the_dunk_tank

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.

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