Talk:Sex assignment/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Birth Certificate Revision and assignment types
The article could benefit from added information how sex assignment/allocation is documented and revised. The state of California now permits birth certificates to indicate a sex other than male or female [SB-179 Gender identity: female, male, or nonbinary.(2017-2018] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB179
and https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/california-becomes-first-state-introduce-gender-neutral-birth-certificates-180965343/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jguttenburg (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Issues with article
This article has some issues. First, there aren’t many medical sources. Sex assignment is a term used in medical literature and other medical sites use it. Sure there are medical sources cited here but they kind of outnumber, there are currently 47 sources cited here and only about 7 or 10 of them are medical sources.
Most of the sources here are sociological sources or activist sources. I’m not sure many of these individuals know much about the medical perspective of the topic or much about things like sex determination, the psychology of gender identity, or reasons why they use language presented here. Also there is a good chance some of these sources could be classified as being partisan.CycoMa (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Cyco. You have a very poor track record distinguishing between statements to which MEDRS applies, and ones where it does not; also you apply the label
partisan
to sources apparently indiscriminately, without any evidence of partisanship, and as if your saying so was somehow relevant to the correct evaluation of sources according to WP policy (it is not). So perhaps you should try to reach consensus on Talk about how some of your concerns about specific statements are relevant to WP policy? Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Um that’s why I commented first waiting for other people’s insight. Also there is a template for articles that rely too much on partisan sources .[right here.] It’s not against the rules to point that an article has too many sources from advocacy groups.
- This article also appears to be heavily focused on intersex issues and controversies. This has issues because I am fully aware there is another site to the issue on this topic and sex assignment isn’t exclusive to intersex issues.
- There are also parts that aren’t even cited. CycoMa (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- In this version of the article, the only sources that could reasonably be described as
partisan
are references 5, 14, 35 and 41. That isn't nearly enough to create an issue with the sourcing of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)- Um look at sources 8, 9, 19, 22, 23, 25, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43.CycoMa (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (8), the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (9), the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (19) and the International Commission of Jurists (37) cannot reasonably be described as
partisan
sources; these are all expert international bodies on human rights. The Harrington and Serano sources (22 and 23) are RS books. Source 25 is well worth reading; while not peer-reviewed, it is a well-written and well-referenced document from an international consultation process and is far frompartisan
- it is essentially an expert WP:SPS. You have a point about sources 36, 40, 42 and 43, but that is still only 8 advocacy groups out of 47 sources; that isn'tmost of the sources
. - TL; DR: just because YOUDONTLIKEIT doesn't make a source
advocacy
. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (8), the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (9), the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (19) and the International Commission of Jurists (37) cannot reasonably be described as
- Um look at sources 8, 9, 19, 22, 23, 25, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43.CycoMa (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- In this version of the article, the only sources that could reasonably be described as
- Um the template states that This template is designed to tag articles that rely largely upon sources that are works by political parties, advocacy groups, activist organizations, and other organizations with clear and pronounced agendas.
- Source 25 is from GATE (organization) which according to its Wikipedia is a GATE is an international advocacy organization working towards justice and equality for trans, gender diverse and intersex communities. I mean you even admitted source 25 isn’t peer reviewed.
- The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (8), the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (9), the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (19) and the International Commission of Jurists (37) could fall under the category of advocacy or with agendas. To be fair International Commission of Jurists Wikipedia’s page does mention it has academics involved.CycoMa (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Cyco, there is no requirement that sources on this topic be MEDRS or be peer-reviewed; it all depends on the specific statement in the article they are used to source. And I am aware of who GATE is, but source 25 needs to be read to be properly understood - it is a sourced, balanced document emerging from an international consultation process; it documents the
academics
and other experts involved in the process and does not notably promote an agenda. - The idea that the UN and other international orgs constitute
advocacy groups
withclear and pronounced agendas
is complete nonsense; it is the direct equivalent of treating the IPCC as apartisan
source. and WP doesn't do that. What you, personally, feelcould fall under the category of advocacy or with agendas
is no more relevant to the article than what you, personally, feel to be a coherent sentence in English; what you, personally, feel "objectivity" is; or what colour you, personally, feel the sky is today. These individual idiosyncrasies have nothing to do with NPOV, RS or any other WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Cyco, there is no requirement that sources on this topic be MEDRS or be peer-reviewed; it all depends on the specific statement in the article they are used to source. And I am aware of who GATE is, but source 25 needs to be read to be properly understood - it is a sourced, balanced document emerging from an international consultation process; it documents the
- Um this article goes way too in depth on intersexuality. That’s technically undue weight because both you and I the topic of sex assignment isn’t exclusively an intersex thing. Like there are no sections on transgender people.
- The section on Challenges to requirements for sex assignment has zero medical sources. Like what’s the medical perspective on the challenges or requirements to sex assignment?
