Talk:Sex assignment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sex Assigment

Its an attempt to allocate a person actual, real gender which is a fact. The way the article explains it, its like what main course do you want to order or what seat would you like? --ArnoldHimmler (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This not a forum to discuss the subject, it is a place to discuss changes to the article. If any admin wants to remove this section... -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

She was born a boy?

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Boy definition where we (non-experts) are attempting to determine appropriate wording for sex assignment in biographical articles on transgender people. I think we have made good progress but it could be helpful if those more familiar with this topic would offer their opinion or at least check that we're not too far off base. Jojalozzo 04:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Considerable lack of sources

I don't have any problems with this article per se, but nothing aside from the first section is properly sourced. Sources should be improved, or the article should be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.191.38 (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender or Sex Assignment?

I had moved this article but upon reading the <!- information -> in the lede I have decided to change back and see what people think. The correct term is "Gender Assignment" as "sex" refers biologically, and gender psychologically. In no way am I being bigoted, however, my current line of thinking is Gender Assignment is the correct term. Thanks, Luxure Σ 11:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Luxure, before you replied on your talk page, I was about to post here. Sex assignment is correct since that is the prevalent term for this topic in scholarly sources and media sources. It is correct because the baby is stated to be a sex when they are born based on their genitalia; unknown to the person (or people) assigning the sex, the baby might be intersex. Gender assignment is also correct because along with that sex...that baby is assigned a gender. But sex assignment is the WP:Common name. So that is why gender assignment is in the lead as the WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, as noted in the Sex and gender distinction article, it's not always the case that sex and gender are distinguished; they are commonly treated as synonyms. Flyer22 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, and don't treat like as if I have no clue. Luxure Σ 10:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"Assignment of intersex infants and children" heading

Trankuility, regarding this edit, read the section. It clearly is not simply about intersex people. For example, a girl having an unusually large clitoris does not make her intersex. David Reimer was also not intersex. The section is about the history of sex assignment, and it pertains to more than just intersex people. Just because I didn't fix the heading before and only fixed it recently doesn't mean that you should have reverted to a less than accurate heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, Flyer22 Reborn. The section mentions the David Reimer case because it was the medical case that was claimed to demonstrate the medical model used, but the section is not about David Reimer. The section on Reassignment of sex or gender covers instances like that of Reimer. An unusually large clitoris in a girl is called Clitoromegaly and it is an intersex trait or DSD, as in the cases of Morgan Holmes and Janik Bastien Charlebois at http://montrealgazette.com/life/my-coming-out-the-lingering-intersex-taboo. Clitoromegaly fits a typical definition of intersex used by the UN, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (https://unfe.org/system/unfe-65-Intersex_Factsheet_ENGLISH.pdf) and the World Health Organization (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/175556/1/9789241564984_eng.pdf?ua=1, http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112848/1/9789241507325_eng.pdf?ua=1). Trankuility (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, David Reimer was not intersex and the section is about the history of sex assignment, noting how sex assignment was and is now; not all of that pertains to intersex people. And I will be fixing it if someone else does not, whether that includes dividing the section and/or otherwise moving material. And as is clear by the Clitoromegaly article, which I've worked on, the term clitoromegaly does not only refer to people who are intersex. I'm also not sure that there is anyone at this site more knowledgeable than I am on the topic of the clitoris, but I can assure you that a girl or woman having a clitoris is that not of typical size does not make her intersex. The words "unusually large clitoris" do not only refer to intersex females, even if usually referring to them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Clitoromegaly is clearly an intersex condition when someone is born with it, and rendered vulnerable to medical intervention for the purposes of sex assignment, something that takes place at or close to birth. Other cases of clitoromegaly are not relevant to this article, and are not enumerated in this article. The OHCHR and WHO references are pretty clear about what intersex is. Here is the entire first section of the UN OHCHR fact sheet:

Intersex people are born with sex characteristics (including genitals, gonads and chromosome patterns) that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies.

Intersex is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of natural bodily variations. In some cases, intersex traits are visible at birth while in others, they are not apparent until puberty. Some chromosomal intersex variations may not be physically apparent at all.

According to experts, between 0.05% and 1.7% of the population is born with intersex traits – the upper estimate is similar to the number of red haired people.

Being intersex relates to biological sex characteristics, and is distinct from a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. An intersex person may be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or asexual, and may identify as female, male, both or neither.

Because their bodies are seen as different, intersex children and adults are often stigmatized and subjected to multiple human rights violations, including violations of their rights to health and physical integrity, to be free from torture and ill-treatment, and to equality and non- discrimination.

It's possible that you are conflating intersex conditions with identity issues? Trankuility (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, please desist from claims of authority and using phrases like "read the section". Trankuility (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not conflating being intersex with gender identity. I don't see how I can be any clearer than what I stated above, but I stand by it, with the following exception: It would have been better had I stated "large clitoris" instead of "an unusually large clitoris." The idea of what is or is not a large clitoris varies. And not every girl born with a clitoris that is not of "typical size" is termed "intersex" (and, yes, I'm including some cases where a test was run for the medical categorization of intersex). I know this because of all the literature I've read and researched on the clitoris. For example, some parents have had a girl's clitoris reduced because the clitoris was "too big" to them. As for claims of authority, if you mean me stating "I'm also not sure that there is anyone at this site more knowledgeable than I am on the topic of the clitoris," I made that statement because I am the one who has mainly edited the Clitoris article and got it to WP:GA status; I have yet to come across another editor (WP:Anatomy editor, WP:Med editor or otherwise) who can take my place on that if I ever stop editing this site for good. And considering that I do want to stop editing this site for good, it would be nice to find such an editor. Same goes for other topics I edit where it seems I'm the main one keeping things in order. I told you to read the section, because it seemed to me that you needed to. I stated that I will be changing the section because I intend to do that. And per WP:Bold, I can, just like you have been changing it. I have not been engaging in WP:Own behavior; instead, I brought the matter here to discuss. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The section in question has had some variation on the current title for a decade. During that time, you and a number of other authors have made numerous changes to article. The idea that the section is now suddenly not about sex assignment in cases of intersex is one that is therefore difficult to justify. It needs careful justification and more than a blunt change to "Assignment". The contents of the section simply do not apply to most infants, for reasons explained in the lede. There may be a case to modify the title to reflect that it may also apply in non-intersex cases where trauma, for example, makes a sex assignment a matter of doubt, but that level of detail is probably best left to the content of the section. Trankuility (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The changes that I have made are largely to add a human rights context in the lede and at the end of the section under discussion, with some consequential changes to the language employed. They are fairly cautious changes, given the significance of discussions by human rights institutions. Trankuility (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I never stated that the section is not about sex assignment in cases of intersex. I will likely split the section, since, as I've already stated, "the section is about the history of sex assignment, and it pertains to more than just intersex people." This link shows the edits I've made to this article; they are minor or otherwise small. If I had been heavily invested in fixing up this article, it would look substantially different than it does now. Like I noted above, just because I am late to noticing that the heading should, in my opinion, not focus solely on intersex people does not mean that such a heading has been fine for the article. This is not a heavily watched article either. I took significant notice of the heading because of you retitling it. I'm not stating or implying that your title is worse than the previous title (the one that was there before you changed it). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

However, in changing the title from being about intersex sex assignment to just "Assignment", your new section title essentially became meaningless, even more generic than the title of the article. Your argumentation in support of that change has run very close to being personal, with a claim from authority and personal judgements about my role or expertise as an editor.

In my view, a section about the history of sex assignment would need to, inter alia, document the origins of sex as a marker on official documents and the perceived need for clinicians to make "an observation or recognition of an inherent aspect of a baby" (to quote the lede). It would look very different to the current section, about a social group where "observation or recognition" is complicated. In my view, such a new section would be a very welcome addition to the article. Trankuility (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I stated above was meant to be personal, at least not in the sense you took away from it. I apologize if I came across as disrespecting you; that was not my intention. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Trankuility (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have created an initial new section on the history of sex assignment, and modified the title of the section on assignment in cases of intersex and trauma. I would note, following the discussion earlier, that every infant girl born with clitoromegaly is defined as intersex using the OHCHR definition, and that is significant as it makes clitoral reduction due to parental wishes a human rights issue, in the same way that FGM is otherwise a human rights issue. Trankuility (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Information in the "Assignment in cases of infants with intersex traits, or cases of trauma" section you partly created also concerns the history of sex assignment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, however only the case of infants where an assignment cannot be made via "observation or recognition". The changes I've made to that section are primarily at the top and tail of the article. Changes at the top of the article are to address concerns you have expressed about the scope of the section. Trankuility (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the current setup of the article.... Per MOS:HEAD, The "History of sex assignment" heading should simply be "History," and the same goes for the "History of sex assignment in cases of intersex and trauma" heading. In the case of the first, this article's title is already clear that the article is about sex assignment. In the case of the second, the "Assignment in cases of infants with intersex traits, or cases of trauma" heading already makes it clear that any subheadings under that are about intersex people and so on. I don't like that there are two history sections, but I'll leave that aspect alone for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

'AMAB'?

It's kind of unhelpful for AMAB to redirect here when the abbreviation is not used anywhere in the text... no? --Oolong (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I deleted. alteripse (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Also DMAB... expected info on dimethylamine borane, not sex reassignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.254.242 (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

AMAB has now been reset to redirect here, as the abbreviation is explained in the #Terminology section. DMAB now goes to a disambig page, which includes this page as well as p-dimethylaminobenzaldehyde in the list, but not your suggested compound. Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

AFAB

I came here looking for AFAB. It redirected without even an explanation of the acronym. Help!! Avocats (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Avocats: To answer your question, this has to do with infant sex assignment. It stands for "assigned female at birth". What it means, is, the moment that a doctor (or other person attending a birth) sees the baby for the first time, and looking at its genitalia, declares, "It's a boy," or, "It's a girl." When the sex assignment is "female", then the baby is said to be "assigned female at birth." Likewise for AMAB for babies assigned male at birth.

But if you were surprised or confused, then the redirect or the target page is not complying with the principle of least astonishment and so should be handled better somehow.

