Talk:Sex assignment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Birth Certificate Revision and assignment types

The article could benefit from added information how sex assignment/allocation is documented and revised. The state of California now permits birth certificates to indicate a sex other than male or female [SB-179 Gender identity: female, male, or nonbinary.(2017-2018] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB179

and https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/california-becomes-first-state-introduce-gender-neutral-birth-certificates-180965343/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jguttenburg (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Issues with article

This article has some issues. First, there aren’t many medical sources. Sex assignment is a term used in medical literature and other medical sites use it. Sure there are medical sources cited here but they kind of outnumber, there are currently 47 sources cited here and only about 7 or 10 of them are medical sources.

Most of the sources here are sociological sources or activist sources. I’m not sure many of these individuals know much about the medical perspective of the topic or much about things like sex determination, the psychology of gender identity, or reasons why they use language presented here. Also there is a good chance some of these sources could be classified as being partisan.CycoMa (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Cyco. You have a very poor track record distinguishing between statements to which MEDRS applies, and ones where it does not; also you apply the label partisan to sources apparently indiscriminately, without any evidence of partisanship, and as if your saying so was somehow relevant to the correct evaluation of sources according to WP policy (it is not). So perhaps you should try to reach consensus on Talk about how some of your concerns about specific statements are relevant to WP policy? Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Um that’s why I commented first waiting for other people’s insight. Also there is a template for articles that rely too much on partisan sources .[right here.] It’s not against the rules to point that an article has too many sources from advocacy groups.

This article also appears to be heavily focused on intersex issues and controversies. This has issues because I am fully aware there is another site to the issue on this topic and sex assignment isn’t exclusive to intersex issues.

There are also parts that aren’t even cited. CycoMa (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

In this version of the article, the only sources that could reasonably be described as partisan are references 5, 14, 35 and 41. That isn't nearly enough to create an issue with the sourcing of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Um look at sources 8, 9, 19, 22, 23, 25, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43.CycoMa (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (8), the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (9), the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (19) and the International Commission of Jurists (37) cannot reasonably be described as partisan sources; these are all expert international bodies on human rights. The Harrington and Serano sources (22 and 23) are RS books. Source 25 is well worth reading; while not peer-reviewed, it is a well-written and well-referenced document from an international consultation process and is far from partisan - it is essentially an expert WP:SPS. You have a point about sources 36, 40, 42 and 43, but that is still only 8 advocacy groups out of 47 sources; that isn't most of the sources.

TL; DR: just because YOUDONTLIKEIT doesn't make a source advocacy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Um the template states that This template is designed to tag articles that rely largely upon sources that are works by political parties, advocacy groups, activist organizations, and other organizations with clear and pronounced agendas.

Source 25 is from GATE (organization) which according to its Wikipedia is a GATE is an international advocacy organization working towards justice and equality for trans, gender diverse and intersex communities. I mean you even admitted source 25 isn’t peer reviewed.

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (8), the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (9), the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (19) and the International Commission of Jurists (37) could fall under the category of advocacy or with agendas. To be fair International Commission of Jurists Wikipedia’s page does mention it has academics involved.CycoMa (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Cyco, there is no requirement that sources on this topic be MEDRS or be peer-reviewed; it all depends on the specific statement in the article they are used to source. And I am aware of who GATE is, but source 25 needs to be read to be properly understood - it is a sourced, balanced document emerging from an international consultation process; it documents the academics and other experts involved in the process and does not notably promote an agenda.

The idea that the UN and other international orgs constitute advocacy groups with clear and pronounced agendas is complete nonsense; it is the direct equivalent of treating the IPCC as a partisan source. and WP doesn't do that. What you, personally, feel could fall under the category of advocacy or with agendas is no more relevant to the article than what you, personally, feel to be a coherent sentence in English; what you, personally, feel "objectivity" is; or what colour you, personally, feel the sky is today. These individual idiosyncrasies have nothing to do with NPOV, RS or any other WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Um this article goes way too in depth on intersexuality. That’s technically undue weight because both you and I the topic of sex assignment isn’t exclusively an intersex thing. Like there are no sections on transgender people.