- The section on History only uses one source which I doubt has knowledge on history. I know there are sources on the history of medicine and history of science. Where are those sources?
- Source 22 was written by a activist and religion and teacher.CycoMa (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also it’s hard to verify the claims the source in the history section. Because it’s in Dutch and most English speakers don’t understand Dutch. Also I put it through google translate and couldn’t find anything about the source align with what the article is saying.CycoMa (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually nevermind about that Dutch source. However, my criticism about it being hard to verify still applies.CycoMa (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sure there is room for improvement. And given that this is a medical topic, more medical sources could hardly be a bad thing in itself. Any RS criticizing this term, suggesting that the process would be more accurately described another way, should be added as well. Beyond that, without specifics, it's hard to comment. Crossroads -talk- 05:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually nevermind about that Dutch source. However, my criticism about it being hard to verify still applies.CycoMa (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I will admit saying this article has nothing but partisan sources is a little unfair. However, 9 sources being partisan sources is quite a bit for an article with only 47 sources.
I feel like this article should go more in depth on the medical perspective.CycoMa (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps remarkably, I agree with this last statement. Newimpartial (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Title of article
Thread was resurrected disruptively to push the familiar misinfo that “sex assignment” was made up by “trans radical activists”. Closing as non-constructive Dronebogus (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
I have problems with the term assignment when not a medical act on an intersex person , as it implicates a decision ,a choice a medical professional would take on a person's biological sex, it is inaccurate. Assignment would be in the case of a non hermaphrodite person , the social projection on a gender/sex. I think the article is unclear Delphine bournique (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
|
Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tunafish7 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Tunafish7 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
You can’t just roll up and say “THIS IS FAKE” with zero reliable sources. Closing as a non-actionable WP:NOTFORUM discussion Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Shouldn't this article note that "sex assignment" is pseudoscience? Sex is a trait among sexually reproductive species that can be empirically determined, in the case of humans, as either male or female, genetic anomalies aside. Any non-scientific/non-empirical method of sex identification qualifies by definition as pseudoscience. As such, this should be reflected throughout the article, since this article is referring to the common practice among humans of simply attempting to observe a child's sex at or before birth. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
|
This article is confusing me
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask questions but this entire article is utterly confusing me. "Sex assignment is the discernment" so what is it now? Is sex assigned or discerned? Those two words have completly different implications. Also Why is it "sometimes known as gender assignment" if gender identity and biological sex are, again, completly different things? And again: "A report for the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice states "Gender increasingly seems to be perceived as a ‘sensitive’ identity feature, but so far is not regarded, nor protected as such in privacy regulations"". What am I missing here? SEHrhda4 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- To answer the latter, that's because outside of social sciences people generally use sex and gender interchangeably. West & Zimmerman (1987) established an academic difference but it has evolved since then. Now, we largely use "gender identity", "gender expression", and "gender/sex assigned at birth" to distinguish between the all.
- As for the first question, we say "assigned" (instead of "observed") because of the social processes involved. If it was "observation", then we would have birth certificates that said
instead of the meta categories of "male" and "female". We do not measure if someone is male or female, we report their external genitalia. We assign the newborn to "male" or "female" based on one indicator of a multi-factor phenomenon. We do not measure chromosomal structure, gonads, hormone production, etc. Based on this assignment, parents, doctors, and others will then impose social expectations and differential treatment. What's more, in noting "male" or "female" on a birth certificate, we're assigning that newborn to a medicolegal category for legal and social purposes. Thus, we are assigning sex/gender, not simply observing it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Apparent external genitalia: □ Penis □ Vulva □ Other
- "To answer the latter, that's because outside of social sciences people generally use sex and gender interchangeably."
- Yes and this is a massiv problem because they obviously mean different things, using them interchangably just leads to confusion as to what someone is actually reffering to. There should be a note clarifying that "gender assignment" is wrong as per definition.
- "We do not measure if someone is male or female, we report their external genitalia"
- But that is the very definition of biological sex? As per wikipedia: "Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing animal or plant produces male or female gametes." If you have male reproductive organs you are per definition "biological male", if you have female reproductive organs you are per definition "biological female". So the biological sex is observed and not assigned. SEHrhda4 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Sex" is a conceptualization/abstract idea that is composed of multiple observable indicators, including genitalia. We reify sex as if our categorization is real in and of itself. Sex is more than just the appearance of external genitalia and, if we're being technical, the only necessary and sufficient indicator is the capability to produce certain gametes afaik. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- "the only necessary and sufficient indicator is the capability to produce certain gametes"
- Yes, it says that in the snippit I just quoted to disproof your claim that sex is not observed.
- ""Sex" is a conceptualization/abstract idea"
- That would be gender identity. SEHrhda4 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- External genitalia do not produce gametes. Not sure what you mean by that.