OTOH [On the one hand], I can see how it might be confusing not to find it on the page, but OTO it is a relevant redirect. May I ask what you were looking for, if it was not "assigned female at birth"? If there is some other article with those initials, maybe it should redirect to a disambig page instead. If you were looking for "assigned female at birth", then yes, it should perhaps be a [[WP:RSECT|redirect to a section, where this term is explained. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that's fixed, now, via the new #Terminology section. I'd still like to hear from you about what you were looking for. Mathglot (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad it's fixed. I had seen the acronym unexplained and clicked on the link without setting forth the words that led to the acronym. That's all. Thanks. Avocats (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Assignment of transgender children

BarrelProof if sex assignment in the case of transgender people is surgically or hormonally reinforced then you need to provide verifiable sources appropriate for such a significant claim. You cannot apply an ethics statement on the situation of intersex infants and children to the case of transgender children, treatment of the different groups is distinctly different. Trankuility (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the issue that I was concerned about is settled now. My edits weren't really intended to be interpreted in the manner you described. Sorry if they were a bit ham-handed. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

BarrelProof, an IP added this text in October, and Trankuility tweaked it. Moments ago, I removed it because it is redundant to what is already stated in the first two paragraphs, and because your re-wording took away the emphasis on being raised as a boy or as a girl. If we look at the social aspects that lead one to being categorized as a boy or as a girl, we can see that those things are socially constructed. So stating that one develops as a boy or as a girl after their sex is determined as either male or female (by adults having looked at their genitalia) neglects the social component to that development. Yes, human males and human females have differences that seem to be innate, but a lot of those natural differences are socially categorized. The fact is...people will usually be raised as a boy or a girl based on their genitalia, and not all of them will continue to identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. Developing into a boy or a girl is very much connected to ideas of what it means to be a boy or a girl. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. The primary thing that concerned me was not that sentence or my change of "raised as" to "develops as". It was the sentence after that one: "In some cases, the assigned sex or one or more of these related observations and conclusions are found to be incorrectly applied." I'm not sure I understood that sentence correctly, and I think the article is better off without it. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent lead changes

CorbieVreccan made these changes to the lead, stating, "Sex is determined at birth. Gender identity emerges as person matures. Aligning with note in hidden text at top. Including GNC." I reverted with this edit, but soon afterward reverted myself on this minor change and this bit (followup edit here).

After examining the changes, I soon realized that I mainly objected to one thing that CorbieVreccan changed. I reverted CorbieVreccan because the children are not only being assigned a sex; they are also being assigned a gender. The "gender variance" piece that CorbieVreccan made (which changed "sex assignment to "sex or gender assignment") acknowledges this too. But CorbieVreccan changed the following: "In the majority of births, a relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered, and gender is determined, without the expectation of ambiguity." CorbieVreccan changed "and gender is determined" to "and sex is determined." I feel that this change is problematic because of the case of intersex people. Simply looking at the genitalia and declaring a sex does not mean that the sex assignment is correct. Furthermore, more than anything, these cases are assigning a gender. If the the doctor sees male genitalia, then he declares the child a boy. If he sees female genitalia, then he declares the child a girl. As noted in the Sex and gender distinction article, the term gender can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity). It does not solely refer to gender identity. Being boy or a girl is both a role and identity. And, as we know, gender can also mean "biological sex," but we are clearly distinguishing in this article. If anyone is wondering why I stated "the gender assignment is the most problematic" in my edit summary, it is because it appears that being transgender/gender non-conforming is more prevalent than being intersex. Keep mind that the term transgender is an umbrella term in addition to being used strictly.

I sort of object to CorbieVreccan mentioning gender variance in the lead; this is because not only is transgender an umbrella term and covers gender variance, it focuses on gender identity more than gender variance does, and the point of that final paragraph is to note that sex/gender assignment does not always align with gender identity. I don't see that we need to mention "gender expression," which is mostly what gender variance covers. But I restored that piece anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

With this edit, I changed "and gender is determined" to "and sex and gender are assigned," which I think will take care of CorbieVreccan's concern. CorbieVreccan's concern with that part seemed to be the implication that one can know a person's gender simply by inspecting the genitalia. Of course, the lead sentence states "is the determination of an infant's sex at birth," but I think that's fine since we go on to note what determination means in this case. The word determination could also be changed to discernment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As with 99% of the edits I make in this area, it usually comes down to evaluating cultural assumptions and looking for inherent bias issues. I find a lot of the edits being made on these articles assume that a rigid gender role will be assigned to an infant based on the observed/assumed sex. But this is only the case in some cultures, and only in some eras. As we all know (or should know by now) WP has a systemic bias issue. The intensely gendered upbringing that's been happening in America since the '90s or '00s with the pink and blue toy and clothing aisles is not a worldwide phenomenon. It's not even universal in America in cultural variations due to ethnicity, race and class. I sometimes forget that the largest number of WP editors are from a demographic that suffered or suffer under "assumed birth sex = raised with intensely rigid gender assignment." So, I sometimes need to be reminded of that perspective, as well, as it's important to keep the 'pedia free of either bias. As to the exact changes... I'm still weighing them. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Systemic bias exists just about everywhere. We can only go by what the sources state. You stated that you "find a lot of the edits being made on these articles assume that a rigid gender role will be assigned to an infant based on the observed/assumed sex. But this is only the case in some cultures." You also stated, "The intensely gendered upbringing that's been happening in America since the '90s or '00s with the pink and blue toy and clothing aisles is not a worldwide phenomenon. It's not even universal in America in cultural variations due to ethnicity, race and class." What sources do you have for those statements? From what I have studied, most of the world has rigid or semi-rigid gender roles. Most of the world does not have a third gender viewpoint or even a gender variance viewpoint. Regardless of when "pink for girls and blue for boys" started, gender roles are ancient. And although clothing and toys are a part of gender of rearing, this particular topic I addressed here in this discussion is not so much about clothing and toys. It is mostly about assigning a sex (male or female) and gender (boy or girl) based on anatomy. And as far as I know, most societies do assign a sex and gender based on anatomy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Gender assignments are not real.

No one is 'assigned' a gender. Doctors look at the infants genitals to tell if there a boy or a girl. It's that simple. Please change this article. Gender is not a social construct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid299 (talk • contribs) 05:45, January 30, 2018 (UTC)

This not a not a forum to discuss your personal opinions about the topic, it is a place to discuss changes to the article. Mathglot (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Article is biased

Sex is not assigned you simply are male or female. if you wish to choose a gender or "defy traditional" gender rolls that is up to you. but this article is openly passive aggressive, poorly worded and counterproductive to the better understanding of the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.196.134 (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

rewrite

I wrote this article to start with, intending it to be a brief description of what sex assignment is without going into extensive details of intersex mgmt or the changing "rules" for assignment in those cases. Another editor wanted to add those and I gather several would like the topic covered here. I have provided a far more extensive account of the history of intersex surgery with more detail and all of the references mentioned here. However, I am deferring to public opinion and provided a brief overview of the changes of assignment practices over the last half century.

I also corrected the preposterous statistics. If someone needs an explanation of the difference between ambiguity with difficult/controversial assignment, slight variations of anatomy with no assignment implications, and the whole category of developmental disorders of the reproductive system, I will patiently spell it out. Please do not put erroneous stat claims back in because you don't understand the difference or refuse to acknowledge the non-identity of those categories. Thanks. alteripse 07:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Just because you consider the state preposterous, they don't have to be. Multiple sources, including a project by a German university, with participants from other universities, confirm the stats you in your all-knowingness removed; and nobody has ever suspected that project to be particularly inclined to unnecessarily booster the numbers. So will you revert your baseless edits yourself or shall I? -- AlexR 09:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least your response is not a revert with insults, as before. We are off to a better start. All right, here is the patient explanation. First, the definitions, so we are not arguing about different things. You seem to have trouble with that.

1. Intersex is not synonymous with ambiguity (e.g. complete androgen insensitivity is not ambiguous).
2. Intersex and ambiguity are not synonymous with disorders of reproductive development (E.g., gonadotropin deficiency and Turner syndrome are more common defects of reproductive development than CAH, but they are not intersex conditons.).
3. In the earlier article and in the earlier argument I have been quite precise in my use of the terms and the statistics. You have not. Once again, I am claiming that the percentage of live term births that result in even a brief confirmation by testing or consultation, without delaying announcement by parents, is less than 0.001%.
4. The percentage of those with enough ambiguity to result in a delay of assignment pending tests or the advice of a consultant is much smaller. This is the category in which management has been debated over the last decade. The figure of 0.0001-0.00005% (1 in 10-20,000) is an overly generous estimate. It is derived from two facts that have been reported over and over, as follow.
5. First, with the development of newborn screening programs for classic (mostly salt-wasting) 21OH CAH, we finally have reliable incidence statistics. The incidence varies by population, but in the general North American and European populations the incidence of classic CAH is generally in the range of 1 in 15,000 12064893, [1], [2]. The ratio of salt-wasting to simple virilizing forms is at least 3:1. Note that half of these are boys (and hence not intersex in any sense), so the incidence of ambiguity due to CAH is roughly 1 in 30,000, assuming that all the girls have significant ambiguity. In many it is mild enough that it does not delay assignment.
6. The second fact is that in the experience of all physicians who deal with ambiguous genitalia, XX CAH comprises at least half of those severe enough to require testing and delay of assignment for even a few hours. [3]. My experience is no different. Therefore if at least half of sigificant ambiguity is due to XX CAH at 1 per 30,000, we get a total estimate for significant ambiguity requiring testing and at least brief delay of assignment in 1 in 15,000. This is not complicated.
7. These stats can be corroborated by things like the ratio of new diabetes (incidence about 1 in 400 by age 18) or congenital hypothyroidism (incidence about 1 in 2000) to new ambiguous genitalia (most pediatric endocrine services see at least 50 new cases of diabetes and at least 10 cases of congenital hypothyroidism for every case of serious ambiguity). Take a look at the total numbers of patients (of any age, not just newborns) with the main intersex diagnoses seen in over 2 decades with each diagnosis reported at what is the institution in the world with the largest reported experience with intersex conditions (Johns Hopkins Hospital); I have provided references and a synopsis of the numbers at history of intersex surgery.
8. So why do people like you have the impression that the numbers are much larger? Those who believe the numbers are larger demonstrate two things, that they have no direct experience in the care of these infants (like someone who claims that 1% of homes burn down each year obviously doesn't work for the fire department), and that they have gotten their information from advocacy groups (which uncritically report the nonsensical statistics of Anne Fausto-Sterling). Her statistics are still used by ISNA despite the fact that they have been thoroughly debunked in print twice because they are full of elementary errors and dishonest assumptions (like categorizing boys with CAH as intersex), and she has even admitted in print that they were concocted by a couple of Brown undergraduates for purposes of political advocacy. I can provide references and quotes if you still think she should be taken seriously, but the two journal articles are not publicly available online. The most charitable explanation is that most self-appointed intersex advocates do not understand the differences between the categories I described above and do not realize what a small percentage of reproductive abnormalities are intersex, and what a small percentage of intersex conditions result in significant ambiguity. I recognize that you know more about adult transgender disorders than I do, but I have been amazed and dismayed at your persistent and uncivil ignorance about intersex. It would be perhaps understandable if we were arguing about management, but the statistics are a simple matter of published fact. Go back and read your "source" more carefully: if it comes from an advocacy group without pediatric endocrinologists, it is probably a parrotting of the F-S statistics. If it comes from people who directly care for these infants I suspect you are either misunderstanding their categories or misrepresenting them to us. But if you can quote or link to something published I am always willing to learn. alteripse 16:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