The section on Challenges to requirements for sex assignment has zero medical sources. Like what’s the medical perspective on the challenges or requirements to sex assignment?

The section on History only uses one source which I doubt has knowledge on history. I know there are sources on the history of medicine and history of science. Where are those sources?

Source 22 was written by a activist and religion and teacher.CycoMa (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Also it’s hard to verify the claims the source in the history section. Because it’s in Dutch and most English speakers don’t understand Dutch. Also I put it through google translate and couldn’t find anything about the source align with what the article is saying.CycoMa (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually nevermind about that Dutch source. However, my criticism about it being hard to verify still applies.CycoMa (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sure there is room for improvement. And given that this is a medical topic, more medical sources could hardly be a bad thing in itself. Any RS criticizing this term, suggesting that the process would be more accurately described another way, should be added as well. Beyond that, without specifics, it's hard to comment. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I will admit saying this article has nothing but partisan sources is a little unfair. However, 9 sources being partisan sources is quite a bit for an article with only 47 sources.

I feel like this article should go more in depth on the medical perspective.CycoMa (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps remarkably, I agree with this last statement. Newimpartial (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Title of article

Thread was resurrected disruptively to push the familiar misinfo that “sex assignment” was made up by “trans radical activists”. Closing as non-constructive Dronebogus (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I have problems with the term assignment when not a medical act on an intersex person , as it implicates a decision ,a choice a medical professional would take on a person's biological sex, it is inaccurate. Assignment would be in the case of a non hermaphrodite person , the social projection on a gender/sex. I think the article is unclear Delphine bournique (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC) The term sex assignment is partisan and controversial and not medical. Sex in infants is observed or noted, ss is weight, length and other metrics. Assignment implies that the assignee can choose what sex they like; which is clearly nonsense. Infant's genitals are observed and the sex is noted as male or female depending on the appearance. This is most often done in utero at after 12weeks and is 99%-100% accurate with the exception of congenital abnormalities (DSD). See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19099612/ The artical should be titles Sex observation or sex observed at birth IMO. To suggest assignment at birth is to have extreme bias toward gender theory as promoted by trans radical activists. This is a very common theme on Twitter and other culture war battlegrounds. simonthebold (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Oy vey! Those trans radical activists sure are successful then seeing as the term is used by the American Medical Association and a bunch of other professional bodies. Your personal views on the topic don't matter. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC) As I said, not just my personal view. A widely held view. This is controversial. simonthebold (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC) I really question your motivation behind reactivating your account after over a year since your last edit, and 10+ years since any major activity, just to post this vaguely inflammatory comment in a dead thread in a topic well outside your stated interest and expertise. Has your account been compromised? Dronebogus (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC) My motivation is that this term is deeply unscientific and controversial. I'm trying to improve the page by raising this issue on the talk page. simonthebold (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Have you found any recent, reliable sources on the topic that support your view? (The pubmed source you linked does not, in fact, offer any criticism of the term "sex assignment", so that isn't a relevant source in this context.) Newimpartial (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Examples of the controvesy: https://gript.ie/bbc-slammed-for-referring-to-woman-as-assigned-female-at-birth/ https://www.christianexaminer.com/news/sex-assigned-at-birth-one-of-nations-largest-school-systems-plans-to-teach-middle-schoolers.html https://www.aroundtheview.com/post/is-sex-biological-or-is-it-assigned-at-birth The point of highlighting these examples is not to argue their relative importance or merits, just to demonstrate that this is clearly a controversial topic and therefore this wikipedia article should take account of this. simonthebold (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Are you under the impression that any of these links are reliable, secondary sources on this topic? Newimpartial (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Pretty sure “Gript” and “Christian Examiner” are not medical sources. “Controversial to some” is not the same as “unscientific”, and we do not “teach the controversy” when few or no genuine expert sources are in dispute. Dronebogus (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC) The third source, Around the View, compiles the most important news and opinions from non-mainstream and independent voices around the internet - if possible, it is even less reliable than the other two. (!) Newimpartial (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Sex is not and cannot be “observed.” Sex is a category for classifying individuals on the basis of some trait or traits, not an object of perception. Observing genitals is not the same as observing sex, because genitals and sex are not identical. I hope that clarifies. 2A00:23C6:8A0A:A301:8D49:1F3C:80EC:CC2B (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC) I don't see a problem 'Sex assignment" is a very commonly used compound phrase to describe the observation of natal sex you might not like that phrase but per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS the fact you 'have problems with' a verifiable and notable phrase is not relevant. In terms of the content, the opening sentence "Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the discernment of an infant's sex at birth." is clearly saying exactly what you are suggesting it should say. We already have a section on controversy which is where any concerns (if reliable sources report them) should be included. JeffUK (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tunafish7 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tunafish7 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

