transgender models?

[garionhall]

Occasionally, we have transgender models apply (that is, people born male but identify as female). Until recently, these people had applied before Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS), so they still had a penis. That meant they were not appropriate for appearing on abbywinters.com as a female model (our internal definition is "has a vagina").

Recently we had a transgender model apply who has had SRS, and so nominally has a vagina. Assuming she meets all our other requirements, do you think it's appropriate for her to appear on our site?

[massfan3]

Sure, I think it would be great to make the Abby Winters experience available to as many beautiful women as possible! I know the staff would welcome her with open arms and treat her with kindness and respect, so I hope the member community would as well.

[elliebaby]

Absolutely!

Firstly, I think it's a massive tick in the AW box that she has approached you to appear on the site. She obviously knows how AW works, done her research & knows she would feel totally comfortable among staff & fellow models.

Secondly, how amazing is this site that the owner trusts the opinion of the AW community on such a diverse topic like this. I hope everyone sees this as a positive step forward for the site & embraces it.

What a massive confidence boost would it be for the model to get the 'yes' call from the owner, in the knowledge that the decision was, in some part, based on the positive feedback of the members...just another reason why I love this site

Thank you for asking the question....interested to know the staff/model viewpoint too

[georgexxx20]

This member gives a definite yes! No problem with having a transgender model on the site. I for one would be curious and maybe aroused to see someone naked who was born a male but has become a woman, but anyone who feels differently for whatever reason need not watch. To put it basically not to do so would go against the general inclusive ethos of AW-if she fits all the other requirements but still does not get the job that would be discrimination.

[kayla_j]

YES! I love this & I've been waiting for you to ask.

[TallulahAW]

Hi Garion,

I think it's great that you're contemplating hiring a transgender model.

As someone passionate about LGBT+ activism, I'm a bit uneasy seeing transgender women being described as having been "born male". It's generally better to use the term AMAB (assigned male at birth), as explained in the transwhat.org glossary:

"Assignment*of gender refers to the way that we assume others' genders based on their bodies. When a child is born, our culture slots it into one of two groups: male or female, avoiding all overlap. We "determine" the child's "correct" identity based on a quick visual assessment of the appearance of its sexual organs, and we do so by following a specific dichotomy. (A vulva-bearing child is typically assigned female at birth, or*AFAB, for short. A penis-bearing child is typically assigned male at birth, or*AMAB.) Gender assignment mostly tends to work out for those involved, but many trans people are notable exceptions to this."

This is a helpful way of looking at the situation of gender assignment because it acknowledges the fact that the majority of transgender people (from everything I've read and been told) feel they've always been the same gender, but were assigned the wrong gender at birth based on their external appearance.

I understand from a business perspective the purpose of having an internal definition of a female model as "having a vagina" (that's what members are expecting/hoping to see), but that's uncomfortable for me to hear as someone with so many awesome women in my life, some of whom have penises, and also awesome men, some of whom have vaginas! (Then there's the awesome nonbinary people, who are also a mixture!) So I had to comment on that, even if I'm not suggesting a change.

I also think a vagina is a vagina whether or not it's been constructed by surgery. There might be a lack of uterus, but not all cisgender (ie those whose gender identity matches the one assigned to them at birth) women have a uterus anyway.

Anyway, time to get off my soapbox :P

What I wanted to say is yes to booking transgender models. I think it's great that AW listens to feedback and suggestions from members and models. I know it must be a challenging balancing exercise at times, trying new approaches and ideas whilst still retaining all the features and unique selling points that brought people here in the first place.

I think AW is progressive and exciting. I have always loved the diversity of models. Girls of different shapes, ages, sizes, ethnicities, countries, backgrounds... you name it! More diversity is always a good thing in my books. I welcome anything that shows the world that there is no one correct way to be a girl/woman, that we all have our own unique features, quirks, and charms, and are all beautiful. (insert rousing incidental music here!)

And from a modelling perspective, I'd be happy to work with all female models, cis or trans (and I would include female models with penises, even if it's not going to happen on AW!) :-)

[elliebaby]

Hi Garion,

I think it's great that you're contemplating hiring a transgender model.