@Alteripse: Can you please provide the references and quotes you referred to? Mathglot (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Just noting that you are asking for references for an 11-year old comment. In the meantime, there is no longer a medical definition of intersex, there is a (contentious) medical definition of Disorders of Sex Development established in a paper on the medical management of "intersex disorders", and a human rights definition of intersex. The former uses diagnoses, and varies depending on the source. The latter refers to being born with sex characteristics that don't meet social norms. More on the Intersex page. Trankuility (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Trankuility: Yes indeed I am, after checking that the user is still active. I'm more interested in the purported debunking of a source I know well. If this is true, and User:Alteripse has access to the material, then I'd like to see it. There was no other purpose to my comment. Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

One of those sources is Sax L. How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. The Journal of Sex Research 39(3):174-178. There's a brief discussion on the Intersex page. Trankuility (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Sax was one of the sources to which I referred. I no longer remember the other. The conversation above is one of the reasons I got tired of writing for Wikipedia. alteripse (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"Assignment"

If the term "assignment" suggests that there is a choice, rather than a "recognition of an inherent aspect of a baby" - as noted in the intro - doesn't that indicate that the very term "sex assignment" is political or POV?203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The word "assignment" does suggest this. It's probably a holdover from the gender politics of the sixties. I don't like it either, but "sex assignment" is what gender scientists call this process. We'd do better to use the accepted term and then make sure that the article makes it clear that the doctors and parents aren't literally assigning the child a sex than to try to make up our own terminology.

It's kind of like "white privilege." The problem is real, but the term is a misnomer because nothing that is accessible to the majority of people in a group can literally be called a privilege. However, if I said "white stuff-that-everone-should-get-to-have-and-do-but-don't-and-people-don't-realize," then no one will know what I'm talking about. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

--Disfasia (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC):I have made an edit here as well that was rejected and I am most concerned about the politicisation of this subject. Because "that is what is used" does not make the misuse of language acceptable. In the medical field, gender is not assigned. It is not recognised at all concerning birth. Sex is the focus. And sex is neither 'assigned'. It is observed and recorded as per the standard text on this matter, Mayes Midwifery:

This subject is already highly politically charged and what I see when I read through this and other similar subject entries is a form of political lobbying for certain usage that is just not plausible nor in practice.Disfasia (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Latest lead changes

Nomenclator, regarding these changes you made, which I reverted, the first part needs to be sourced, but I feel that it's a little too detailed. The second part is already covered in the same paragraph, but with different words. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This is one of many sources which verifies the act of observation and recording of sex, not the assignment thereof. The Reiner cited earlier in this entry is merely an attempt at historical revisionism of the language which is, for any medical practitioner, inauthentic and inaccurate. Sex is not "assigned" except in the rare intersex cases, a practice which is quickly ceasing on most western countries, with genital reconstruction and assigning a specific sex being viewed as regressive. In these cases, the subject, upon reaching adulthood, is then allowed to make certain medical and nomenclature choices. --Disfasia (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The page you listed as a source, a handbook for midwives, does not back up the text of your edit. It states "Before designating a sex to an apparently female infant..." for starters. The word "assessment" on this page is used in sections about feet and the back, nothing to do with sex. And there's certainly nothing in this source to back up your words "Also many of the terms used within transgender theory either conflate sex with gender or entirely erase the biological notion of "sex" in favour of the socialisation of bodies, gender." Funcrunch (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There is also a distinct lack of evidence for the statements about the treatment of intersex people, see the properly cited pages Intersex human rights reports, Intersex medical interventions, Intersex rights in the United States, and others. Trankuility (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sex assignment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150704213308/http://transactivists.org/2015/04/08/making-depathologization-a-matter-of-law-a-comment-from-gate-on-the-maltese-act-on-gender-identity-gender-expression-and-sex-characteristics/ to http://transactivists.org/2015/04/08/making-depathologization-a-matter-of-law-a-comment-from-gate-on-the-maltese-act-on-gender-identity-gender-expression-and-sex-characteristics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Title should be "Sex recognition"

Why on earth is this article titled "Sex assignment", when as the article currently notes "the act almost universally constitutes an observation or recognition of inherent primary sexual characteristics of a baby". So why not call the article "Sex recognition"? To call it "Sex assignment" is obviously, clearly, unambiguously, and undeniably misleading. What argument can there be against that? Therefore, I suggest the article should be retitled as indicated. What is the debate over that? KHarbaugh (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@KHarbaugh: I was going to respond to your question with a basic intro to Wikipedia, assuming you were a newbie and didn't know about Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines such as Verifiability, No Original Research, and Reliable sources. But I don't need to wikilink any of those guidelines for you, do I, since you've been an editor here for twelve years. So, as to you your question, "Why not call the article 'Sex recognition'?" I think you know the answer perfectly well, don't you? If you honestly don't, I will be happy to spell it out. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

KHarbaugh has been a registered Wikipedian for 12 years, but KHarbaugh's edit history is sporadic, with significant gaps. This editor does not have enough Wikipedia editing experience. So pointing the editor to certain rules would likely help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes good point, didn't see that. Am mobile, will add links when I get home. Thanks, Flyer. Mathglot (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@KHarbaugh: I take back what I said earlier, in the light of Flyer's comments. So, to answer your question more properly: the reason we don't call the article sex recognition, is because nobody calls it that. More formally, a core Wikipedia policy is neutral point of view and Verifiability, and this requires that statements likely to be challenged have citations from reliable sources. Since the preponderance of reliable sources use the expression "Sex assignment", even if that might seem like a misnomer to you, for better or worse, that's what we at Wikipedia must do as well, following the name in common usage. I'm sorry I didn't link these policies for you in my earlier edit.

If this doesn't make sense, or if you have any other questions or comments, please ask. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is someone having sporadic editing history (ie. usually meaning having a professional career and/or family to raise) count against them? This smacks of an incredible bigotry against people who work and who do not live their lives online.

Sex recognition is what the process is. It is formally called "observation" since the sex is observed and recorded. Why is this being eliminated from the discussion to include my references which have been carefully been wiped clean? I listed two different medical texts used today in medical schools and nursing schools around North America to refer to sex observation. I am disturbed that Wikipedia editors, it would seem, are removing traces of conversations and documentation on this subject. Because a lobby group like the trans lobby calls something "assignment" does not make it so. People can claim the Marfa Lights are really UFOs but I would imagine that Wickipedia allows for more scientific readings of that fiction as well. Disfasia (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The total amount of editing history matters because Wikipedia's rules can be freakin' Byzantine and it's perfectly natural for a new guy to need direction to WP:Verifiability. It has to do with figuring out whether you're a troll with a political agenda or just someone who doesn't know that we need sources before we add any text that is likely to be challenged.

If you have sources showing that the term is formally called "observation," like medical textbooks or articles, that would be absolutely great. All you have to do is fill out the reference tag and add the text to the article. You don't have to but it would be cool if you'd either provide a link to those sources online or type out the relevant text for us so we could make sure it's in compliance with Wikipedia's verifiability and neutrality rules.

The act of saying "it's a boy/girl" was named "assignment" back in the mid-century when there were people who genuinely believed that gender was exclusively cultural (see John Money). If it's being updated, good, but it's Wikipedia's job to reflect changes in language that have already happened, not to push or create them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 said it well. I would only add to Frog's comment regarding verifiability, that if you do find some sources that show that term is called 'observation', then you will then have to deal with the principle of due and undue weight, as there are innumerable sources that use "assigned male at birth", and few that use "observed male at birth" (or, "observed to be male at birth", or, "observed as male at birth"). So, just finding a few sources isn't enough; you have to show that the preponderance of sources support your view, or that a minority do, and afaict, they are not minority but a fringe view. 09:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Should we add conjoined twin cases?

Htut Win and simillar cases(See "Conjoined Twins: An Historical, Biological and Ethical Issues Encyclopedia" or e.t.c) and contemporary trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:EB52:247E:0:0:BA08:B603 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Implied inaccuracy of sex assignment, conflation of sex and gender

Two issues:

Firstly, at no point in the article is it mentioned that sex assignment generally corresponds with the actual sex of the baby. The section "History" states: "The discernment of an infant's sex is almost universally considered an observation or recognition of an inherent aspect of a baby." This comes close, but could as well be interpreted as implying that this universal belief is somehow wrong. It's only wrong insofar errors are occasionally made in sex assignment (generally in case of intersex conditions). I know there are a few studies out there analyzing the prevalence of intersex conditions; these could be used as a citation to clarify that sex assignment usually corresponds with sex. (I'll probably do this myself later.)

Secondly, the whole article seems to conflate sex assignment with gender assignment. Sex assignment is the (usually medically accurate) observation/recording of a baby's sex. Gender assignment on the other hand is the actual assignment of the newborn into a social gender category, based on their observed sex. This difference becomes particularly important when talking about intersex issues in contrast to gender identity issues; intersex people are affected by inaccurate/simplistic sex assignment, whereas transgender people suffer from the practice of gender assignment. I'm afraid that most sources on this topic might be making the very same mistake of conflating sex and gender, since they tend to be overly sociological and not sufficiently medical. If that is so, I'm not sure how Wikipedia should deal with it, as it's essentially a contradiction between different sciences? Maybe some sources can be found that clarify the difference between sex assignment and gender assignment, in line with the difference between sex and gender that is already accurately laid out via the corresponding Wikipedia pages. Taylan (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The sentence you quote reads to me not as implying it is necessarily a wrong belief but just one that is almost universally held. The idea that sex is an inherent aspect of a baby is criticized by some feminist authors including Judith Butler in the book Gender Trouble. I think the article could discuss more how sex assignment impacts intersex people, perhaps a good source could be Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto Sterling? For your second point, I am not familiar with sources that make the differentiation you want. Usually sex assignment is discussed as something that is both a determination based on external genitals of a child and a source of gendered expectations. Many sources define trans people through the language of sex assignment including the ones used in this article. Rab V (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You claim that gender assignment means something different, and while your proposed definition sounds logical, the common usage appears to be that they are used to refer to the same thing; currently it redirects to Sex assignment. So at a minimum, you would have to establish consensus that they mean two different things, and then proceed from there, perhaps to the establishment of the current redirect as a new article (or a section redirect). Just because sex and gender mean two different things, it does not automatically follow that derived terms automatically do, too. (Example: gender reassignment surgery and its counterpart; or sex role and its doppelganger.) Language is not mathematics, and has plenty of inconsistencies and illogical aspects; any definition of gender assignment would have to stand on its own and not depend on definitions derived from only one portion of the term. (There have been other dissensions about the meaning of gender assignment based on the second word, and the same principle applies there.) So step one is, find support for your position that gender assignment means what you propose, based on the entire expression. Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Re-reading the lead section, I think I might be able to "work my way around" the fact that the term "gender assignment" does not exist separately from sex assignment in common use. I guess the combined term sex/gender assignment makes sense in a way, since it's society at large that conflates sex and gender and assigns both as one. I'll concentrate on making it clear within the article that the issues arising from inaccurate/simplistic sex assignment are distinct from the issues arising from the related gendered expectations / assumption of gender identity. Taylan (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The interchangeability of sex assignment and gender assignment, and the connection between sex and gender, was discussed before. See Talk:Sex assignment/Archive 1#Gender or Sex Assignment? and Talk:Sex assignment/Archive 1#Recent lead changes. Like I stated in that first discussion, "Gender assignment is also correct because along with that sex...that baby is assigned a gender." The two are not separated. When a child is designated as female, that child is expected to be a girl and "behave like" a girl. And as made clear in the Sex and gender distinction article, the terms sex and gender commonly mean the same thing regardless of also being distinguished.