You can’t just roll up and say “THIS IS FAKE” with zero reliable sources. Closing as a non-actionable WP:NOTFORUM discussion Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article note that "sex assignment" is pseudoscience? Sex is a trait among sexually reproductive species that can be empirically determined, in the case of humans, as either male or female, genetic anomalies aside. Any non-scientific/non-empirical method of sex identification qualifies by definition as pseudoscience. As such, this should be reflected throughout the article, since this article is referring to the common practice among humans of simply attempting to observe a child's sex at or before birth. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Have you got a bunch of reliable sources that assert that sex assignment is pseudoscience? If not, then there's nothing to discuss. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC) My source is the fact that it plainly isn't scientific. Sex is a trait that can be empirically determined. Do I really need to bombard this page with countless sources that sex is in fact as such? I have presented you with clear logic that you are welcome to try and refute. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Unfortunately we cannot cite "BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 says sex assignment is pseudoscientific" for a variety of reasons, not least WP:V and WP:NOR. If you want to assert that sex assignment is pseudoscientific on the article, then you need to provide a multitude of reliable, secondary academic sources that verify that, and then those will be contrasted against the great many sources already in the article that assert otherwise. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC) For reasons I have not been able to ascertain, most sources have settled on use of the term "assign" for simply observing this trait for humans. If changes in the future (or has already), I'd be happy to hear the case for it and we'd probably end up moving the article to the new term instead, but I see no evidence that's happened yet. Crossroads -talk- 21:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC) @Crossroads the short version is that infants are "assigned" a medicolegal category of male or female as denoted on a birth certificate and, based on that assignment, are socialized as boys or girls. This assignment is based on a visual observation of one anatomical indicator (external genital structure) of the infant's sex (but does not assess chromosomes, internal reproductive organs, hormones). The use of "assigned" is to highlight that social process of legal categorization and subsequent socialization. If sex we not assigned, we would not have these legal categories and we would simply describe infants as having medically typical vulvas or penises. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Buzz, you are still an almost brand-new editor, and one of the basic things to understand around here (which is maybe not obvious) is that no matter how clear, how obvious, how slam-dunk true something is, we *cannot add it to the article* unless you can provide evidence that the majority of reliable sources support the statement. So, yes: in theory, you can add it to the article—all you have to do, is show that the majority of sources call it that. But (spoiler ahead): you won't be able to. Numerous editors here have been editing in this domain for years, and for better or worse, the sources do not call it that. To be super-clear about this: *even if all the sources are wrong* we *still* cannot call it that; we have no choice, but to follow the sources. Does this help? Mathglot (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC) So what is an is not scientific truth is now a popularity contest? Is that what you're saying? Perhaps you should take a look into the well researched field of gonosomes. Sex is not something that is assigned to a living being, it is something you are born with. It is irrelevant if someone thinks and feels like a woman. If they cannot get pregnant they are NOT a woman. Plain and simple. No amount of pseudoscientific mental gymnastics is going to change that undisputable fact. 2A02:8070:2482:2CC0:950F:78D9:5D2E:D881 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC) If it is so, it should be trivial for you to provide a plethora of citations from the medical literature to support that. I'm especially looking forward to seeing the sources for: "If they cannot get pregnant they are NOT a woman." I never knew that the menopause could change your sex. Fascinating. Maybe the "G" in LGBT should do double duty for "Grannies"? Not sure how I'm going to break it mine, though... CIreland (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "If it is so, it should be trivial for you to provide a plethora of citations from the medical literature to support that." Sure, no problem (even though something tells me that you're not even interested in reading through them): "Two of the chromosomes (the X and the Y chromosome) determine your sex as male or female when you are born. They are called sex chromosomes: Females have 2 X chromosomes. Males have 1 X and 1 Y chromosome. The mother gives an X chromosome to the child. The father may contribute an X or a Y. The chromosome from the father determines if the baby is born as male or female. The remaining chromosomes are called autosomal chromosomes. They are known as chromosome pairs 1 through 22." Source: Perle MA, Stein CK. Applications of cytogenetics in modern pathology.In: McPherson RA, Pincus MR, eds. Henry's Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods. 24th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2022:chap 71. Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. 