Apologies in advance for the very long ask
The issue is, the intersex community has *not only* been *creating* new words for perisex, especially peritrans people to use in these situations, but peritrans people have been using AGAB so incorrectly that it's making it hard for *all* intersex people to talk about their experiences.
SIG isn't the only term created to reference what peritrans people are talking about when they talk about AGAB. There's also wolffepathian and mullepathian, and the corresponding Typical [w/m] Developmental Pathway as labels. These aren't misgendering, they're just identifying sets of traits in a non-gendered way.
Because of how peritrans people talk about AGAB, I'm unable to talk about the intersexism of that system in reference to my own AGAB without peritrans people assuming these 3 things. How I was raised, how I was treated, and what my anatomy is/aligns with.
But they're consistently wrong, because my AGAB "matches" with *none* of those 3 things. Because none of those are what AGAB represents. I was AFAB, but I was raised almost completely genderless, not in a progressive way, but instead because I was severely/profoundly disabled and intersex. My anatomy is CTM, and I was treated terribly for identifying with *any* gender, because I was presumed to be completely genderless.
But peritrans people will hear "I was AFAB" and then they proceed to assume I was not only raised a "girl" but that I was ever even *allowed* to be a girl even if I *wanted* to be. They assume my anatomy is female or CTF, even though it isnt.
In reference to the historical trans people question, the best way to discuss this is just to say *exactly what you mean*. Instead of trying to insert SIG where it's being used incorrectly, or using AGAB incorrectly, you could instead say:
"He was outed as a trans[xyz] man" or "He was discovered to be a trans[xyz] man" or "He was outed/discovered to be trans[xyz]".
All of those work even better, and you can easily adapt the language to better fit the way it was described at the time, such as using transsexual when referring to some historical figures while using transgender to refer to more modern ones.
Additionally, you could rather easily use one of the *correct* terms for this type of discovery using wolffepathian/mullepathian or T[W/M]DP, both of which refer to anatomy instead of socialization.
Again, sorry for how long the ask is, and I will come back once you've answered to answer any other questions :)
Okay I'm gonna be honest, this ask did make me feel like I needed to take a long walk before I answered it. The post being referred to is here.
Your approach is part of the problem I was talking about in my post. I will say the way you've phrased things is very condescending - but I'm going respond in the assumption of good faith.
"The issue is, the intersex community has not only been creating new words for perisex, especially peritrans people to use in these situations, but peritrans people have been using AGAB so incorrectly that it's making it hard for all intersex people to talk about their experiences."
This response is part of the problem. If the intersex community is creating terms for perisex trans people without us or including us in those conversations, then this immediately creates some problems. You phrase it in such a way as if perisex trans people have been ignorant of these attempts. But if we were never included in the first place, how could we have known? Furthermore, this concerns making terminology all parties (trans and intersex) are comfortable with. If non-trans intersex people are creating terminology for perisex trans people, we have a problem. We aren't going to take any terms you come up with if we're excluded from the creation of such terminology. It's going to have an impact on us too. Nothing about us without us.
If you read my post I actually acknowledge several times trans people have been using AGAB terminology incorrectly! I know! Reminding me in this way is condescending and it feels like you didn't read my post at all.
"SIG isn't the only term created to reference what peritrans people are talking about when they talk about AGAB. There's also wolffepathian and mullepathian, and the corresponding Typical [w/m] Developmental Pathway as labels. These aren't misgendering, they're just identifying sets of traits in a non-gendered way."
I diasgree that I used socially imposed gender (SIG) wrong in my post - I think my use of it was fine - but if you read the post you see I acknowlege its limitations. Also socially imposed language didn't originate in the intersex community - I've seen it used in other contexts/disciplines (e.g. with reference to culture or nationality).