- Gender identity is also a concept/abstract idea. Both are categories. But regardless, I'm not sure where this is going in terms of improving the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sex is not an abstract idea; it is a biological fact, a collection of inherent physical characteristics. It is true that sex is not a binary (male/female), but you are confusing sex with gender, which is indeed a concept or an idea. Pokémon Burner (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am not confusing the two. "Sex" is a concept/categorization we humans give to those physical characteristics. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Sex" is a conceptualization/abstract idea that is composed of multiple observable indicators, including genitalia. We reify sex as if our categorization is real in and of itself. Sex is more than just the appearance of external genitalia and, if we're being technical, the only necessary and sufficient indicator is the capability to produce certain gametes afaik. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think I would put it quite that way. The genitals seem to be intended as 'diagnostic' of the underlying sex, given the high rate of accuracy of that method and the expense and general unnecessariness of other methods in most cases. Like other species, a human baby still has a sex, even if somehow no one is around to assign it with social processes. Additionally, a (say) female baby who had "M" printed on her birth certificate due to a state clerical error wouldn't be considered "assigned male at birth" in the sense that term is normally used.
- My response to OP is that this is the terminology that reliable sources settled on and is now entrenched. Perhaps other words could have been used, but that's just a thought experiment and not really of import. "Assign" here basically means "classify"; it does not mean to imply that it's a totally arbitrary label or anything like that. In fact, biologists will sometimes talk about "assigning" specimens of organisms or fossils to particular species - with the goal of course being to do so accurately, not to imply that it's all arbitrary or a social construct. Crossroads -talk- 01:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
AFAB/AMAB implies intersexuality?
To the uninitiated, these terms would seem to imply an ambiguity as to physical sex, even in cases where it is quite straightforward. Obviously this is a sensitive subject and I don't want to write a manifesto, just a quick note that it would be nice if there were some kind of consensus terminology with more clarity of meaning. Thanks. Jmaranvi (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmaranvi I'm not sure I understand your comment. AMAB/AFAB does not imply intersexuality and I fail to see how the Wikipedia article suggests that. Except for the relatively rare cases where an intersex condition is known before or at birth, every person is assigned either "male" or "female" at birth. Both this fact and the associated terminology are widely understood and agreed upon, as is the practice of making this assignment based on the externally visible sex characteristics that the article describes. If you feel that the article does not clearly convey the meaning of any terms, please give a more detailed description where you believe the ambiguity/implication arises.--TempusTacet (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Intersex people often are assigned a sex though, which can be a problem, as the article notes. That is the one context in which it's logical to speak of assignment, whereas in most cases sex simply is, and is therefore observed rather than assigned. The most straightforward way to speak of this would be to simply say female instead of AFAB and male instead of AMAB. I'm not sure how most people feel about such terminology. There may be a sense that it erases gender identity, though it is not the exact same word as that which is used for the latter (male would not necessarily be man in this situation, and female would not necessarily be woman). But anyway, to summarize, for the layperson it is a bit confusing or misleading to speak of assignment in cases where there is nothing to assign. Jmaranvi (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, a sex is "assigned" in the case of any person in the sense that an observer comes to a conclusion regarding the newborn's sex and then documents it. As the article explains in some detail this is not a random or arbitrary assignment, and it is usually unambiguous in the sense that every other observer would come to the same conclusion. You could also say that a physician "assigns" a diagnosis instead of "makes" a diagnosis, that's how "assigns" is usually understood in this context. You can never "truly know" a diagnosis or a person's sex, you can just come to an arbitrarily sound conclusion based on the available evidence.
- Stating that someone is AFAB/AMAB simply means that the result of the sex assignment at birth (usually also possible before birth eg through ultrasound imaging) was "female" or "male". As you rightly point out this says nothing about a person's gender identity, and AFAB/AMAB makes no claim in this regard. Of course, it is usually assumed that sex and gender match, as it is the case for the vast majority of people. (Most people that are AMAB are men and most people that are AFAB are women.)
- If I understand you correctly, the distinction between male/man and female/woman you point out is exactly why the terms AFAB/AMAB exist: To distinguish between the sex assigned at birth and the gender identity when talking about the two.--TempusTacet (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Precisely what @TempusTacet said. AMAB and AFAB are the standard terms (and not just in online discourse). We're an encyclopædia, so it's ok if some terms aren't familiar, we just need to link to explain them. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)PS: Incidentally, while I assume it's not intentional, the sentiment “sex is observed not assigned” can sometimes be considered a transphobic dogwhistle, so you might want to be careful with how you express that elsewhere. Again, I'm not suggesting that is how you intended it, just offering a heads-up in case you weren't aware.