24th ed. F.A. Davis Company; 2021. Further evidence from an even more reputable source: https://www.genome.gov/27557513/the-y-chromosome-beyond-gender-determination As you can see (or not), there is nothing being assigned here, only OBSERVED and finally confirmed by experiential and empirical reference with other members who exhibit the same traits. And before you present counter-evidence: no, the Intersex Society of North America (or any other related NGO or think-tank) is NOT an objective, credible source. The same goes for gender studies profs who continually ignore and dismiss empirical evidence from the hard sciences with politically motivated pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific justifications. "'m especially looking forward to seeing the sources for: "If they cannot get pregnant they are NOT a woman." I never knew that the menopause could change your sex." Strawman argument. I never insinuated that the menopause "changes" ones biological sex. Since you seem to struggle with simple contextual understanding (or intentionally misrepresent the arguments of your opponent), I'm going to clear that misunderstanding up by using syllogism: Premise #1: males lack the biological ability to become pregnant. Premise #2: females possess the biological ability to become pregnant. Conclusion: therefore the female sex can be successfully determined (among many other corroborative determinants such as gonosomes and primary/secondary sexual characteristics) by the POTENTIAL to be fertilized and enter into pregnancy. The word "potential" is logically included since the empirical observation must account for the fact that infertile females exist. "Maybe the "G" in LGBT should do double duty for "Grannies"? Not sure how I'm going to break it mine, though..." I don't know. I don't care about your irrelevant soliloquizes as I can't see how that is in any shape or form relevant to the scientific discussion of gonosomes. Socio-political movements are no authority on this subject so keep them out of the discussion. Please keep the discussion on topic. 2A02:8070:2482:2CC0:CD59:B8A2:4B96:11A2 (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC) I don't have access to the first sources you listed, but the National Human Research Institute, which you said is "even more reputable", does acknowledge sex assignment: The term gender may also be used to refer to the social or cultural constructs of “roles” or “norms” typically associated with being masculine or feminine. Gender does not always directly relate to sex assigned at birth. Politanvm talk 16:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC) This will be my last reply as I see no point in arguing any further with ideologically driven editors over an article that they are unwilling to change even though more than enough credible, scientific sources and literary references have been given. This last reply of mine is simply to show for the more objective readers the ridiculousness of the opponent's pseudoscientific arguments. "which you said is "even more reputable", does acknowledge sex assignment" That glossary entry has no sources. Where is that entry referencing from? From where does it draw its conclusions? Is it taken from a social sciences study or a study done by human biologists? What were the framework conditions that led to those conclusions? "The term gender may also be used to refer to the social or cultural constructs of “roles” or “norms” typically associated with being masculine or feminine." Those are two completely different areas. The culturally conditioned roles or norms relate to social behaviour. When a child however comes out of the womb of its mother, no doctor is going to "assign" its sex by inquiring into those behavioural traits as they practically do not exist at that point. So the only remaining option is the observation of the primary sexual characteristics in order to come to a sensible conclusion as to which sex the subject belongs (the same way it is done with all the other non-human animals). To put it more simply: if you see a penis then it's a male human, if you see a vagina it's a female human. Therefore we can safely assume that being male/female is biological in nature, whereas being feminINE or masculINE refers to behavioural characteristics that are aquired through psychological and sociocultural conditioning. The very fact that your birth certificate lists your sex is proof of its biological nature, whereas all of the rest of the 3 million+ "genders" are purely behavioural traits that are ADOPTED later on in life. "Sex is not usually assigned based on genetic testing" Read again what I wrote in my example of deductive reasoning and then perhaps you'll cognitively grasp that I listed the gonosomes as one possible way of confirming the sex of a human. I mentioned "among many other corroborative determinants" for a reason. I further listed primary and secondary sexual characteristics as a way of determining a person's sex. "but on inspection of habitus of the infant" Exactly, the doctor determines the sex by observing the primary sexual characteristics that are part of the infant's body habitus and then writes either male or female in the birth certificate based on this empirically proven and scientific method that is practiced since recorded history. "DSDs exist" There is a reason it's referred to as DISORDERS of sex development where the sex-related abnormalities are recorded as a SEPERATE classification inside that category. That does not qualify those disorders as sexes of their own, but instead as abnormal deviations of the two binary sexes, especially when we consider the fact that we humans are overwhelmingly gonochoric. A disordered expression of the genes responsible for the biological development of a male/female, does not somehow create a new category of sex by default, but is listed correctly as a birth defect. It affects a marginally small amount of the human population anyway, and therefore does in no way justify turning the obvious determination of male/female on its head by a few statistical outliers. "The Y chromosome is not inevitably determinative nor does it always cause virilization. See XY female, XX male, CAIS for examples." It doesn't have to be inevitably determinative nor always cause virilization. Absolute certainty neither exists in science, nor is it a necessity for an assumption, theory, observation or otherwise to turn out to be empirically true. What matters for something to be scientifically valid, is having an observation which matches a theory and being able to produce repeatable experiments that upon success corroborate the postulated theory, which then becomes fact. What you are doing is cherry picking rare cases of sex-related birth defects to lend your weak argument credibility, when absolutely nobody in the medical as well as biological field goes around making up a host of "genders" with arbitrary social identities because 0.05% of those born have ambiguous sex characteristics. They are rightly so excluded from being even considered as seperate sexes because science has unequivocably proven that these variations are caused by