As someone passionate about LGBT+ activism, I'm a bit uneasy seeing transgender women being described as having been "born male". It's generally better to use the term AMAB (assigned male at birth), as explained in the transwhat.org glossary:

"Assignment*of gender refers to the way that we assume others' genders based on their bodies. When a child is born, our culture slots it into one of two groups: male or female, avoiding all overlap. We "determine" the child's "correct" identity based on a quick visual assessment of the appearance of its sexual organs, and we do so by following a specific dichotomy. (A vulva-bearing child is typically assigned female at birth, or*AFAB, for short. A penis-bearing child is typically assigned male at birth, or*AMAB.) Gender assignment mostly tends to work out for those involved, but many trans people are notable exceptions to this."

This is a helpful way of looking at the situation of gender assignment because it acknowledges the fact that the majority of transgender people (from everything I've read and been told) feel they've always been the same gender, but were assigned the wrong gender at birth based on their external appearance.

I understand from a business perspective the purpose of having an internal definition of a female model as "having a vagina" (that's what members are expecting/hoping to see), but that's uncomfortable for me to hear as someone with so many awesome women in my life, some of whom have penises, and also awesome men, some of whom have vaginas! (Then there's the awesome nonbinary people, who are also a mixture!) So I had to comment on that, even if I'm not suggesting a change.

I also think a vagina is a vagina whether or not it's been constructed by surgery. There might be a lack of uterus, but not all cisgender (ie those whose gender identity matches the one assigned to them at birth) women have a uterus anyway.

Anyway, time to get off my soapbox :P

What I wanted to say is yes to booking transgender models. I think it's great that AW listens to feedback and suggestions from members and models. I know it must be a challenging balancing exercise at times, trying new approaches and ideas whilst still retaining all the features and unique selling points that brought people here in the first place.

I think AW is progressive and exciting. I have always loved the diversity of models. Girls of different shapes, ages, sizes, ethnicities, countries, backgrounds... you name it! More diversity is always a good thing in my books. I welcome anything that shows the world that there is no one correct way to be a girl/woman, that we all have our own unique features, quirks, and charms, and are all beautiful. (insert rousing incidental music here!)

And from a modelling perspective, I'd be happy to work with all female models, cis or trans (and I would include female models with penises, even if it's not going to happen on AW!) :-)

Hi Tallulah

Thank you for your fascinating explanation. I found it very interesting and cleared up a few 'grey areas' in my mind in relation to the whole transgender process/mindest.
It's great to see models be so open to suggested new ideas on AW and hope many more share your (and Kayla's) views.
From my perspective I'd be also be happy to see models pre-SRS even though as you say, it probably won't happen here - nevertheless great to see the site moving forward

[massfan3]

Thanks, Tallulah! It's great to see the other models supporting this idea and making sure we use the most welcoming and inclusive language about the hopefully forthcoming trans models. It's also so nice to hear from you again: hope you're able to do a few new shoots some time!

I'm glad to see all the kind and open-minded comments about this proposal from the other members. This is a such a great community!

[Jacksonpe49]

Just a question, but how does a transgender female model fit with your policy of no enhanced breasts?

[georgexxx20]

Thanks, Tallulah for clarifying 'born a man'-point taken.

[Bobbie_AW]

Just a question, but how does a transgender female model fit with your policy of no enhanced breasts?

If they're on hormone replacement therapy (HRT), they may grow very small breasts! I have a lot of trans friends and they have around the same breast size as me. I'm probably like a double A or an A

[renae_d]

Hi Garion,

I think it's great that you're contemplating hiring a transgender model.

As someone passionate about LGBT+ activism, I'm a bit uneasy seeing transgender women being described as having been "born male". It's generally better to use the term AMAB (assigned male at birth), as explained in the transwhat.org glossary:

"Assignment*of gender refers to the way that we assume others' genders based on their bodies. When a child is born, our culture slots it into one of two groups: male or female, avoiding all overlap. We "determine" the child's "correct" identity based on a quick visual assessment of the appearance of its sexual organs, and we do so by following a specific dichotomy. (A vulva-bearing child is typically assigned female at birth, or*AFAB, for short. A penis-bearing child is typically assigned male at birth, or*AMAB.) Gender assignment mostly tends to work out for those involved, but many trans people are notable exceptions to this."

This is a helpful way of looking at the situation of gender assignment because it acknowledges the fact that the majority of transgender people (from everything I've read and been told) feel they've always been the same gender, but were assigned the wrong gender at birth based on their external appearance.