- To give you a better idea here's how the DSM-5 uses this terminology: Individuals with gender dysphoria have a marked incongruence between the gender to which they have been assigned (usually based on phenotypic sex at birth, referred to as birth-assigned gender) and their experienced/expressed gender. [...] Prepubertal individuals assigned female at birth with gender dysphoria may express [...] (page 514).--TempusTacet (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the genial tone of the warning about dogwhistles, I still think that concern seems perhaps out of place in an encyclopedia. Rare is the editor without any political views. I do my best to constrain my own views to that which is relevant and verifiable, and I would hope others do the same. It seems like a rather lofty standard to be held accountable for perceived hidden meanings, rather than simply taking my text at face value.
- As for AFAB and AMAB, I would still contend that they are less parsimonious language than male and female (well, in terms of concept if not letter count), but if there is a particular professional body that we wish to defer to, and/or this is simply the Wikipedia consensus for now, then so be it. I don't plan to die on this hill but ideally I hope this thread will remain visible in case it stimulates future discussion.
- Thank you for your time and respectful engagement. Jmaranvi (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Regardless, we have no choice but to stick to the sources, and not use wording that happens to seem better or simpler to you. That doesn't mean that terms that you find more opaque must stand alone with no explanation, and in fact, the whole article is pretty much about explaining them. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Good point, that is indeed the topic. It occurs to me that the whole reason I raised this question in the first place was that I noticed other articles using this terminology and linking to this page. I figured it would be best to address it here, but maybe it's a discussion better fitting a policy/style guide. Jmaranvi (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- At the end of the day it's all about clarity. In a lot of cases "man" and "woman" or "male" and "female" are unambiguous and appropriate terms. But if a distinction between sex assigned at birth and gender identity has to be made, the terms I just used are the most common and thus preferred. If you feel that this article does a poor job explaining the terminology, please describe this in more detail. We've just revised the lead section and are working on refining the terminology section to make it more concise and accessible.--TempusTacet (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Good point, that is indeed the topic. It occurs to me that the whole reason I raised this question in the first place was that I noticed other articles using this terminology and linking to this page. I figured it would be best to address it here, but maybe it's a discussion better fitting a policy/style guide. Jmaranvi (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Regardless, we have no choice but to stick to the sources, and not use wording that happens to seem better or simpler to you. That doesn't mean that terms that you find more opaque must stand alone with no explanation, and in fact, the whole article is pretty much about explaining them. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Precisely what @TempusTacet said. AMAB and AFAB are the standard terms (and not just in online discourse). We're an encyclopædia, so it's ok if some terms aren't familiar, we just need to link to explain them. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)PS: Incidentally, while I assume it's not intentional, the sentiment “sex is observed not assigned” can sometimes be considered a transphobic dogwhistle, so you might want to be careful with how you express that elsewhere. Again, I'm not suggesting that is how you intended it, just offering a heads-up in case you weren't aware.
- Intersex people often are assigned a sex though, which can be a problem, as the article notes. That is the one context in which it's logical to speak of assignment, whereas in most cases sex simply is, and is therefore observed rather than assigned. The most straightforward way to speak of this would be to simply say female instead of AFAB and male instead of AMAB. I'm not sure how most people feel about such terminology. There may be a sense that it erases gender identity, though it is not the exact same word as that which is used for the latter (male would not necessarily be man in this situation, and female would not necessarily be woman). But anyway, to summarize, for the layperson it is a bit confusing or misleading to speak of assignment in cases where there is nothing to assign. Jmaranvi (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Thread without a heading
No human is "gendered."
Humans are sexed. Sex is established at conception.
The vast majority of humans are conceived male or female, and develop male or female sex organs. A small minority of humans are conceived intersex, and develop both male and female sex organs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.22.111 (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Intersex
@TempusTacet Hi! here you seem to have removed a sentence pointing out that sex assignment in intersex people shortly after birth may contradict the individual's future gender identity, which seems like a rather important detail. Was this intentional? --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes that was intentional but I'm happy to discuss this, of course. The way that the lead section is structured now, we have four topics:
- What is sex assignment (as a process)?