disorders in gene expression and subsequent endocrinal dysregulation. "Because there is no universally agreed criterion to determine sex in all cases" Again, there doesn't need to be. All that is needed is a first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful to work scientifically with. We don't need 100% of humanity to accept it for it to be valid. "but specification of sex is socially expected" Socially expected is not equivalent to socially defined. ""assigned" is used to describe the social specification of sex at birth" No, see above. "The idea that ability to become pregnant is a either a sufficient or necessary condition of being female is laughable" Potato tomato. You first claim that I argued how pregnancy would supposedly "change" ones sex (which I never did as I fully explained in my previous answer above), and now you are again changing what I said by falsely purporting that I claimed that a person can only be female when they can become pregnant. Read my conclusion above again and hopefully this time you'll be mentally able to understand what I ACTUALLY said. In case you are referring to my original post where I said "If they cannot get pregnant they are NOT a woman": that was written in a colloquial sense. I further elaborated what I meant in the conclusion of my second answer. If you are still unable to understand it then it's really your problem and not mine. There is unfortunately nothing I can do with intellectually resistant people...or deceptive ones who keep using strawmans to discredit other people's arguments in a blatantly amateurish way. "You are erroneously assuming that "assigned" came to be used because gender identity can vary and trans people exist" Show me exactly by quoting WHERE I have claimed what you are accusing me of? My original statement was that the sex of a human (and by extension any other animal) is not a question of "assignment" because you are literally born with it. Assignment is an act whereby you allocate two initially unrelated things to one and the same thing. Since the sexual characteristics of a human are part and parcel with its body habitus, nothing needs to be "assigned" but only determined. Those are two very different things. A person's sex is a biological characteristic that is first and foremost completely unrelated to the subject's socioculturally conditioned behaviour. What actually IS assigned (often by oneself) is ones "gender identity" but that is not the same as sex. The latter is a biological fact, the former is simply a psychological self-projection based on individual perceptions of who or what one is. That perception however, no matter how hard you try, does in fact not change your sex. You can make up a thousand different "genders" on the spot and identify with all of them if you so please, but it still doesn't change the fact that you are indeed a male or female. "Of course, some people need sex to be always unambiguous because they want to make an argument about trans people." Quite the opposite is true. Transsexuals need sex to be always as ambiguous as possible, with more and more "genders" coming up day by day ex nihilo, because they want to make an argument about how the subjective perception of a miniscule, politically motivated minority supposedly refutes all that has been empirically researched all over the world and is known about sex, and accuse those who question them for being "transphobic". This is the argument of someone who suffers from intellectual laziness and/or the unwillingness to acknoweldge scientific facts. "They need to find a better argument because reality differs" That was a good one. 2A02:8070:2482:2CC0:EDF9:8847:FB0A:4B81 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Sex is not usually assigned based on genetic testing but on inspection of habitus of the infant. That's why the word "assigned" is used: intersex people exist; DSDs exist. The Y chromosome is not inevitably determinative nor does it always cause virilization. See XY female, XX male, CAIS for examples. That list is not remotely exhaustive. Because there is no universally agreed criterion to determine sex in all cases, but specification of sex is socially expected, "assigned" is used to describe the social specification of sex at birth. The idea that ability to become pregnant is a either a sufficient or necessary condition of being female is laughable. You are erroneously assuming that "assigned" came to be used because gender identity can vary and trans people exist. It did not - it would still be used even if trans people did not exist: it is the result of atypical sex differentiation. Our article make all this completely clear - it is mostly about sex assignment in intersex cases. Of course, some people need sex to be always unambiguous because they want to make an argument about trans people. They need to find a better argument because reality differs. CIreland (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC) It is "determined" not assigned. Shoehorning American gender politics into it's very own Wikipedia article using non-medical, sociological sources is not basing your argument on reality. 19:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC) 82.24.169.40 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Intersex people exist, but they still fall into the typical binary of Female or Male, their genitalia/chromosomes simply obscures the obvious verification. XXX chromosomed individuals are intersexed, but they cannot be male, as one of the foundations of being male requires the possession of a Y chromosome. Belregard (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC) IP, there is no point in arguing about the metaphysics of sex and/or gender with Wikipedia editors. WP:NOTFORUM. If you have sources or evidence suggesting that "assigned sex" is fading in use - rather than a few simply not using the term - only then we would have something worth discussing. Crossroads -talk- 00:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC) I 100% agree. Sex is not "assigned", it is "determined" either by the production or possession of male gamete sperm or female ovum. This article should be retitled to better reflect the science in regards to this, especially since, at the present point, and in the foreseeable future, sex cannot be changed, so the factor of it being "Assigned" just seems especially ridiculous. Belregard (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is confusing me