As for you merging the Terminology section into the lead, I reverted because the lead, per WP:Lead, is meant to summarize the article. We shouldn't have all those terms in the lead when they aren't covered lower first. And either way, they should not be in the lead. They are not really WP:Alternative titles, but, since they are excessive and are related to this topic, they should have their own section in the article -- the Terminology section. And the anchors in that section are meant to point readers specifically to that section for those terms. Also, per WP:Lead, the lead should typically be no longer than four paragraphs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

A contradiction

There seems to be a contradiction in the first two paragraphs of the article.

On one hand, it says a "midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered... without the expectation of ambiguity." On the other hand it says "the baby does not fit into strict definitions of male and female" 1.7% of the time.

If the true figure is 1.7%, any well-trained nurse or physician should certainly expect the possibility of ambiguity.

This makes one doubt the veracity of the 1.7% figure. 75.163.196.190 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It's very much less of a contradiction when considering the portions you left out:

:"In the majority of births..."

"... a relative, midwife, nurse or physician..."

"...strict definitions of male and female may be as high as 1.7%, of which 0.5% are due to visibly ambiguous genitals..."

Note that it is not 1.7% of the time that the genitalia is visibly ambiguous, and nor is it 0.5% of the time. It is 0.5% of 1.7% of the time, i.e. 0.06% of the time. No-one is in "expectation" of finding a 0.06% possibility. Captainllama (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

assigning

Hello Forgive me as a non-native English speaker, but why do you guys refer to it as "assigning?" To me assigning is pre-determine what somebody gets by the assigner's choice, i.e. assigning a seet in a room, i.e. "you are assigned to room 233, row 8 desk 3.". Assigning sounds as if it is intentional as in "I am going to give this person male or female gender and sex, " unless I'm missing something. Tigrigna is my first language and i am, despite my ears growing up in the UK and living in Canad still learning, so perhaps you guys could explain why you parallel something like giving somebody which room they must sit in, which row and desk they must sit in in said room to the same as what gender a person is.

thanks. Looking forward to learning. 38.111.120.74 (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's called "assigning" because the child is sorted into one of two categories which determine how society will interact with them with no input from the child itself. Transgender individuals feel a disconnect between what society tells them they should be and what they experience as their own feelings of self. --Khajidha (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please help this page.

Hi everyone.

So I just stumbled into this article after a bout of wiki-clicki. Reading through it, I see what appear to be a lot of problems. There are:

• Grammar problems.

E.g., "The view of gender as a purely social construction, and gender identity as a result of nurture rather than nature reached widespread acceptance, at least in liberal, progressive, and academic portions of Western society."

I get what they were trying to say, but...

• Very explicit claims with no citations.

E.g., "The recommended rules of assignment and surgery from the late 1960s until the 1990s..."

Where are these rules? Who recommended them?

• Statements which are obviously incorrect.

E.g., "Nothing currently appears to be known about sex discernment prior to the medicalization of intersex."

Maybe the author meant something else, but there's a whole world of pre-modern sex discernment -- including some that appear later in the article. See for example Erroneous theories of sex determination. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1049419/pdf/jmedgene00095-0004.pdf.

• Repetition.

David Reimer's penis probably puts in more appearances than necessary.

• Bad writing.

E.g., The intersex population is one that is not necessarily large. In the U.S., about 1 in 2000 babies born are intersex. Due to nonconsensual reassignment surgery many intersex people go about their lives in the gender that was chosen for them in a lot of cases.

Again, I get the gist, but this is poorly phrased.

• Judging from the history, a whole world of reversion wars. Which is why I'm not editing anything here.

For instance, I would agree that the whole "terminology" section should go, but I see someone else who thought so was reverted. Here's my thinking: If the goal is to describe "sex assignment in humans" as opposed to other animals (as per the disambiguation), the terminology listed isn't relevant to sex assignment. Sex assigners don't put "AMAB" on the child's birth certificate... those terms deal with how people are forced to live. Furthermore, those terms aren't used elsewhere in the article, and if we were talking about identity we'd include CAFAB/CAMAB and a host of other labels. If we were just sticking to "sex assignment," things like "genotype," "phenotype," and maybe "intersex" would be the appropriate terminology callouts.

This page has had a long history.

There's a lot more on Wikipedia about intersex and trans issues than there was 15 years ago when this page was created. The majority of this article has become tangential distillations of other "main articles." That makes a page like this very difficult to keep in sync. If -- as per this article -- sex assignment "is the determination of an infant's sex at birth," then a huge chunk of what's being talked about in this article doesn't belong here. And sadly the things that should be here -- like the history of sex assignment in humans and current guidelines -- aren't.

I care about this stuff. And if you're reading this, you care about it, too. But I'm not comfortable editing it given the contentious past. So please, please, make this article better.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Reve (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced

It looks like the lead and the History section are not properly sourced. Both cite Sex Assignment in the Neonate With Intersex or Inadequate Genitalia, which does not support the text. I have not checked the sources throughout the rest of the article for accuracy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "also known as birth sex"

Could somebody explain to me why my words "also known as birth sex" were removed? That they're not regularly used formally, fair enough. But removing any reference to these two words, words used by many people, to refer to this subject - what's the justification? Gallovidian85 (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That redirect was recently created and maybe shouldn't redirect here. And "natal sex" was recently changed from where Genericusername57 had redirected it (the Sex article) after initially redirecting it here. I state "maybe shouldn't redirect here" because when sources state "birth sex" or "natal sex," they are often simply referring to sex (what many call "biological sex"), without any mention of the sex assignment topic. On the other hand, the terms "birth sex" and "natal sex" are commonly used when speaking of intersex and transgender topics. So an editor might feel that the terms should be redirected to the Sex article, while another editor may feel that they should be redirected to this article. Looking at a page about terminology for transgender health in this 2015 "Medical-Surgical Nursing - E-Book: Patient-Centered Collaborative Care" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, we can see that it states, "Sex (also called natal sex)." Not "Sex (also called assigned sex)" or "Assigned sex (also called natal sex)." But for the description aspect, it states, "gender assigned at one's birth." And below that, it states, "Sex, also known as biological or natal sex, refers to a person's genital anatomy present at birth (Edwards-Leeper & Spack, 2013)." This latter description is why some would argue that "natal sex," just like "biological sex" always has, should redirect to the Sex article. "Genetic sex" has also always redirected to the Sex article. And I do think when readers click on or type in "biological sex" or "genetic sex," they will be significantly more likely looking for that article than this one. And, indeed, when reliable sources use those two terms (outside of the intersex and transgender topics), what the Sex article addresses is what those reliable sources are addressing. As seen here, I created the "Genetic sex" redirect in 2015. In 2019, it was redirected to a section within the Sex article.

Anyway, at the Sex assignment article, we deal with terminology that shouldn't be in the lead as a WP:Alternative title in the "Terminology" section. You can redirect both terms ("birth sex" and "natal sex") to that section and cover the terms there with sources (WP:Reliable sources, of course). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I redirected "natal sex" to "sex" to parallel the other redirects genital sex genetic sex, chromosomal sex, anatomical sex, and biological sex. I would support retargetting both natal sex and birth sex back to the sex article, since this article is focussed on the human act of observing/modelling sex rather than the physical reality of sex itself. (See map-territory relation). Cheers, gnu57 17:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Genericusername57, just a note that "genital sex" is not a parallel. This is because it usually refers to sexual activity. So you might want to cross that out. I don't much mind "birth sex" and "natal sex" redirecting to a section here in the Sex assignment article, considering just how much they are tied into the intersex and transgender topics. These days, when those two terms are used, the sources are more likely speaking of intersex or transgender topics than they are speaking of what sources are more commonly speaking of when using the terms "biological sex," "genetic sex" and/or "chromosomal sex" (although using "biological sex" and "genetic sex" with regard to transgender topics has also significantly increased in recent years). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Assignment, designation, or determination?

The sources cited seem to use the term "sex assignment" in the context of intersex or indeterminate sex, but I have not seen this term used in the context of determining sex at birth for babies with unambiguous sex.  Are better sources available, or is the correct term "sex designation" [4] [5] [6] or "sex determination"? [7]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Sex assignment or sex assigned at birth is the prevailing term by academic and professional organizations afaik. See American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association (2), American Psychiatry Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, CDC, NIH. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I see here how "designation" is used and that this terminology doesn't just apply to humans: "fish were assigned a sex designation based on biomarker criteria."[8] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

From a discussion at Talk:Transgender#RfC:_How_to_word_the_WP:LEAD: I haven't found a definition of "assign" used in biology, but one can see how it is used in this article from 1979:

Simple and multiple discriminant functions using mid-shaft femoral circumference for the determination of sex were used to test a sexing method recently proposed by Black. The method was able to correctly assign sex for 82% of the sample, which consisted of 115 North American White femora of verified age and sex. Circumference proved as accurate as any other criteria that have been used in sexing the femur.[9].