- Difficulties of sex assignment (as a process) in intersex people
- Relationship between sex assignment and gender identity
- Relationship between sex assignment and gender identity in intersex people
- I felt (and still feel) that we do not explicitly need to state that the gender identity of intersex people might deviate from their (initially) assigned sex since we now have the fourth paragraph that goes in a lot more detail and implies this:
- For intersex births, knowledge about the gender identity that a majority of people with the specific intersex condition develop is considered in sex assignment.[4] This assignment might later be changed as a person grows up.[2] Reinforcing sex assignments through surgical or hormonal interventions is considered by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to violate the individual's human rights.[11][12]
- What do you think?--TempusTacet (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Mathglot I saw that you've restored the sentence. I'd be curious to learn what you think about my reasons for removing/re-organizing it.--TempusTacet (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, the restoration is not ideal, partly because the lead structure is not ideal, with intersex issues spread out through three of the four paragraphs by my count (1, 2, and 4). Also, I think having four paragraphs is excessive for the lead of an article of this size; it could get by with one good paragraph, or maybe two shorter ones. So, I guess that restoration was in lieu of really getting into the weeds of a proper re-org, which it probably deserves, but I plead laziness (at least for now). That said, I'm willing to work with you (or anyone) on improvements to it, if someone else takes the lead. Also, I see that there's already been a lot of work already, and I kind of didn't want to upset the apple cart or invoke "lead fatigue". It's not ideal, but I'm willing to leave it as is, unless you're gung-ho to carry on with it. You've done most of the recent work on it, so I'll defer to you as far as how (or if) you'd like to proceed. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Mathglot, no worries, I've slightly tweaked the sentence and moved it into the fourth paragraph. It could probably be merged with the following sentence but it's fine for now.
- I don't think that there is a lot of duplication in the lead. Not all births where sex assignment has to be deferred due to ambiguity are due to intersex conditions. So it makes sense to keep the intersex discussion to a second paragraph, where it can be discussed briefly that not all intersex conditions are visible at birth.
- I feel that the lead section has an appropriate length now and it now manages to clearly address all the questions that come up regularly on this talk page and elsewhere, even spelling out some facts that people familiar with the topic might believe to be common knowledge.
- Rather, I'd focus the effort on the remainder of the article's text, which is currently mostly concerned with intersex conditions. I've tried to find a source that discusses "regular" sex assignment cases (eg a textbook for neonatology, pediatrics, midwifery or a related nursing specialization) but so far I've been unsuccessful. I assume that there are protocols and/or references for what "unambiguous"/"normal" looks like and what factors have to be considered during sex assignment. This is one of the biggest gaps.
- The other missing part would be a section on gender identity and sex assignment. This is currently only discussed in the lead. Also, there are lots of cultural traditions tied to sex assigned at birth, which are also missing.--TempusTacet (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Okay. For starters, anything only discussed in the lead can be moved into the body. Gotta run for now. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm strongly opposed to removing anything from the lead at this point. Following "This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." the fact that some very important aspects are only discussed in the lead should be reason to add content that details these aspects, rather than reason for removing them from the article.--TempusTacet (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Okay. For starters, anything only discussed in the lead can be moved into the body. Gotta run for now. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, the restoration is not ideal, partly because the lead structure is not ideal, with intersex issues spread out through three of the four paragraphs by my count (1, 2, and 4). Also, I think having four paragraphs is excessive for the lead of an article of this size; it could get by with one good paragraph, or maybe two shorter ones. So, I guess that restoration was in lieu of really getting into the weeds of a proper re-org, which it probably deserves, but I plead laziness (at least for now). That said, I'm willing to work with you (or anyone) on improvements to it, if someone else takes the lead. Also, I see that there's already been a lot of work already, and I kind of didn't want to upset the apple cart or invoke "lead fatigue". It's not ideal, but I'm willing to leave it as is, unless you're gung-ho to carry on with it. You've done most of the recent work on it, so I'll defer to you as far as how (or if) you'd like to proceed. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Mathglot I saw that you've restored the sentence. I'd be curious to learn what you think about my reasons for removing/re-organizing it.--TempusTacet (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia Please stop adding your personal opinion and wrong capitalization to the article. We've just started a discussion here and on your talk page and you keep on reverting improvements myself and others made to the sentence, which is still not backed by the cited sources and does not reflect widely accepted views on the topic.--TempusTacet (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I reverted the edit or began to do the reverting edit before the discussion was created here. As this is an ongoing discussion now, no further edits to the sentence should be made, until consenus.
Also, what what unsourced content have I been adding? And What personal opinions am I adding? Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
(btw as you mentioned on talk page, english is my first language) Also, “Cisgender” should be capitalized there. It is typically used as an adjective, but in this context it is not being used to modify a noun, and as such it is a proper noun, and proper nouns must be capitalized. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, you accused me of violating WP:OWN, however, this is simply not the case. I am not assuming ownership of the article at all, I am simply reverting/changing the edits/content in which I believe improves the article, which may be disputed. This is not at all a violation of WP:OWN, and please do not insinuate such.Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK. Let's discuss this. I believe the sentence should go along the lines of:
- Traditionally, parents and society, as well as governments and healthcare systems, have assumed that a person's gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth, a condition described as cisgender.
- And you keep on adding:
- Historically, parents, society, governments, and healthcare systems have traditionally operated under the incorrect assumption that a person's Gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth; a condition described as Cisgender.
- I believe that this sentence is not backed by the sources given. It is certainly not backed by the DSM-5 and it is also not backed by the book by Hardacker et al that you can view here.
- So what are the problems that I see with your version of the sentence, specifically?