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask questions but this entire article is utterly confusing me. "Sex assignment is the discernment" so what is it now? Is sex assigned or discerned? Those two words have completly different implications. Also Why is it "sometimes known as gender assignment" if gender identity and biological sex are, again, completly different things? And again: "A report for the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice states "Gender increasingly seems to be perceived as a ‘sensitive’ identity feature, but so far is not regarded, nor protected as such in privacy regulations"". What am I missing here? SEHrhda4 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

To answer the latter, that's because outside of social sciences people generally use sex and gender interchangeably. West & Zimmerman (1987) established an academic difference but it has evolved since then. Now, we largely use "gender identity", "gender expression", and "gender/sex assigned at birth" to distinguish between the all.

As for the first question, we say "assigned" (instead of "observed") because of the social processes involved. If it was "observation", then we would have birth certificates that said

Apparent external genitalia: □ Penis □ Vulva □ Other

instead of the meta categories of "male" and "female". We do not measure if someone is male or female, we report their external genitalia. We assign the newborn to "male" or "female" based on one indicator of a multi-factor phenomenon. We do not measure chromosomal structure, gonads, hormone production, etc. Based on this assignment, parents, doctors, and others will then impose social expectations and differential treatment. What's more, in noting "male" or "female" on a birth certificate, we're assigning that newborn to a medicolegal category for legal and social purposes. Thus, we are assigning sex/gender, not simply observing it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"To answer the latter, that's because outside of social sciences people generally use sex and gender interchangeably."