I understand from a business perspective the purpose of having an internal definition of a female model as "having a vagina" (that's what members are expecting/hoping to see), but that's uncomfortable for me to hear as someone with so many awesome women in my life, some of whom have penises, and also awesome men, some of whom have vaginas! (Then there's the awesome nonbinary people, who are also a mixture!) So I had to comment on that, even if I'm not suggesting a change.

I also think a vagina is a vagina whether or not it's been constructed by surgery. There might be a lack of uterus, but not all cisgender (ie those whose gender identity matches the one assigned to them at birth) women have a uterus anyway.

Anyway, time to get off my soapbox :P

What I wanted to say is yes to booking transgender models. I think it's great that AW listens to feedback and suggestions from members and models. I know it must be a challenging balancing exercise at times, trying new approaches and ideas whilst still retaining all the features and unique selling points that brought people here in the first place.

I think AW is progressive and exciting. I have always loved the diversity of models. Girls of different shapes, ages, sizes, ethnicities, countries, backgrounds... you name it! More diversity is always a good thing in my books. I welcome anything that shows the world that there is no one correct way to be a girl/woman, that we all have our own unique features, quirks, and charms, and are all beautiful. (insert rousing incidental music here!)

And from a modelling perspective, I'd be happy to work with all female models, cis or trans (and I would include female models with penises, even if it's not going to happen on AW!) :-)

Thank you for helping to educate everyone Tallulah! I know everyone here has the best intentions, but may not have the knowledge and experience to realize when they are using outdated/inappropriate language. I'm fortunate enough to have a trans friend through which I've learned a lot.

I'd love to see a non-vagina based requirement for models too, but at the same time, the site fills a niche preference which may not include women who have penises. (Or maybe it will someday?) Not being right for the site doesn't make you not 'woman enough', in the same way that women outside of our age range or women with cosmetic surgery are still women. Do you think it would be better if we conceptualized the requirement in this way, i.e. as an aesthetic choice, not a definition of femaleness?

I personally think it would be great if trans women didn't feel pressure to have SRS (though I realize some genuinely want this). I just think anything that might diminish sexual pleasure is a shame! Also, I realized as I thought more about this - being with a trans woman with a penis sounds kinda hot to me!

Have to say though, loving all the positive responses here! Really makes me happy

[garionhall]

Thanks guys, the feedback is great. I am working on forming our policy on this. Renae, Tallulah and Bobbie, you have new mail.

[TallulahAW]

Hi Tallulah

Thank you for your fascinating explanation. I found it very interesting and cleared up a few 'grey areas' in my mind in relation to the whole transgender process/mindest.
It's great to see models be so open to suggested new ideas on AW and hope many more share your (and Kayla's) views.
From my perspective I'd be also be happy to see models pre-SRS even though as you say, it probably won't happen here - nevertheless great to see the site moving forward

So glad to hear that other models share my perspective! Obviously the best way to learn about transgender people is from the transgender community itself (so many good resources online including on youtube, blogging platforms, ezines etc, I'm always wary about speaking about a group I'm not part of.

Thanks, Tallulah! It's great to see the other models supporting this idea and making sure we use the most welcoming and inclusive language about the hopefully forthcoming trans models. It's also so nice to hear from you again: hope you're able to do a few new shoots some time!

Thanks, I'm glad you agree! I've got some new shoots in the pipeline... it's been too long! :-)

I'd love to see a non-vagina based requirement for models too, but at the same time, the site fills a niche preference which may not include women who have penises. (Or maybe it will someday?) Not being right for the site doesn't make you not 'woman enough', in the same way that women outside of our age range or women with cosmetic surgery are still women. Do you think it would be better if we conceptualized the requirement in this way, i.e. as an aesthetic choice, not a definition of femaleness?

Renae, I agree! I think it must be difficult to get the balance right with a site like this, and the way you suggest framing it as an 'aesthetic choice' sounds good to me. I always get a bit squicked out when anyone refers to 'real women' or 'real girls' as if some women and girls don't meet the requirements!

Thanks guys, the feedback is great. I am working on forming our policy on this. Renae, Tallulah and Bobbie, you have new mail.

Thanks for taking the time to speak to us! :-)

[Jacksonpe49]

Sorry to sound a discordant note, but a transgender model with a vagina manufactured by a surgeon’s knife and breasts that are either filled with silicon or produced as the result of the consumption of large quantities of hormones is not what I signed up for. I signed up for naked women with natural bodies, including natural vaginas and natural breasts.