- The phrasing "the incorrect assumption" is not backed by the sources. It is stated nowhere in the sources that this assumption is "incorrect" and you have provided no source for that claim. (It's a big claim to accuse essentially everyone of being wrong about something and that does require sourcing of equal weight.)
- cisgender and gender identity should not be capitalized. You can look at MOS:CAP, you can look at the DSM-5, you can look at the book by Hardacker et al and you can look at the remainder of the article. "transgender" is not capitalized, "intersex" is not capitalized and "gender identity" is not capitalized anywhere.
- "Historically [...] traditionally" is a duplication. "traditionally" is backed by the source, "historically" is not, but I'd be fine with either choice even though I believe "traditionally" to be more accurate (see below). But you cannot use both in the same sentence.
- parents and society do not "operate under assumptions". In formal writing, you might say that they "have" assumptions or "make" assumptions.
- You keep pointing out that "the existance of trans people DOES disprove the notion that gender identity will develop according to the assigned gender" which is not entirely true but might be the core misunderstanding here. Just because sex assignment is assumed to match later gender identity does not mean that it does. Nobody claims that it does! But it is a fact that even today most people will assume that if their child is assigned female at birth it will grow up to be a girl/women and that is not such a wrong assumption, as it will turn out to be correct in a large majority of cases. You personally might wish for it to be otherwise (and I personally would tend to agree!) but the vast majority of people and professionals in the world -- even if they are very aware of and fully accepting/supporting of intersex and transgender people -- will treat a child as if its gender identity matches its assigned sex until proven otherwise. That is just a fact (and we would have a lot less trouble/problems if it was otherwise!).--TempusTacet (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for reverting your changes, greatly appreciated! Let's find a good solution.--TempusTacet (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
First of all, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this in good faith.
Let’s start with the capitalization. In the sentence “..that a person's Gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth; a condition described as Cisgender.” You assert that it should not be capitalized. This means that it can not be proper noun, as proper nouns must always be capitalized. Let’s go over the other options of what it could be if you are correct about it’s capitalization. It is not followed by any other word in the sentence, so it cannot be an adjective or adverb. It does not have an article preceding it, so it cannot be an improper noun. And it certainly is not a verb, exclamation, onomatopeia, article, or conjunction. This means that if you were correct about it’s capitalization, there is no other word type it could be, which tells us that you are incorrect about capitalization.
Next, I believe you are misinterpreting my sentence. The sentence “People’s gender identity may develop according to the assigned gender” is correct, and I believe that is what you are interpreting the sentence as. The sentence “People’s gender identity will develop according to the assigned gender” is not correct. The keyword in that sentence that makes it wrong is “will”, which is defined as “expressing inevitable events”, with “inevitable” being defined as “certain to happen”. It is not *certain* that people’s gender identity is the same as the gender assigned, as there are people who’s gender identity differ from that assigned at birth, that being trans people, and “gender identity differing from that assigned at birth” is the very definition of transgender. This is why the notion is false.
And from that notion being false; with the “historically”, the reason for it being historically, is that in the modern age, it is almost unanimously accepted that trans people *exist*, even among transphobes, they don’t dispute the very *existance* of trans people.
Also, you should know, I am a staunch follower of WP:NPOV, and it is not my opinion that is the reason for me adding this to the article Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh and also, “gender identity” should not be capitalized unless at the start of a sentence, as identity is a noun, so therefore gender is an adjective there, and therefore not a proper noun, and as such, should not be capitalized (unless at beginning of sentence) Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh and also also, the “operate under the assumption” is directed towards the government and medical systems, not the parents and society. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
And also also also, the reason “it will turn out to be correct in a large majority of cases” [in reference to people being cisgender] is due to default bias, and is not known to be correct nor incorrect that most people *are* cisgender, but rather to (currently) identify as. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning regarding proper nouns. I'm certainly not a grammar expert but I do read and write a lot of texts that use terms like "cisgender" and "gender identity" (such as the DSM-5 and other sources cited) and I've rarely, if ever, seen it capitalized. It is also not usually capitalized on Wikipedia. Hence, I suggest we keep in line with the sources and other Wikipedia articles.
- As far as we know it is correct that a majority of people identify as cisgender (which I would say is synonymous to "are cisgender"). There is plenty of research into the prevalence of transgender feelings in the world's population and even though numbers are rising gender diverse people are still clearly a minority. (I know that it can seem otherwise to people involved in communities/advocacy/research around this topic.)
- How about the following?
- Generally, parents and society assume, and governments and healthcare systems operate under the assumption, that a person's gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth, a condition described as cisgender.
- This does away with the question of tradition and history. What do you think?--TempusTacet (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Capitalization of terms
Eh, i’m not a fan.
First of all, Cisgender/cisgender is *primarily* (very most of the time) used as a adjective, but not always. And If it should not be capitalized; and therefore not a Proper Noun, then what word catagory is it?