I did a boolean search on Google and got nothing for "wolffepathian" but I did come across Wolffian. Is this what you meant? Likewise Mullerian. From the Wolffian page is this quote:
"This term should be used in a medical manner, in the same way one would use the term "biological male". It is best not to use this term in a non-medical way unless it is for self-identification. For example, one should not call a transgender woman "wolffian" without consent, as this reduces people to their sex, disregarding their gender" (emphasis mine)
The definition literally refutes what you're saying here. I would feel very uncomfortable if someone called me mullerian as a trans man. Even though Wolffian and Mullerian were supposedly coined by a trans woman in the 2010s, this is far, far from any kind of consensus on the terminology at all (especially since I hadn't heard of these two terms before). I don't feel Wolffian or Mullerian address my concerns at all - if I'm writing about a historical or living trans person, this isn't going to help. I also don't think just replacing the terms biological female/male is going to help - otherwise we're just creating a new binary? I was more looking for phrases, or sets of phrases which acknowledge the prescence of certain traits which also prioritise the dignity of the person being referred to. I don't think either of these terms do that.
I also feel your other suggestion is far too specialised to use in casual conversation and is potentially murky.
Much of the rest of your ask is venting. Honestly, I sympathise with the way you've been treated and I'm genuinely sorry that the misuse of AGAB language has made it harder for you to talk about your experiences. Really, I am. But as I've said, I'm actively trying to find replacements for that terminology, the way you're speaking feels more like you just wanted to vent at me than work with me. Please do not vent unsolicited in people's askboxes in future!
""He was outed as a trans[xyz] man" or "He was discovered to be a trans[xyz] man" or "He was outed/discovered to be trans[xyz]"."
If you read my post I point out there's several situations in which this isn't sufficient. E.g. In the case of James Barry for instance, he was found to have had a vulva after death. Now I could mention this, hypothetically as "It was discovered he had a vulva". But again, remember that constantly bringing up the genitals someone has/had can be unpleasant and historically, cis writers have tended to overly focus on people's genitals in a way which is misgendering. Also on a practical level, as a writer, repeating myself isn't good writing. If I mention in one sentence the genitals, if I go on to talk about the outing again, it's generally frowned upon in writing to repeat something you've already said. On a linguistic level, there needs to be variation. Which is what my original post is trying to get at. Furthermore, it is historically inaccurate in some cases to say "he was outed as a trans man". If the man in question lived in the 1700s, he can't have been outed as a trans man because the term trans hadn't been invented yet. I don't think transgender people should be restricted to very banal or inaccurate turns of phrase forevermore. There is a need for terminology that not only works, but is liked.
"such as using transsexual when referring to some historical figures while using transgender to refer to more modern ones."
This is just wrong and not how these terms work at all. Transsexual isn't just an older version of the word transgender - in fact, many people still use the term transsexual for themself! Many people don't like the term and wouldn't want to be called it, however. So this, I can't stress enough, isn't a solution! There isn't a cutoff date somewhere in the 20th century where before all trans people were called transsexual and all trans people afterwards are transgender. That's not how it works! I am assuming (please let me know if I'm wrong) you aren't trans yourself (I searched your blog and found essentially no mentions of trans at all). This is woefully inaccurate - you don't get to tell perisex trans people we're using intersex terminology wrong if you can't get trans terminology right yourself! There needs to be mutal respect and you aren't showing any here.
"you could rather easily use one of the correct terms for this type of discovery using wolffepathian/mullepathian"
Again, the condescention with your insistence these are the correct terms. They're a set of terms which exist, but it doesn't mean they're correct, useful or respectful in this situation. Especially if they've been created without a lot of input from trans people. Plainly, this ain't it. You've been very dismissive of transgender issues and have dictated terminology at us, rather than let trans people have a seat at the table when creating terminology about us and for us (in addition to intersex people and people who occupy both categories).
I will go far as to say this ask is transphobic - you haven't proprely read the post, have been talking down to me throughout and have demonstrated an extremely poor grasp of transgender issues and terminology. You have also suggested terms which despite your insistence aren't misgendering - are misgendering or have the capacity to be misgendering. You have to listen to transgender people too or else this is going to be one-sided.
My post was made in the hopes of discussing this with mutual respect, which I haven't been shown in this ask. I really implore people who feel they can contribute in good faith to do so - because this is a topic worth talking about. But it is also an intersex-trans issue - both communities have to be actively involved and neither should be dismissed or omitted from the conversation.
Nothing about us, without us.
