I'm seeing a lot of people saying agab language should be used in medical contexts, and let me be clear:
"amab" and "afab" are not euphemisms for "male" and "female." not even a doctor should be using "afab" as shorthand for "has a vulva, uterus, high estrogen levels, low testosterone levels, etc," because HRT EXISTS! gender affirming surgeries exist! intersex people exist! you can be afab and change, remove, or not even have been born with any of the above features!!
you cannot use "amab" and "afab" as a shorthand for "has this or that set of features!"
it's not about using progressive language, it's about accurately accounting for people who exist outside the sex binary. those of us who do are under-studied, and the medical system is poorly equipped to handle us, often lumping us in with our agabs and failing to account for how our bodies actually work. this is a PROBLEM that cannot be papered over by finding new euphemisms for "male" and "female"
the BINARY is the problem, not the language
just today I went to urgent care for acute genital pain, and a nurse asked me my assigned sex at birth in an attempt to ask what kind of genitalia I had. I answered by instead telling her the relevant body part where the pain was, and she took that as a response. had I actually answered with my agab, would she just have presumed I hadn't had bottom surgery? why not just ask about the actual body part instead??
I worked as a health system administrator whose job was to reduce barriers to care for trans people and literally this.
We had a web system where people were basically automatically triaged for certain conditions and when I was hired there was a question for UTI symptoms that asked are you a man or a woman, routing women to same-day nurse practitioner appointments (because they usually had uncomplicated UTIs) and men to physicians (because they usually had STIs, and if they DID have UTIs they were more medically complex) but this meant that trans people were getting sorted wrong. A committee of me, a doctor, one or two nurses, and another administrator sat down and talked through what that sorting logic actually needed to do, what the risks were of sorting wrong, and what language would be acceptable.
We did not need to know their gender, their sex assigned at birth, their transition history, any of that. What we needed to know is how long their urethra is, because a short urethra means the likeliest situation is an uncomplicated UTI where the top priority is getting antibiotics into them as fast as possible to prevent kidney involvement, and a long urethra means the likeliest situation (in our clinical population) is an STI, but if it IS a UTI kidney involvement may already be a factor, so either way they need a doctor. The language we came up with was "do you have a penis?"
We were worried that people would be offended by this question but we could not think of a better approach so we decided to just try "do you have a penis?" and see if anyone complained. They did not.





















