningful impacted?

10, 100, 500, a 1000?

What's your number???

Saying 'AFAB' instead of 'female' is part of trying to destabilize reproductive sexes as categories.

Trying to make them sound subjective and changeable.

But sex really does matter very much. Especially if you think girls show have the same life chances as boys.

It’s probably because it grates on me so much that I see it regularly - BBC news, NHS website, I’ve just done a perfunctory search and even found an article in the National Archives talking about someone “assigned female at birth” who lived life as a man.

Of course the term is often referred to in trans guidance for schools, diversity policies for many organisations etc. But you will also find the term in places discussing things like endometriosis, breast cancer etc.

Let's not forget that a woman was raped on an NHS ward by a man claiming to be a woman. She was told that couldn't happen because there were no men on the ward. It was caught on cctv, so that lie was made clear.

Women's safety is being compromised and then they're gaslit. Who knows who else this has happened to. Yet posters in here are cheering it on.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/

"Meaningful" often really means "meaningful to me," which often just means "impacts me (or those closest to me) directly."
If that's what you mean, Dutch, hand on heart I hope your safety is never meaningfully impacted.

Indeed @LilyBartsHatShop which is why the language switcheroos are so vital to the movement. People can’t protest what they don’t understand or aren’t aware of. So the line goes ‘well no one else has objected’. But most people are blissfully unaware until something happens. And then they are bloody furious and told that they are being unreasonable. It’s all been done with lies, steals and misdirection. Hardly the workings of a free and open society.

Do you think that gender ideologists tend to respect polite requests from women not to be referred to as “cis”, “menstruators” or “people with vaginas”? It’s extremely rare to see men described in equivalent terms.

Do you think that clear, accurate language in healthcare is important, especially as some patients may not speak English as a first language, whereas others have poor literacy or learning disabilities? How is it inclusive to refer to women as “people with a cervix” when research has shown that a significant minority of UK women don’t know what a cervix is? Clear language could save lives.

YOU consider it a fact, others do not.

This reasonable-sounding comment is actually more of a problem than the usual aggressive trans demands.

The fact that humans can't change sex is just that: a fact. Not an opinion. Sex is not 'assigned' at birth but recorded. Pretending to believe anything else can only be a pretence. Pretending because you face harsh punishment if you don't pretend is coercion.

There isn't a middle ground on which sex can be slightly changed, or sometimes changed. People with disorders of sexual development may have had their sex incorrectly recorded at birth (a tiny number of people), but they remain the same sex they were in the womb.

I can consider a person's wish to be seen as the opposite sex; I can sympathise if this distresses them. But no one has the right to expect that I lie in order to please them.

Sex is not 'assigned' is it, that suggests babies a born without any sex chromosomes or characteristics and that they're randomly furnished with one or the other.

'Observed' makes more sense, but still for me doesn't convey the importance orf biological sex and how deep these characteristics run. For example, I have a NIPT test booked this weekend, which will also confirm the sex of the baby via which chromosomes are/are not present in my blood. Before sex characteristics can even be observed by a scan.

It's regressive and downright scary that we seem to be backtracking over scientific fact.

Parents shouldn't be told the gender that a child is assigned at birth, they should be told the sex that is observed at birth. Gender is a made up social construct based on stereotypes, it should have nothing to do with new born babies.

It's absolute madness OP.

Actually scrub that, you don't need 'observed at birth' either. Just the word sex and then male or female.

I know this thread has moved on so sorry if someone has already pointed this out. But a more accurate argument would be "do you believe white people who identify as black should be accomodated"?

Also, nobody anywhere is saying that trans people shouldn't have their needs met but being a part of society involved understanding that you can't get everything you want, all the time. Especially when it is to the detriment of rights and needs hard won by others and when it comes to language, erasing the meaning of sex harms women.

I am still wondering how many women & children need to be harmed before Dutch deems it a meaningful impact.

"But a more accurate argument would be "do you believe white people who identify as black should be accomodated"?

Other than nutty woman in the US is this actually a thing?

Or is it a weird hypothetical you've invented to invalidate the feelings of trans women & men?

Its no less "nutty" than a male claiming to be a female/woman.

Why is a white person claiming to be black nutty to you bur a male claiming to be a woman/female isn't?

These are EXACTLY the same arguments used by the far right to stop migration to the UK from Pakistan & India.

Ok but here we are talking about males in female spaces so if you want to start a convo on a different topic feel free to start a new thread.

If you would like to answer the question in the context of which I asked it please do so.

Richard Dawkins asked this too. Similar incoherent reaction.

Quagmire of sht

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments

Trans-age and Trans-abled are both 'things'. Plenty of examples on SM. Should they be accommodated? Grown men identifying into daycare settings? Able bodied athletes identifying into Paralympic teams.

If the answer is no, why are we saying yes to men 'identifying' as women?

By meaningful impact they probably mean, when it impacts men.

No, it's not a thing generally, although it does happen (believe there is someone identifying as Korean). I was using it as a "weird hypothetical" to highlight the difficulties of OldManSign's argument. I think you will note that I also said trans people do and SHOULD have rights.

Also, can you tell me the difference between someone identifying as black when white and those identifying as the opposite sex?

Can we be clear - when you say 'men in female spaces' are you referring to trans women?

My question is this:

What is the difference between telling a boy that he has to have short hair and like football because he is a boy and telling a girl that because she likes football and has short hair that she has to be a boy?

One is deemed patriarchal and regressive and the other right on and progressive. But they are using the same tires tropes to define people.