And next, “are cisgender” and “identify as Cisgender” are not synonyms, as trans people before they realize they are trans identify as Cisgender, but are not.
By the way, keep in mind that the DSM is not a grammar book, and in the context of it, don’t refer to the proper noun form of Cisgender. And Wikipedia does mostly use cisgender as an adjective, but that doesnt mean Cisgender as a proper noun is wrong. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Adjectives cannot be proper nouns. The only case in which cisgender could be anything but an adjective is if it is used as a common noun, like: "I feel uncomfortable around some cisgenders." A common noun can also not be an adjective. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with MFC and TT. "Cisgender" is commonly an adjective and rarely a common noun. It shouldn't be capitalized. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- In the sentence in question “..that a person's Gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth; a condition known as Cisgender.” "Cisgender" functions as a noun. It represents a specific gender identity that aligns with the gender assigned at birth. Nouns are words that identify people, places, things, or concepts. In this case, "Cisgender" is a concept or identity being described and named in the sentence. It serves as the subject complement of the clause, following the verb "known" and providing further information about the condition being discussed. additionally, in the sentence, “as” is a preposition, and could not be followed by an adjective and then a full stop. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I believe that 'cisgender' is an adjective here, no? In the phrases "a condition described as cisgender [...] the person is described as transgender or gender non-conforming" the word "cisgender", "transgender", and "gender non-conforming" are all adjectives. One can say/write something like "this door is fire-proof, a condition described as inflammable" with "inflammable" being an adjective ("the door is inflammable"). And even if cisgender is a noun it does not have to be capitalized, the same goes for "gender identity", which is always a noun.
- It's true that the DSM is not a grammar book but it is a book on exactly the topic we're writing about here that reflects the minimal compromise that psychiatrists in the US could agree on. And as such, and due to its importance, it is very carefully edited.--TempusTacet (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- In the sentence in question “..that a person's Gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth; a condition known as Cisgender.” "Cisgender" functions as a noun. It represents a specific gender identity that aligns with the gender assigned at birth. Nouns are words that identify people, places, things, or concepts. In this case, "Cisgender" is a concept or identity being described and named in the sentence. It serves as the subject complement of the clause, following the verb "known" and providing further information about the condition being discussed. additionally, in the sentence, “as” is a preposition, and could not be followed by an adjective and then a full stop. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
"historically"
The sentence is “known as cisgender” rather than “described as”. also see my full response below your thing that is below my thing that is below this Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh and also, the “historically” is needed as it is not really the case anymore, trans people are unanimously yeah by academia. and vast majority of proper medical systems. and majority of people generally. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- It is not true that the assumption regarding a match between assigned sex and gender identity is historical. It is still widely assumed today virtually everywhere in the world. To my knowledge, there is not a single country/government in the world that maintains separate sex/gender markers (some might allow assigning a third sex/gender option or not assigning a sex at birth but that's as far as it goes). And it's also the societal and parent's expectation in the overwhelming majority. More and more people are aware that their assumption might potentially be wrong but it's just not true that people don't make this assumption. You would need to provide a really convincing source for that claim.
- I don't believe that "my" text contradicts the idea that trans people assume they are cis prior to realizing that they're trans. (Note how even trans people themselves assume that their gender identity does/should match their assigned sex until the point in time they discover they're trans! The entire concepts of gender dysphoria and gender non-conformity is based on that idea.) It just says that the state of the gender identity matching the assigned sex is called cisgender.--TempusTacet (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
assumptions of GI
In the sentence in question “..that a person's Gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth; a condition known as Cisgender.” "Cisgender" functions as a noun. It represents a specific gender identity that aligns with the gender assigned at birth. Nouns are words that identify people, places, things, or concepts. In this case, "Cisgender" is a concept or identity being described and named in the sentence. It serves as the subject complement of the clause, following the verb "known" and providing further information about the condition being discussed. additionally, in the sentence, “as” is a preposition, and could not be followed by an adjective and then a full stop.
“Gender identity” is also not a noun, it is an adjective then a noun.
And also, (afaik) the DSM only uses “cisgender” as a adjective, but that doesn’t mean it cant be a noun.
Why would they need a seperate gender and sex marker?
[| Here is your source for societal/parent support]
“Note how even trans people themselves assume that their gender identity does/should match their assigned sex until the point in time they discover they're trans” and that’s because if they didnt think they were cis, they would already be trans (or questioning) Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your source does not say anything about people making the assumption that the later gender identity will match the sex assigned at birth. Most parents will call a baby that was assigned female at birth their "daughter", even if they're very much accepting of trans people (eg would happily learn that this child is actually their "son") and knowledgeable about the fact that an intersex condition might have been missed. There might be some parents who manage to just refer to their child in gender-neutral terms until the child develops its gender identity but I would be surprised to learn that this is common. Even if it was the case in some parts of the world we would have to specify that ("In such-and-such-country parents refer to their child by gender neutral terms until ...").