Can we find a good definition of "assign" used in biology?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I finally found a dictionary with a good example[10]:

2. To set apart for a particular purpose or place in a particular category; designate: assigned the new species to an existing genus. See Synonyms at allocate

Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I made an edit to explain the use of the word assign.[11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Kolya, Thanks for bringing the discussion here (from the derailment at Talk:Transgender Rfc discussion); this is the right place for it. Unfortunately, I removed your edit, because it basically amounts to original research. Not because citing two dictionaries are OR, but rather because you made an assumption about what the scholars who coined, developed, or use the phrase "sex assignment" thought about the word "assign" when they created the two-word phrase. Citing two dictionaries for the meaning, and saying, "in this sense, 'assign' means..." followed by the definition, does *not* necessarily mean they were thinking of the definitions you quoted, or even accept them. I think it's *probable* it's something similar, but as editors, we cannot be making that determination. Please find a reliable source that talks about "sex assignment", and what "assign" means in that term, and cite that, instead. To define "sex assignment" from one source, and then define "assign" from some other source, even a dictionary, and say that "this therefore means that", or, "this word in this expression, therefore means that according to this other source", is a form of WP:SYNTH. We can't do that. It has to come from the same source. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That makes things challenging. I did find a source with the phrase "The primer-wise taxonomic and sex assignment of the samples".[12] I infer that "taxonomic assignment" and "sex assignment" use the same definition of assignment, but if I found the definition of "assign" used in contexts of taxonomy and used that in this article that would still be synthesis...so I guess I have no choice but to research "sex assignment" itself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Kolya, totally agree with you on your last statement; you've hit the nail on the head: we have no choice, but to research "sex assignment" itself. That's because an analysis based on the individual definitions of parts of decomposed compound words or expressions is a flawed approach.

A one word compound or multi-word expression does not automatically depend strictly on the individual components. "Sex assignment" (or any word or expression) means whatever reliable people who use it say it means. If that happens to disagree with the components, well, then the people who invented it made a mistake, or they were in a hurry, or they weren't thinking, or the meaning changed since then, or who knows—but whatever the case, it's our role as Wikipedia editors to merely report the usage as it is.

American author Richard Lederer alludes to this phenomenon in humorous asides in his books about language, where he says things like, "We park in the driveway, but we drive on the parkway." That's an amusing example about the vagaries of language, but it has a serious point behind it. Those two words are so automatic to native speakers of AE, that they don't decompose them; the "driveway" is just the place to leave your car in front of the house. It's not thought of as a "path[way] to drive in". When someone points it out (like I just did) then there's that little moment of surprise, that shock of recognition; and depending how it's presented (e.g., the way Lederer did), it can be funny. (If you're a speaker of British English however, you'll be surprised in a different way; as everybody knows what a driveway is.) An even more embedded example, is butterfly. When was the last time you thought about something you smear on toast, when someone used the word butterfly? But if you're a speaker of German seeing butterfly for the first time, that would be a logical, if flawed method to try to work out the meaning of it. (Both butter and fly come from Germanic roots.)

When a compound word or multi-word expression is less familiar to us, then we look at the pieces, to try to figure out what it means. Sometimes, that works, maybe most of the time. But in the end, the word or expression means whatever knowledgeable users of it mean, and attempting to decompose it into individual parts and analyze the pieces, sometimes leads us astray.

When we know a word well, we don't decompose it in our head; the meaning is instantaneous. When AE speakers think about "driveways", they don't think about the meaning of "drive" and "way". And a discussion of it at the article wouldn't be helpful. We don't argue about "butter" and "fly" at "butterfly". This all seems either obvious or silly to us, because they are familiar terms.

All words and expressions live in the social context in which they are used. That's why they can have different meanings over time (e.g., queer), or even at the same time, depending on who's using the term (the N-word; tranny). It's not mathematics, so there's no way to logic it out by decomposition; that just doesn't work. So, if we see an unfamiliar expression like "sex assignment", really the only way to deal with that in an article, is simply to check the reliable sources to see how the entire expression is used or defined, and report that. Going to dictionaries for the *complete term* is fine. But going to dictionaries for the pieces, and then using our own logic to figure out the relation to the article topic, is a big no-no; that's major WP:SYNTH going on there. But it looks like from your last comment, that you've figured that out already. Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand that, but "sex assignment" is used interchangeably with phrases such as to "assign a sex".  We still need a definition of the component word in this context, unless it's a BLUESKY issue.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you don't. You (maybe) need to know what "assign a sex" means. From what I can see checking these Google books results it means several things: one is sex assignment at birth; another is that evaluation-thing we all do, every time we meet or pass somebody, and means the same thing as the verb to gender someone; and the third one has something to do with vectors and graphs. Mathglot (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I am saying that in order to define the word "assign" we would need to find a definition of "assign" used in the context of "assign a sex", used in the sense of "sex assignment at birth". Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Sex assignment" and "assign a sex" are basically two ways of saying the same thing...e.g., "I am now going to *assign a sex*" or "I am now going to do *sex assignment*" mean the exact same thing (though nobody would actually say those things in real life). An old English saying for this goes, "it's six of one, or half a dozen of the other."

Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Disputing the assertion that determining sex at birth leads to any expectations regarding future gender indentity

"The act of assignment carries the implicit expectation that future gender identity will develop in alignment with the physical anatomy, assignment, and rearing"

I am disputing this statement, as it is not factually accurate. It is also not referenced anywhere in the main body of the text. The act of sex determination is carried out simply to describe the biological sex of an infant. There is no "implicit expectation that future gender identity will develop in alignment with the physical anatomy, assignment, and rearing". To suggest otherwise is a statement of opinion and is not a neutral. In the interests of avoiding bias and increasing the credibility of this page, contentious statements should be referenced or omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowbentine23 (talk • contribs)

The article's references could use improvement. I'll work on some now. That said, Yellowbentine23 you appear to be quite familiar with wiki syntax and while that is commendable, I wonder if that you are not new to Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, as noted in previous discussions, the notion of "biological sex of an infant" is not nearly as straightforward as it appears to some WP editors, is not favored in recent RS, and to my knowledge is not used at all in sources where sex assignment is discussed. To introduce such concepts, it would be best to discuss the quality of the sources here before making BOLD changes to the article. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that I've added a ref to this book. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the reference. I don't contest the veracity of the source itself, but maintain that this is still an opinion, and is not a widely held view. Sex assignment, by definition simply describes the determination of biological sex of a human and does not come with any expectations about future behaviours. Biological sex may come with certain gender expectations, but that is not the subject of the article. The subject of the article is the *process* of describing biological sex, not of biological sex per se. Infact, to mention gender so heavily in the article appears to be inappropriate as gender is a separate topic to the act sex determination. There are other wiki articles that discuss sex in relation to gender where such topics can be explored in greater detail. The whole article does not come across as neutral and comes across to readers as being politicised in places. I think a lot of changes need to be made to give the page credibility, but unfortunately I think those with an agenda will out-edit those who merely want to provide neutral, on topic information sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowbentine23 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yellowbentine23, you may not be aware, but the expectation on WP is that editors present sources, especially when they advocate that articles be edited to conform with their personal opinions about what counts as "neutral", "politicised" or "widely held". To my knowledge, there is simply not a body of RS about sex assignment - the topic of this article - that make the assumptions about biological sex (of infants) that you would like to make in this article. If such literature exists, I would suggest presenting it in Talk rather than repeatedly whistling in the wind. Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yo,

He never actually said any such thing about what he wants there to be in the article: the point of contention is a statement that is in the article, and whether or not in should be in the article. It is certainly within the scope of Wikipedia for its editors to have a discussion on a talk page regarding the merit of certain content. We are under no obligation to include every statement that is made by reliable sources, and certainly everyone must acknowledge that reliable sources can be wrong at times.

My own position on this is thus: ANY statement which is structured "The practice of A carries the implicit expectation of B in the future" has absolutely no business being in an encyclopedia, no matter what A and B happen to be. Except in the most universally accepted and non-contentious of topics. (Furthermore, statements of those types are by their nature matters of opinion, even if they ARE undisputed, and are therefore inappropriate in an encyclopedia). Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

But are there any RS about sex assignment that maintain the position that sex assignment carries no expectations regarding gender? If there aren't any, then it isn't really a contentious statement as far as the RS are concerned. It is one thing for an editor to state that RS can be wrong as a matter of principle, but rather a different thing to suggest that *all* the RS are wrong on a topic, when the editor doesn't happen to agree with them. Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Determination" vs "discernment"

The lead sentence states: "Sex assignment...is the determination of an infant's sex at birth." The word "determination" seems inappropriate in this context because it could be confused with sex determination. Wouldn't the word "discernment" be more appropriate, as in Prenatal sex discernment? Also, source [1] states "Sex assignment reflects the child's anatomic sex and usually occurs at birth." Do we need a new source consistent with the body of the article? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed it to "discernment". I think the source is fine; we don't need to copy the wording exactly after all, as long as the meaning is the same. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you think about the other instances of determin* in the article? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes. I fixed two others; the rest seem fine to me. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Now I'm noticing the definition doesn't sound right to me at all... Sex assignment is the process of discerning sex but it's also the "label [itself] that you’re given at birth based on medical factors, including your hormones, chromosomes, and genitals." Planned Parenthood Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That's about the label of male or female itself, but "discernment" fits in either case. It can apply to the act of discerning, or what has been discerned. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

But sex assignment doesn't really mean what has been discerned; sex assignment means the process of discerning sex and the placement into a sex category. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"At Birth"

Sex is often determined before birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.250.244 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, yeah, in the context of sex determination, it's determined before birth. After birth happens, sex assignment happens. But it seems you may be talking about prenatal sex discernment. If so, that is why the lead states, "Assignment may also be done prior to birth through prenatal sex discernment." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Is biological sex observable?

The page on sex assignment has the sentence "The discernment of an infant's sex was, until recently, almost universally considered an observation or recognition of an inherent aspect of a baby."

This is untrue because it is still "almost universally" considered an observable aspect of an infant (or any human.) I've seen no evidence and can imagine no evidence that more than a tiny fraction of people believe you can't tell the sex of a human by looking at it.

If you were to ask medical professionals if biological sex is an observable trait of a human, I have no doubt that essentially 100% would say yes. There has been no change in this. Nothing happened recently that has changed the near universality of the belief in this.

True: you can't tell the gender identity, but gender and sex are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorrisGretsky (talk • contribs)

Biologically sex is about reproductive roles.

Is in a way it’s observable.

But, there is a reason you hear medical professionals say assigned sex. CycoMa (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What is that reason? And which "medical professionals?" You say "in a way it's observable," but what does that mean? It simply is observable, in the same way that any physical thing in the real world is observable. Are the results of a coin toss observable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorrisGretsky (talk • contribs)

I suggest you sign your comments.CycoMa (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, the OP is stating as BLUESKY something that isn't even true. The presence and nature of intersex conditions, for example, is not "directly observable" by medical professionals as part of routine screenings and observations around childbirth, which is one reason sex assessment does not correspond to "biological sex" (and indeed, it is often unclear in such cases what aspect of "biological sex" the assignment "should" correspond to. Newimpartial (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I don’t really agree with the word observable or assigned in this case because male and female is merely about what an organism can do in sexual reproduction. But, I can understand why that language exists. Like you mentioned with intersex. In rare cases like Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome an individual who has male internal sex organs including testes has a phenotype of a female.

In a nutshell those individuals are basically biologically males but, we’re mistaken as female. However, most of them are raised as girls and possess a female gender identity.