Yes and this is a massiv problem because they obviously mean different things, using them interchangably just leads to confusion as to what someone is actually reffering to. There should be a note clarifying that "gender assignment" is wrong as per definition.

"We do not measure if someone is male or female, we report their external genitalia"

But that is the very definition of biological sex? As per wikipedia: "Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing animal or plant produces male or female gametes." If you have male reproductive organs you are per definition "biological male", if you have female reproductive organs you are per definition "biological female". So the biological sex is observed and not assigned. SEHrhda4 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"Sex" is a conceptualization/abstract idea that is composed of multiple observable indicators, including genitalia. We reify sex as if our categorization is real in and of itself. Sex is more than just the appearance of external genitalia and, if we're being technical, the only necessary and sufficient indicator is the capability to produce certain gametes afaik. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"the only necessary and sufficient indicator is the capability to produce certain gametes"

Yes, it says that in the snippit I just quoted to disproof your claim that sex is not observed.

""Sex" is a conceptualization/abstract idea"

That would be gender identity. SEHrhda4 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

External genitalia do not produce gametes. Not sure what you mean by that.

Gender identity is also a concept/abstract idea. Both are categories. But regardless, I'm not sure where this is going in terms of improving the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Sex is not an abstract idea; it is a biological fact, a collection of inherent physical characteristics. It is true that sex is not a binary (male/female), but you are confusing sex with gender, which is indeed a concept or an idea. Pokémon Burner (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not confusing the two. "Sex" is a concept/categorization we humans give to those physical characteristics. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I would put it quite that way. The genitals seem to be intended as 'diagnostic' of the underlying sex, given the high rate of accuracy of that method and the expense and general unnecessariness of other methods in most cases. Like other species, a human baby still has a sex, even if somehow no one is around to assign it with social processes. Additionally, a (say) female baby who had "M" printed on her birth certificate due to a state clerical error wouldn't be considered "assigned male at birth" in the sense that term is normally used.

My response to OP is that this is the terminology that reliable sources settled on and is now entrenched. Perhaps other words could have been used, but that's just a thought experiment and not really of import. "Assign" here basically means "classify"; it does not mean to imply that it's a totally arbitrary label or anything like that. In fact, biologists will sometimes talk about "assigning" specimens of organisms or fossils to particular species - with the goal of course being to do so accurately, not to imply that it's all arbitrary or a social construct. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

AFAB/AMAB implies intersexuality?

To the uninitiated, these terms would seem to imply an ambiguity as to physical sex, even in cases where it is quite straightforward. Obviously this is a sensitive subject and I don't want to write a manifesto, just a quick note that it would be nice if there were some kind of consensus terminology with more clarity of meaning. Thanks. Jmaranvi (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jmaranvi I'm not sure I understand your comment. AMAB/AFAB does not imply intersexuality and I fail to see how the Wikipedia article suggests that. Except for the relatively rare cases where an intersex condition is known before or at birth, every person is assigned either "male" or "female" at birth. Both this fact and the associated terminology are widely understood and agreed upon, as is the practice of making this assignment based on the externally visible sex characteristics that the article describes. If you feel that the article does not clearly convey the meaning of any terms, please give a more detailed description where you believe the ambiguity/implication arises.--TempusTacet (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Intersex people often are assigned a sex though, which can be a problem, as the article notes. That is the one context in which it's logical to speak of assignment, whereas in most cases sex simply is, and is therefore observed rather than assigned. The most straightforward way to speak of this would be to simply say female instead of AFAB and male instead of AMAB. I'm not sure how most people feel about such terminology. There may be a sense that it erases gender identity, though it is not the exact same word as that which is used for the latter (male would not necessarily be man in this situation, and female would not necessarily be woman). But anyway, to summarize, for the layperson it is a bit confusing or misleading to speak of assignment in cases where there is nothing to assign. Jmaranvi (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, a sex is "assigned" in the case of any person in the sense that an observer comes to a conclusion regarding the newborn's sex and then documents it. As the article explains in some detail this is not a random or arbitrary assignment, and it is usually unambiguous in the sense that every other observer would come to the same conclusion. You could also say that a physician "assigns" a diagnosis instead of "makes" a diagnosis, that's how "assigns" is usually understood in this context. You can never "truly know" a diagnosis or a person's sex, you can just come to an arbitrarily sound conclusion based on the available evidence.