I also think that a transgender model who appeared on the site would not be examined by most subscribers for her beauty, but for curiosity value. Members would examine her photos closely, looking for remnants of her pre-transition sex, and there would be disputation on the boards about whether she could be identified as not really a woman.

Possibly from Garion’s point of view as a businessman it makes a whole lot of sense: I suspect a lot of pay-as-you-go members would buy her solo.

But personally I don’t think it’s what the site is about, and I think a transgender model would be an object of curiosity for many members, admiration for some, and - regrettably - derision for a few.

[renae_d]

Well, all breasts are made by hormones. (Surgically enhanced breasts would still be a no-go.)

I can't argue with the vagina though.

I certainly think you're entitled to your opinion about what you want to look at (and find sexy). It's not for you, and that's ok.

I get what you're saying, about it opening up the model to possibly being treated as a curiosity. I think the fault in this case would lie in society's view of trans people, and not in our treatment (or inclusion) of the model. However, I think one of the ways we can help society move forward in this regard is to normalize trans-ness, and including these models on the site might help in this. All us models on the site put ourselves in a vulnerable position, opening ourselves up to possible derision, so it isn't entirely unique to being trans (though it is more likely for a trans model). The same could be said for our models who are larger, for example.

I definitely don't think Garion sees this as a money-maker, but rather an ethical imperative to be strive to be more inclusive whenever reasonably possible.

[massfan3]

100 percent co-sign everything Renae said. I'll just add that there are 5,837 shoots on AW, so if one of them isn't your cup of tea for any reason, there are literally thousands of others to enjoy. A handful of shoots that fall somewhat outside the bounds of what you'd like to see isn't going to lower the quality of any of the others. Watching another shoot and posting about how much you like it would be a much more productive use of time than criticizing or debating the body of someone who doesn't personally appeal to you. Especially since I know every model who is brave enough to appear on this site is going to have fans among other members.

[TallulahAW]

I agree with what Renae and Massfan3 have said so eloquently.

Re the hormones thing - I was on hormonal contraceptives (oestrogen and progesterone at doses which produced many side-effects) for about 10 years, mostly during my crucial stages of development (teenage years). Who knows what my body would be like without this chemical augmentation.

We live in a world where we are fortunate enough to have medicine and surgery to help us survive and thrive. We can alter our chemistry and our bodies to suit our needs and most of us do to a lesser or greater degree. Which one of us can say we are truly untampered with?

It doesn't make us less genuine people.

I understand that AW has stringent quality control, high bars for models, and certain values and aesthetics. As Garion said, transgender models would have to meet the same high standards as models who were assigned female at birth.

Not all the models are going to be everyone's 'type' or cup of tea. There are ways in which members can search for very specific traits in models, and AW provides what I consider an unparalleled variety of models. I might not be everyone's 'cup of tea', but I sincerely hope that if that's the case then members will move on to find someone who is, rather than discussing whether or not I meet the criteria to be an AW model in their eyes. I should also say that when I found an illegal upload of one of my AW shoots on a streaming service (reported ofc!), men over there were not so kind in their comments about me ('shame about the face' - apparently). So to some, I don't meet whatever their personal bar is for attractive! And I'm fine with that, though not fine with the unnecessary and hurtful comments.

These boards are well moderated and the general kindness of members makes models feel comfortable and safe. I have enough faith in the structure and culture here to believe that would continue and there would be no character/identity assassinations.

AW is a great place to get to know girls intimately. As a model I appreciate the fact that members get to know me inside and out. Does anyone except my doctor need to see me in such close-up, gynaecological detail? Do strangers need to hear all my weird thoughts and ideas and snippets of my life? Not really, it's about curiousity, the enjoyment of getting to know someone. Yeah, I absolutely think people would be curious about a trans model, curious and eager to learn about her, to explore her body. That would be in keeping with the way members use this site.
-
Well that was rambley and long-winded - composed on my bus journey into work. But I think it's a decent snapshot of my thoughts. :-)

[renae_d]

I love what you said about curiosity Tallulah.

[Jacksonpe49]

I guess the other thing to throw in here is that this is a porn site, and its basic purpose is to show naked female bodies, often engaged in sexual activity, and with the only male bodies on show being those of the partners of some of the naked females. Surgery and hormones can do a lot to a male body, but at the end of the day they can’t turn a male body into a female body. A trans woman may have a surgically-produced vagina and some smallish hormone-produced breasts, and she may be minus the penis and testicles she was born with, and her voice may even have been raised to something approaching female pitch. But she’ll still be without a uterus and she won’t menstruate and her hands, feet and pelvis and the whole of her skeleton will still be masculine.