Many medical professionals for the most part agree it’s unethical to force an gender identity onto someone. There are documented cases of people having a gender identity forced upon them leading to negative outcomes. That goes for both trans and intersex people. CycoMa (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

reasons for reversion of AlexR version

I am reverting this because of multiple defects of fact, POV, and language. You have not improved the article. Unlike you, I will provide the courtesy of explanation.

Fact errors

1. Your statistics are absurd. The incidence of ambiguity significant enough to be described by this article as a conscious assignment decision involving delay or testing is inflated about 10 fold.
2. It is no less true now than 30 years ago "that assignment in these cases may be less a matter of discerning what the infant is than deciding what the infant should become. I have no idea why you would claim that is "in the past."
3. Your claim that this process of deciding how to raise the child has been challenged is simply false, and the reason given is a non-sequitur. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but the only challenge that fits your sentence is the fringe opinion that no sex should be assigned until the child is old enough to show the parents or tell the parents the "real sex". In the real world this is considered lunacy by parents, doctors, psychologists, and even most grown intersex patients. If you want to put this in, we should at least make it clear what you are talking about and how little support it has garnered.
4. Your examples of bad outcomes are examples of assignments made in the past on criteria thought at the time to be the best. This is the clearest specific example of an assignment criterion that is now considered obsolete. Why include it here without explanation or perspective? It can be used to support a role of early testosterone in determining gender identity, and it can be used to reject the long-obsolete idea that gender identity is totally a matter of assignment and social learning. It is as the authors point out, of uncertain relevance to cases of ambiguity due to inadequate testosterone effects. Outcomes in the past have been far less clear. You don't use it to make either of these points, so please explain.
5. With regard to reassignment in infancy because of better understanding of an infant's hormonal, anatomic, or potential fertility status, you wrote "However, there are few follow-up studies regarding the success of such reassignments, and those that exist often contradict the theory that gender identiyy is independent of the sexual characteristics existing at birth, and can be changed through surgery and gender-appropriate rearing." I can't tell what this means-- that you think assignment should always be based on first impressions of external genitalia?
6. With regard to the Reimer case, I couldn't find any published claims by Money after it was clear that the reassignment was reversed that it was successful. Do you know of any? Otherwise it isn't the kind of claim to make casually. Don't we deal with it in excruciating detail in its own article?

POV I can't even figure out where you are coming from, except that you have some sort of hostility to medical attempts to assist parents in the management of children with the more difficult type of intersex conditions and genital birth defects, and are willing to misrepresent and distort to express it. The only two examples of assignment you choose to illustrate are of extremely rare conditions in which outcomes are problematic no matter what choice is made. You don't even suggest any specific alternative. Have you got so little understanding of intersex disorders, compassion, or imagination that you can't understand that doctors in 1970 were basing management exactly on what liberal social values of the time were preaching-- to consider gender a learned social construct? Criticising 1970s management in hindsight is cheap, but we've got the points made in other articles and I don't think we need it here.

Language offenses These are multiple. Every paragragh has errors of spelling, usage, syntax, or grammar. This makes it a little harder to accept your choice of words over mine. alteripse 02:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You don't know where I come from? And what exactly has that do to with your revert? Which I will of course revert again, because the old article was terribly inaccurate and POV, and you have offered no remotely valid reason whatever for your revert. The old article was misrepresenting such assignemts as completely unproblematic, something that can be falsified with even the most cursory Google searches. And what do you mean by "1970s management" - it is not as if there were not still more than enough doctors around who think exactly the same thing. It is you who promotes exactly those 1970s ideas by reverting the article, BTW, ideas which by now have come under quite some criticism, which you attempt to remove from the article. As for "errors of spelling, usage, syntax, or grammar" - English is not my first language, so if there are such errors, correct them. Usually I am told, though, that I don't make all that many of them, and at any rate, you can hardly use these as an argument for your unfounded revert which restores an absolutely POV version advocating the mutilation of children.

Should you wish to debate some points of the article, feel free - however, I will treat further reverts and mindless rants as the one above as nothing but vandalism. -- [[AlexR 05:04, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)]]

AlexR, you did not point out a single inaccuracy in the old article: my version did not claim that intersex assignments were unproblematic. Your revision provided a combination of factually wrong information and recounting of a 1960s disaster as if it represented current policy. This is dishonest and the readers deserve better. You offer nothing but personal attacks, insults and dishonest claims in your reply, which is far more a "mindless rant" than my objections. You offer to debate, but answered NONE of my objections. Do I need to spell them out in more detail? Are YOU capable of discussing this without simply repeating your insults? alteripse 13:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The inaccuracies I corrected should have been obvious from the fact that I did correct them. And the old version does very much claim that the assignments were largely unproblematic. Some examples:

The physicians involved are more conscious than the infant's parents that assignment in these cases may be less a matter of discerning what the infant is than deciding what the infant should become, Yes, well, but obviously this politic, also called "easier to make a hole than a pole" does not quite work, does it - as the study I cited clearly shows. And that has been the undisputed standard until a few years ago, and is only now being challenged.

When this is done for good reasons in the first month of life it nearly always goes smoothly beyond some temporary embarrassment for the family. Obviously, as the comment shows, that edit was seen by others as not exaclty unproblematic. There are two problems there: One, obviously, as the study I cited (among others) shows, assignment is problematic even when done in the first months of life, and second, the word "embarassment" is highly POV - why should people be embarrassed by a medical condition their child has? Of course, it is exactly that sense of embarrassment that causes parents to make that decision, and stick to it even when it is obvious that the decision was wrong (see study for examples). But that is hardly a reason for a WP article to talk about that "embarrassment" without mentioning the problems that causes.

It's companion piece is of course Reassignment carried out by parents and doctors after early infancy is fraught with more danger of interfering with or opposing the process of gender identity development. implying once again that assignment in early infancy is unproblematic, which it clearly is not.

As for the rest of what you call "fact errors"

1. The number I gave is not "absurd". It is from the article intersex and is was confirmed a few months ago on a conference by medical caregivers, who know a lot more about figures than you do.
2. The "in the past" refered to the fact that this treatment by now is not undisputed any more. Better wording might be entirely possible, but will be hardly achieved by mindless reverts to POV-pushing versions.
3. I am not offering an easy solution, since there is none, and certainly I am not advocating what you are trying to claim I am.

And one last thing: You try to push those problematic assignments firmly back into the 60s and 70s, while at the same time claiming that they not only are still (undisputed) standard, which is changing, but also claiming that they are unproblematic, which they are clearly not. Maybe you ought to make up your mind about these things - either they are a thing of the past, or they are not. And of course you might check pages like isna.org for your claim that early assignments are usually without problems. You know, compassion and imagination are one thing, but facts don't hurt, either. -- AlexR 15:11, 4 Jan 2005 (U

Well, at least you put down some specifics. Here is what you are misunderstanding or misconstruing.

1. The process of deciding on best sex assignment has always involved some element of constructive fitting into one of two social boxes for children who biologically are somewhat in-between. The paragraph emphasizes that physicians are aware that the decision depends greatly on what criteria we consider most important, while parents usually assume the process is one of "discovering" what sex the child really is. Is this too subtle for you? It is a very obvious distinction if you are part of the process and no less true today than 30 years ago. That's all it says. The paragraph said nothing about "holes and poles," which is an allusion to the change of assignment criteria over the last 30 years. The fundamental process is still the same.
   1. Unfortunalely, if that should indeed be what you are trying to express, the wording is vastly improvable. However, there is nothing to suggest that this was indeed what you tried to express, judging from the rest of this POV rant. [AR]
2. Patient group challenges now date back to the mid-1990s and have elicited lots of reconsideration and changes of policy. Why pretend otherwise unless you just like to have villains to bash?
   1. Oh, so a few hospitals have changed their practice. And that of course means all the hospitals in the world did so, and of course, today there won't be any mistakes, either. Then why do I keep getting cases on my desk that clearly say otherwise? [AR]
3. You certainly aren't offering any solution, but each time a child like this is born someone makes the assignment decision. The difficult ones are made with much awareness that the outcome will be less than perfect no matter what criteria are used or what surgeries are done or not done. It is a matter of trying to do the best for the child. So what is the reason for pointing out the imperfections of two of the rarest and most clearly altered assignment criteria? There is no context or explanation. I didn't understand what point you were trying to make. If the point is simply that there are potential problems no matter what is done for the difficult cases, let's say that. If the point is that assignment criteria have evolved in 30 years, let's say that. What point should we make?
   1. I was merely pointing out the problems, using two examples - the first of which already was in the article. And surely criteria have changed in the last 30 years, but still not the general attitude - and one might think about that what one likes, it merrits mentioning. You, on the other hand, obviously prefer to pretend that there are no problems, at least not today. That is clearly POV. [AR]
4. The reason I complained that you are referring to 30 year old policies is that the three specific allusions you make: Reimer, holes and poles, and cloacal exstrophy all date back to the 1960s and 1970s. People were criticizing and caricaturing the holes and poles argument by the 1980s, and as far as the other two examples go, you couldn't have picked any two clearer examples of obsolete management. There is no current debate about either one, but you act like you haven't gotten the message.
   1. Funny, but if you had read the study I mentioned you might have noticed that by no means all cases are 30 years old. But hey, don't check facts - they might disturb your theories. [AR]
5. The number you gave IS absurd when you suggest that 1 or 2 in a thousand births present difficult assignments. Roughly 50% of ambiguity consultations turn out to be females with CAH. Newborn screening programs are now giving us accurate incidence numbers in the range of 1 in 30,000 births (half of the roughly 1 in 15,000 incidence in both sexes). Add a similar number for all the forms of undervirilized males & other rare things and it gives you a ballpark number of 1 in 10-15,000, or 0.01% of live births. This matches the experience of those of us who see these children. Just because ignorant critics invent other numbers does not make them accurate. I
   1. Ah, so doctors who actually are consulted in a lot of IS cases in Germany are giving out "absurd" figures, but you know better. Wow, then it is really good that you are here to correct such obvious errors. And "those of us who see these children" - well, obviously not, or you would not claim such an utter bullshit. [AR]

And generally speaking, your "arguments" suffer from a serious flaw - on the one hand you are claiming that the idea of assigning children, which is based on the idea that gender is learned, is some odd liberal politic advocated 30 years ago and deprecated today. And on the other hand you argue that the very same politic (of course, "refined" today) should be continued. Can't you at least be consistent with your non-arguments? Either the basis of these sex assignments is stable, and gender can be learned, or it can not. You can't have it both ways.