Stating that someone is AFAB/AMAB simply means that the result of the sex assignment at birth (usually also possible before birth eg through ultrasound imaging) was "female" or "male". As you rightly point out this says nothing about a person's gender identity, and AFAB/AMAB makes no claim in this regard. Of course, it is usually assumed that sex and gender match, as it is the case for the vast majority of people. (Most people that are AMAB are men and most people that are AFAB are women.)

If I understand you correctly, the distinction between male/man and female/woman you point out is exactly why the terms AFAB/AMAB exist: To distinguish between the sex assigned at birth and the gender identity when talking about the two.--TempusTacet (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Precisely what @TempusTacet said. AMAB and AFAB are the standard terms (and not just in online discourse). We're an encyclopædia, so it's ok if some terms aren't familiar, we just need to link to explain them. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: Incidentally, while I assume it's not intentional, the sentiment “sex is observed not assigned” can sometimes be considered a transphobic dogwhistle, so you might want to be careful with how you express that elsewhere. Again, I'm not suggesting that is how you intended it, just offering a heads-up in case you weren't aware.

To give you a better idea here's how the DSM-5 uses this terminology: Individuals with gender dysphoria have a marked incongruence between the gender to which they have been assigned (usually based on phenotypic sex at birth, referred to as birth-assigned gender) and their experienced/expressed gender. [...] Prepubertal individuals assigned female at birth with gender dysphoria may express [...] (page 514).--TempusTacet (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

While I appreciate the genial tone of the warning about dogwhistles, I still think that concern seems perhaps out of place in an encyclopedia. Rare is the editor without any political views. I do my best to constrain my own views to that which is relevant and verifiable, and I would hope others do the same. It seems like a rather lofty standard to be held accountable for perceived hidden meanings, rather than simply taking my text at face value.

As for AFAB and AMAB, I would still contend that they are less parsimonious language than male and female (well, in terms of concept if not letter count), but if there is a particular professional body that we wish to defer to, and/or this is simply the Wikipedia consensus for now, then so be it. I don't plan to die on this hill but ideally I hope this thread will remain visible in case it stimulates future discussion.

Thank you for your time and respectful engagement. Jmaranvi (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, we have no choice but to stick to the sources, and not use wording that happens to seem better or simpler to you. That doesn't mean that terms that you find more opaque must stand alone with no explanation, and in fact, the whole article is pretty much about explaining them. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point, that is indeed the topic. It occurs to me that the whole reason I raised this question in the first place was that I noticed other articles using this terminology and linking to this page. I figured it would be best to address it here, but maybe it's a discussion better fitting a policy/style guide. Jmaranvi (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

At the end of the day it's all about clarity. In a lot of cases "man" and "woman" or "male" and "female" are unambiguous and appropriate terms. But if a distinction between sex assigned at birth and gender identity has to be made, the terms I just used are the most common and thus preferred. If you feel that this article does a poor job explaining the terminology, please describe this in more detail. We've just revised the lead section and are working on refining the terminology section to make it more concise and accessible.--TempusTacet (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thread without a heading

No human is "gendered."

Humans are sexed. Sex is established at conception.

The vast majority of humans are conceived male or female, and develop male or female sex organs. A small minority of humans are conceived intersex, and develop both male and female sex organs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.22.111 (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)