I guess what I’m saying is that this site, as a porn site, is about sex, not gender.

And Renae, thanks for your very sensible reply to my earlier post. And I just have to say that I also find it hard to argue with a vagina. The vagina wins every time — not that I mind in the slightest!

[ApeFish]

@garionhall, yes, I consider such a model appropriate for the site.

Since joining, I have wondered whether a gay male, nonbinary, or pansexual equivalent to AW exists. I checked https://www.abbywinters.com/friends and /peers without luck. I searched the web for ethical gay porn, but the site described in the most promising result no longer existed.

I understand that AW is geared towards feminine models and an audience that (perhaps) prefers not to see less feminine types sexually, outside of heterosexual pairs. My ideal site would have a full variety available and filterable by settings similar to no-penis mode. Sometimes, I come here to get off and want to see my preferred types. Other times, I come here to expand my consciousness and gain intimate understanding of people different from myself. Quite often, I come here for one thing and change my mind half-way through.

I don't expect AW to become my ideal site, but I'm happy to see it inching in that direction.

[TallulahAW]

@ApeFish, It's so important to have input like this from members, thank you.

[CapAnson]

Is anyone going to be turned on by them? I suppose that's your answer.

[lotte_l]

I would love to see more LGBTQ+ diversity among the models, yes

[kayla_j]

I would love to see more LGBTQ+ diversity among the models, yes

I agree! Can you imagine how much fun we would all have?

[adriana_e]

I would love to see more LGBTQ+ diversity among the models, yes

Same here!! World is so big and there is so much to explore open your ideas and mind I wonder why we resist to change sometimes_?

[adriana_e]

I agree! Can you imagine how much fun we would all have?

"For tastes, colors" we say something like this in spanish and to have shoots of different types of bodies is an AW aim is not ? so I guess a transgender body will never affect the site all the opposite, will open the site for new users seeing diversity and inclusion.

[remigius]

Yes please xx

[lotte_l]

"For tastes, colors" we say something like this in spanish and to have shoots of different types of bodies is an AW aim is not ? so I guess a transgender body will never affect the site all the opposite, will open the site for new users seeing diversity and inclusion.

I totally agree! You and I should grab a coffee if you're ever in Amsterdam again! Reading your posts I feel like we could chill really hard together

[garionhall]

hey guys, an update.

The model who originally prompted me to start this thread chose not to continue, but we have a new model who's super keen (for my reference when it's a year later, 10013763)! I've traded some emails with her and she's down with our plan for the shoot, as is the Shoot Producer (Brad in LA). The shoot is planned for late September.

To be honest, I'm a little nervous about it.

I spoke to some peers in the industry who think I am absolutely bat-shit crazy to do this, and I cannot argue with their logic ("Customers are paying you for real women, a transgender person who's had SRS is not that, regardless of how much they (or others) want them to be. Some people will look cos they're curious, most will be disgusted... and vote with their wallet! Why feed the fence-sitters?").

Considering how many customers cancel their subscription for things like colours of the website menu bar, clothes not colourful enough, models too old / models not old enough, models not feminine enough, feet not dirty enough, models too hairy, a trigger like a transgender model is sure to cause cancellations. We can afford a few cancellations for something we think is important, but more than that and we're in trouble (ultimately meaning, less shoots for models and Shoot Producers).

We'll definitely have customers saying (and assuming) all models will be transgender from now on, and will make the decision to cancel based on that assumption. While we have had some very positive comments from customers on the boards in this thread, a huge majority of customers never participate on the boards. To head off some of the haters at the pass, we'll release two new Solo models on that week (instead of the normal one).

I wonder if we should identify the model as transgender on her boards thread? On one hand, if we don't mention it and treat everything as normal, there's going to be the "uh, I think you guys made a quality control mistake..." (putting it kindly) and outrage that we're trying to "dupe" our paying customers. On the other hand, if we make a point of mentioning it, it's bait for trollish people to say "the sky is falling, satan is here, look, proof!!1" before the shoot is even released.

It's a political issue, and while I'd like to fly the flag and be proud... I also don't want to destroy a business we built over 20 years. So. What do you reckon?

I am nervous. But I think it's important we do it.