I mean, I know the part of the medical establishment that just hates to learn that there might have been mistakes not only in the past but also in the present argues just like you, with insults, false and inconsistens information and non-arguments and whining about the credentials you are claiming you have, but this is the Wikipedia, here we prefer facts. You might check yours, and you might want to re-read some of your rants in other articles as well, because there you are POV-pushing and insulting, too. Otherwise I can look forward to working on these, and threre are a lot of things I'd rather do. -- AlexR 17:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is mystifying. You say I describe the old "gender is based wholly on social learning" theory as obsolete, but then you accuse me of continuing it. I have not argued that we should continue to assign sex on the basis of a "gender is wholly learned" theory. Why do you keep accusing me of that? The basic criteria for recommending assignment in difficult intersex and birth defect cases have changed since the 1970s. I have said it repeatedly in multiple articles. You accuse me of advocating views I do not, you accuse me of "hating to learn there might have been mistakes in the past" and then abuse me for it. Yet I wrote most of the article on David Reimer, specifically the part that pointed out exactly how devastating his case was to the old management practices, and in other articles I have clearly described unfavorable outcomes from some of the surgeries. I have written more about unsatisfactory outcomes from older practices than you have. I have not provided any false information, I have not argued on my credentials, and I have offered far fewer insults than you. You have yet to refute any of my objections to your text with anything resembling facts. Please argue with what I have written, not what you fantasize that I have written. alteripse 00:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So what's wrong with your responses up there?

The issue with the numbers is a specific fact. Part of reason for such widely varying estimates is that various groups of conditions are included in various estimates. You introduced the 0.1-0.2% figure in the context of discussing difficult assignment. I quite explicitly claimed that the percentage of births that represented exactly the type of assignment challenge you were addressing is far smaller. You like many others have been confused by misleading and ignorant claims that nearly any congenital disorder of the reproductive system is "intersex" and then imply that most of those are difficult ambiguous genitalia cases. They are not. Most of them are assigned by the primary physician and parents without hesitation or consultation. I am sorry if you don't like the numbers but I stand by them. The difficult cases of ambiguity you were discussing are much rarer than the total number of children with some type of developmental disorder of the sex chromosomes or reproductive system. If your medical experts provided that number, they were referring to a larger category and you misunderstood or misrepresented it.

You misunderstood or misrepresent my claim that the report of exstrophy outcomes was 30 years old-- I said the management approach was 30 years old. Most of the cases were infants in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the report validates the criticisms and doubts raised in the mid-90s. It needed to be published, and I have cited it elsewhere, but I questioned your use of it in this article without providing perspective.

As for your claim that some hospitals are still doing some of the things I am claiming are obsolete, that is no reason we should write as if that is what everyone is doing. I can cite lots of publications of the last decade to support what I am claiming. Why should we not describe recommended care rather than older approaches? And DO NOT claim that I deny there might be unsatisfactory outcomes with current approaches... just thought I would save your fingers the trouble. alteripse 01:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, listen - first of all, if there were insults, you started them. Second, you contradict yourself the whole time without even noticing. Thirdly, you have that funny way lots of self-styled "experts" (whether with a medical degree or not) have who simply claim that every fact they do not like are either made up or "misunderstood". Sorry, but I know what I am talking about. And that ammount of time you have been wasting right now with endless repetitions of "I said so, therefore it has to be correct" and insulting me and contradicting yourself would have been better spent elsewhere - like with educating yourself, for example, or trying to see the contradictions and insults you are dealing out. Until you do, there is obviously no point in any further debate. But then, this never was one in the first place. -- AlexR 03:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have not contradicted myself; you have misrepresented half of what I have said. You appear unable to cope with someone who doesn't fit your preconceived stereotype, so you imagine or invent what you think I said and then attack it.

Getting back to the article, let me see if I can understand what your valid points were among the nonsense:

1. A very small number of babies present a challenge to determine what sex to assign.
2. Our criteria for assignment have changed over the last 4 decades (especially the last decade) for a small number of disorders, largely because some of the outcomes were less satisfactory than hoped.
3. The "small number of disorders" for which a change of assignment criteria has occurred has been mainly conditions involving genetic males with working testes and normal testosterone effects (examples: cloacal and bladder exstrophy and ablatio penis).
4. The specific "less satisfactory" outcome (relevant to this article) is that assigning those specific males as female and raising them as girls turned out to result in a large percentage of cases in a person dissatisfied with their gender of rearing, and many have switched gender.
5. Currently most pediatric endocrinologists and urologists no longer recommend raising males with these conditions as girls.
6. Specific aspects of this change of criteria due to unsatisfactory outcomes include (1) a consensus that early hormones may influence later gender identity, and (2) a greater sense that gender identity may be less influenced by medical treatments, surgery, and childrearing practices than once thought, (3) suggestions have been made to be slower to do irreversible surgeries for conditions where it is harder to predict eventual gender outcome.
7. Outcomes may be unsatisfactory in some way no matter what choice is made. For some of the disorders it is more a matter of choosing a "least bad" course rather than choosing between a right one and a wrong one.

One of the points I think is worth making but you didn't like is:

1. The babies who present the most difficult assignment challenges have a variety of conditions but are in some biological way somewhat "in-between." The doctors who do this have a sense of deciding which one of two social boxes to fit the baby into based on criteria that have changed in the past and may change again in the future, while parents prefer to think of the process as "discovering what sex the baby really is." Can you think of a way to say this that doesn't offend you? It is certainly as accurate a description of the process of assignment today as 30 years ago, but you seemed to have trouble with the concept in the original version.

Have I listed all the key points? Do you disagree with any of them? Any major points I am leaving out? Shall I put them into a revised version of the article? alteripse 04:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Assigning sex/gender

Since Mr. Welsh prefers to continue this rather odd debate, moved message from the user talk pages here (formating fixed). The same issue arose at Transwoman, hence there are some references to that article; the issue, however, is exactly the same:

Please, the last name is "Welch", with a "c". — Phil Welch 07:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but I think the article, either way, has serious POV issues. — Phil Welch 02:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In response to your remark:

Would you kindly stop making those stupid and incorrect edits to transwoman? It is obvious that you have no clue about gender assignments, so stop putting BS into the article, or you might find yourself treated as a vandal.

I'm not familiar with the theory, but you're presenting POV as fact and being bold as vandalism.

This is not an objectable POV I am presenting, but I merely insist that the article states the facts as they are.

For example, one is not born in any sex

One is definitely born with a set of sex chromosomes and genitalia. There is established POV that states that sex is a matter of genetics and anatomy.

You removed the format - particularly, the italics around "in". One is born with a sex, but not in a sex. Hence you missed my point. [AR]

there are debates whether transgender people are clearly one sex

My edits have never made a factual statement either way about that issue.

Oh yes, they did - they state clearly that a transwoman was born "in the male sex", but since sex is a rather complex issue, the fact that there is some evidence that the sex of transgender people might not be quite so unambiguous needs to be noted. Not to mention that transwoman can also cover intersex women, in which case the matter is even less clear. [AR]

and intersex people can get assigned another gender at any time, not only shortly after birth.

Fair enough.

And, the most basic thing: You may have something hanging between your legs, but what gets into the papers is not put there by said thingy, but by people - namely, doctors, midwifes and/or parents.

What gets into the papers, according to your POV, decides or "assigns" one's sex. I assert that in most cases, it is simply an empirical observation of a pre-existing biological condition that is recorded. But this is a matter of POV, not fact--as editors, we must often be careful not to confuse the two. — Phil Welch 03:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It does not "decide" once sex, that is a purely biological matter. It does however, for example legaly, but also in almost all cases also socially, "assign" a sex/gender, and that can be thoroughly independant of biological facts. Granted, that is the exception, but still, it is a plain fact that there are the biological facts, and that there is the sex/gender assignment, and that those are two seperate issues, although usually one is the basis for the other. "Usually", however, is not the same thing as "always", and certainly not "necessarily so". -- AlexR 07:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am glad we are in agreement on the point that one's sex is a purely biological matter. However, this is radically different from the conventional meaning of the word "assign". To "assign" something usually means to add something that wasn't already there, not to make an empirical judgment about what is already there. Usage of that term therefore connotates the POV that sex is a purely social construct. In order to reach NPOV, we have to explain on the relevant articles that one's sex is, according to most scientific POV, a matter of biology, and not socially constructed.

By the way, I would like to thank you for contributing to the enlightened level of calm and rational discussion here on Wikipedia. It is always a pleasure to deal with those who are above calling people who disagree with them "vandals".

— Phil Welch 07:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I've made an edit that clarifies the point adequately. What do you think? — Phil Welch 08:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re additions/changes:

• There are still POV issues with what you've added. To say a term is "misleading" is POV, as the meaning of "assign" in this context to many is quite clear, and it is this meaning that I have tried to emphasise instead.
• The "In the medical and scientific communities, it is commonly accepted that one is born into either sex (except for intersex individuals) by virtue of genetics and anatomy." point is not quite accurate. I doubt it is "commonly accepted" in the way you describe, as it is an extremely convoluted description -- what I would suggest is more accurate is that for many individuals they are born with characteristics of (genitalia, hormone, chromosome, gender identity) which are uniform, however for a number of individuals there may be differences between any of those characteristics; but at birth, they are assigned a sex based on the appearance of the genitalia. This is a more accurate description of sex and sex assignment, IMO.

Dysprosia 09:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've taken your edits into consideration, but there's a couple other things I felt like stressing as well, see if my last edit is any better. — Phil Welch 17:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please once and for all explain the reason for the inappropriate wording (e.g. "assign")?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have noticed that there are many entries on this page that relate to this same issue. If someone could, at least, put something on this talk page (if not the article itself), it will clear it up for all.

Can a child's sex be "allocated"? YES, indeed it can, via paperwork. Baby born --> medical professional who is responsible examines/ observes child --> sex of child is identified --> baby is officially "allocated" a group i.e. male/ female (via paperwork).

"Assign" does not directly equal "allocate". They are not completely synonymous. Assign specifically means: "To allocate a task or duty, to someone or something". This means that "Sex Assignment" is implying that the child's sex is being given a duty! It is an inappropriate word to use (seemingly).

If someone can provide some details of this seemingly odd use of words then please do so. Maybe even put it into its own section. It could include history of this terminology being used and the reason for it.--Hypernator (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources on this topic use "assign" rather than "allocate", so that's what the article discussed. Your suggestions here seem to be entirely original research, which is not relevant to WP article writing and editing. Newimpartial (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It was more a case of an explanation of the word usage. There no doubt is a good reason for it. I think a clarification would be helpful. The issue is the usage of "assign", because it appears to be a non-standard usage of English language. What seems strange is that the term does appear to be used by several websites that are medical, or official in nature. The issue at hand is not related to original research as you have suggested (not sure how you came to that conclusion). The dictionary definition of "assign" does not match the nature of what is being discussed in the main article. To "assign" would, under most circumstances, only be used as in: "To allocate a task or duty, to someone or something". An explanation of the usage of these specific words would be helpful to avoid confusion.--Hypernator (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed something interesting. If you do a Google search of "assignment" it comes up with a definition implying that assignment is synonymous with allocation. When you do a search of any particular site (and go to the page of that said site (e.g. Merriam Webster, Oxford, etc)), it comes back with the original definition I quoted: "To allocate a task or duty, to someone or something". I would like to know why the Google search, and presented definition, simply does not corroborate or relate to the dictionary sites themselves. That, I believe, is the issue here.--Hypernator (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are aware of this, but "word usage" in the sense of vanilla dictionary definitions is not a topic of this article, or others of similar scope. These articles address specific, somewhat specialized topics and follow the reliable sources in their fields (not Google searches or dictionary definitions). And not to get ahead of myself, but neither lexicology nor reception analysis would be on-topic for this Talk page, either. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

OK I am going to have to do some further research into this word usage. My original intention was to post an explanation (and reason) for the usage of "assignment" (to address the issue). Unfortunately, When I did the dictionary search though, I realized that the term: "Sex Assignment" was actually violating English language definitions. Now I am in a different situation... now I have actually realized the way in which the term is being used is violating proper English. I think I need to work out where the original redefinition (official or otherwise) of the term (assignment) came from. I will get back when I have located the source. It may indeed be a deeper issue than what I originally thought. I will need to contact various medical institutes to work out why this term is being used (if indeed it is officially being used by medical institutes). I think I will also need to try to find evidence of this term being used by official medical bodies like NHS and the equivalents in USA/ Canada/ Australia.

With regards to lexicology, yes it is relevant. If the semantics have been identified as being incorrect then Wikipedia would need to justify the usage of terminology that violates English language. I have noted that the citations for the first part of the article are not referencing directly medical institutes. That is an issue in itself. This article is in reference to medical procedure of identifying the sex of a child. A reference that is directly related to at least one English speaking country like UK or USA would need to be cited for the article to be "good".--Hypernator (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

One other thing: I am unfamiliar with the term: "vanilla dictionary definitions". I think it is important to use clarity. In future discourse I would appreciate more clear language. It (vanilla dictionary definitions) may be a term that is known to you, or in certain circles, but I am unfamiliar with it, which means it is probably not a term in common usage.--Hypernator (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

To your first point: of course, you can do what you like off-wiki, but upon your return I would advise you to resist the temptation to right great wrongs, linguistic or otherwise.

To your second, Collins offers, "If you describe a person or thing as vanilla, you mean that they are ordinary, with no special or extra features". But I prefer Urban Dictionary: "Unexciting, normal, conventional, boring. Vanilla, a bit like this definition". Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid using Urban dictionary. It is a dictionary meant for slang and non-standard English. I am referring to proper English language usage. Even the Collins dictionary refers to it as slang (vanilla)--Hypernator (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the whole discussion at #Assignment, designation, or determination? I still think we need more in the terminology section about his common question and controversy. I've found sources for the controversy over the term, such as articles mentioning public opinion,[13] and articles about the Alliance Defending Freedom [14], but I haven't found articles addressing the question. Other than referring to the sex discernment process, assignment seems to simply mean "sex categorization", but without better sourcing I can't think of an explanation to add to the article that wouldn't be synthesis. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

OK - I will look at that further. My concern is that Wikipedia needs to be factually based. Are you suggesting that the article this page is referring to is violating factual information in favor of ideology? That would be fairly serious because Wikipedia is obviously not meant as a soapbox platform for ideologies. My concern is that the terminology does not seem consistent with proper English language usage. As already stated, to "assign" is by dictionary definition (i.e. proper English usage): allocating tasks or duties to someone or something. It seems nonsensical. I am still having difficulty locating sources that suggest that medical institutes (e.g. NHS) use this terminology. It almost looks as if it is a made up term that has no official usage at the moment.--Hypernator (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Other phrases are certainly used, such as "gender assignment"[15]. I dare say that "sex" is more controversial than "assign", in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion falls under WP:OR territory, looking at sources not specifically about sex assignment and trying to speculate based on that. Either way will note Merriam Webster seems to define assign in the exact way it is used in this article and even has an example about sex assignment here. Rab V (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sex isn’t really assigned, because sex is merely about reproductive roles.

Biologists define male and female by gamete types. So yeah sex isn’t assigned. However, I can understand why the term assigned sex gets used. For one it’s inclusive to trans people. Also it’s hard to tell an individual’s sex at times. This is the case with some intersex people. CycoMa (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well yes that is true. Sex is actually defined at conception via the sperm being either x or y. There is not usually a lot of point talking about that on the talk page though. People use the term, so end of story basically. I see now that it is a term used specifically due to trans-people. Bear in mind, if "assigned" did indeed mean "allocate", then that would be justifiable, due to the paperwork. They are indeed being allocated to a group via documentation.--Hypernator (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hypernator; I provided a standard dictionary definition in the discussion above, which states, "to...place in a particular category". [16] Wikipedia reports what the WP:Reliable sources say; the RS do use this terminology. RS also report that some people believe this terminology is "violating factual information in favor of ideology". We would have to determine whether this controversy is WP:DUE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have found an inconsistency here actually. Merriam Webster has something further down the page for the word "assignment". I have been purely looking at "assign". The reason I say inconsistency is because both "assign" and "assignment" should match each other on that website (i.e. "-ment" does not change the core meaning). Maybe this means that it has been redefined afterwards... but they failed to update the word "assign" to match. Dictionaries will redefine things occasionally when the usage of a word becomes very common.--Hypernator (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In my own tiny piece of OR on this today, I observed that "birth-assigned sex" seems to be a popular term in legal discourse in particular, in English-speaking countries. If I've noticed this, then probably a RS already has or soon will; when such a source is found, it might be DUE for inclusion at some point (since the legal issues here are fairly weighty IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have had quite an extensive look at the whole thing now. It is just a buzzword from what I can see (but it seems it is used by many professionals (including in medical fields)). It is like I said originally, it is a poor choice of words, but then again it is a buzzword. On Merriam Webster "assign" is inside the "kids definition": "to give a particular quality, value, or identity to". That is the closest I have found in a major dictionary. It also seems to be a back-formed (Back-formation) term from "gender (or sex) reassignment"; that term appears in multiple places. Dictionary.com lists it of course (they pretty much list anything though). It will either start appearing in real dictionaries, or, it will be an offensive term in a few years anyway.Hypernator (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If you missed this from the previous discussion above, this paper from 1979 is about assigning sex by measuring femur bones,[17] and this 2009 paper is about the sex assignment of lake sturgeon.[18] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Well playing Devil's advocate... there is also the consideration of the programming use; the "assignment operator" does indeed "allocate" a value to a variable. That would be somewhat consistent with "sex assignment" as well. If the midwife is filling in paperwork then they are assigning the "sex" value to the variable, in a similar way to programming.--Hypernator (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EvergreenFir, while the discussion was forum-y, there was discussion about possibly adding more information about the controversy over the terminology and possibly etymology if it can be found and is DUE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. Just the whole "explain to me" or "shouldn't it be" stuff gets old. Info on the origin of the phrase (West and Zimmerman maybe?) would be great. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This conversation appears to have been cut short, the locking of the thread says 'the appropriate discussion page', where is this said appropriate discussion page, as I do not believe that this conversation was at all finished, if one does not exist, where would be the appropriate place to create one? This question is directed at the user who locked the thread of course as they seem to be the one that should know. 2204happy (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Intersex issues and due weight

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Beland removed the intersex section, which I undid because I think it's worth a discussion here first. A glance at the section sizes in the Talk header above shows that at 24kb, it is currently over half of the article. If the article were 200kb, that might be okay, but at its current size, that seems very disproportionate, and so should be cut back. How much to cut and where is the question. I believe some mention of the topic is worth keeping, in a Parent article-style summary, which could link to one of the Intersex articles with a {{Main}} link. Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I didn't remove anything from this article. I did drop that sort of content from Sex reassignment surgery to here. That's because it said in part:

SRS does not refer to surgery performed on infants with differences in sex development (intersex).

References

I added a link to the intro of that article to point to this one, clarifying that the subject is not included in that article. If the text is correct, that still makes sense to me. If you feel that text is incorrect, then it should be changed in Sex reassignment surgery. I don't see anything in that document that discusses this terminology, but it does assert the considerations for transgender vs. intersex people are strongly different. Is that the intended difference between the scope of sex reassignment surgery vs. sex assignment articles? If so, it's possible different titles would clarify the distinction. -- Beland (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Sorry, did I misread your edits? I'll go take another look; sorry if I got it wrong. (Off for a bit; back later.) Mathglot (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I see what happened; this discussion belongs at the other article; if you have no objection, I'll move it there. Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Sex reassignment surgery. Mathglot (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First sentence makes no sense

The lead states this. Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the discernment of an infant's sex at birth.

Um seriously discernment, that makes little to no sense. Discernment means, the ability to judge well.

I kind of suspect someone misread a source.CycoMa (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It's using the second definition here, based on the verb "discern" defined here. The definition needs to be clear that what is meant is the act of observing what is already there; that it isn't an arbitrary sorting based on a whim as people often feel "assignment" implies. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay but, the first sentence is still a little confusing to a typical reader. And the definitions of discernment makes it seem like it’s saying “looking at an infant’s sex”.CycoMa (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

My roll back

User:Firefangledfeathers, thank you for your revert. I didn't realise I had hit the roll back button. I was reviewing the edits then went off to something else. You are right, it wasn't vandalism, it was a good edit, but bad thumb on my part. Masterhatch (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I've got the occasional bad thumb myself! Thanks for the explanation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That "one touch" can be great on the roll back button but it can lead to boo boos too. Thanks for catching that one. Masterhatch (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

99.95%

The statement

A relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the external genitalia when the baby is delivered and, in more than 99.95% of births, sex is assigned without ambiguity.

is not supported by the citations given for it 96.10.152.66 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It is, we just adjusted how the number is expressed per WP:CALC: The estimated frequency of genital ambiguity is reported to be in the range of 1:2000-1:4500 [19] Crossroads ^-talk- 23:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Propose removal of current 'Controversies' section

While we should have a controversies section if any on-topic controversies are adequately sourced. ALL the listed controversies are relating to gender alignment surgeries, nothing to do with 'Sex Assignment', none of them are on-topic. Propose moving ' Intersex human rights' to 'See Also' and deleting the rest. JeffUK (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Does the article not articulate clearly enough the connection between sex assignment and alignment surgeries? Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That there is a connection does not mean that controversies about alignment surgery are on topic for this article. The controversies listed here are 3 times removed from 'sex assignment' (the discernment of an infant's sex at birth.) at best. JeffUK (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)