- A separate sex and gender marker would resolve the issue we're discussing here. You would assign a sex at birth and only later assign a gender. Then, you would treat people that have no gender marker yet gender-neutrally and later differentiate between people by gender marker. This would avoid having to treat intersex people differently then everyone else. But that's really off-topic here.--TempusTacet (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- The stuff with parents is quite complicated and difficult to measure, but that’s not the main focus; I did already say previously that the “operate under the false assumption” is directed towards the government and healthcare system, to which most recognise trans people. Also keep in mind, this is about the assumption that their GI *will* match their AGAB, not that their GI *may* match their AGAB. To which, the majority of countries recognise trans people as their legal gender. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Governments and healthcare systems operating under "false assumptions" is not supported by the sources. They operate under all sorts of assumptions all the time that are known to be not true in all cases. Hence they are called "assumptions". For example, most public pension/retirement systems operate under the assumption that every person will reach retirement age and live up to their birth cohort's average life expectancy. This is obviously not true but all calculations and payments are done according to that assumption. Many healthcare systems operate under the assumption that each person that is treated would like to receive the best medical care available and wants to live as long as possible. Everyone will act as if this is the case until evidence shows that a person eg would like to only receive palliative care and not undergo any more surgeries. In neither case is the initial assumption "wrong" but it is the best guess possible. You can probably think of many more examples like this.
- In the specific case of trans people, even very progressive countries/governments require a person to change their gender from their sex assigned at birth. If you're AFAB they'll assume you're a girl/woman (ie your gender identity is female) until you go and tell them "My gender identity is male, please change my records accordingly". No such process is necessary for AFAB people with a female gender identity even in countries where this "legal gender change" process is very simple.
- The current paragraph already makes it clear that the assumption might turn out to be wrong. One could also say something like
- Traditionally, parents and society, as well as governments and healthcare systems, assume that a person's gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth, a condition described as cisgender. While this is true for a majority of people, others' assigned sex and gender identity do not align, a condition described as transgender or gender non-conforming.
- This would emphasize that the assumption is preliminary. Would this address your concern?--TempusTacet (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- That is a large improvement, though there are some tweaks I think should be made.
- I tweaked that to be “Traditionally, parents and society, as well as governments and healthcare systems, have assumed that a person's gender identity will develop according to the gender assigned at birth; a condition referred to as Cisgender. While this is currently the case for most people, others' assigned gender and gender identity do not align; a condition referred to as Transgender and or gender non-conforming.”, which I believe is better. Although I’m not satisfied with this, as it’s phrasing parents and society as a monolith, which is not at all the case. I think we should remove the “parents and society” part, as it is a contentious issue in which many people in society and parents disagree with. I especially think that we should leave out the “society” part, as it’s not society as a whole that assumes such, it’s some parents and medical systems/governments. Also, the reason why the assumption that everyone’s gender identity will develop according to the AGAB is incorrect, is because there is people who’s gender identity do not develop according to the AGAB. I am also not set in stone about the phrasing being “referred to as”, as “known as” would also work. Another large issue I have is that of the usage of the word “Traditionally”; it is very vague and unclear in meaning, and I believe should be replaced. What do you think? Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Let me first say that I believe we're on a very good path here. Also, if I may, I would like to share an advice that I regularly give to grad students: Let's not try to put in too much nuance into a single sentence, especially not in an introduction. I fully understand that you would like to caution the reader that something might not be entirely true or a potentially misleading observation. But phrases like "currently" a) carry no meaning to a reader that is new to the topic, as they lack the background knowledge that you and I have and b) make the sentence long and hard to read. It's fine if the lead section is just a rough summary of what is currently believed to be the case. Nuance and more detail can come in the main text where there is ample room to explicitly spell out ideas so that non-expert readers can understand them.
- Now to your points:
- I'm fine with the semicolons and "known as".
- I believe that the parents are crucially important here. They are the ones raising the child and will have the biggest influence on the gender roles a child is exposed to and which gender identity it is raised as. Parents are consistently mentioned throughout the sources cited in the lead section, eg the sources discussing the role of parents in raising intersex children. (This is also a case of not-too-much nuance: In a longer text I would make sure to point out that not every child is raised by its parents but the introduction of the sex assignment article I believe it's acceptable to use "parents" as a shorthand.)
- "society" is meant as a shorthand for "other people that are (socially) dealing with a child" and includes everything that is not related to legal and healthcare questions. It includes the neighbors, relatives, the daycare, schools, other children on the playground etc. that are commonly operating in a "there are boys and there are girls, which of the two are you?" mode. That's not contentious.
- Not a big fan of "traditionally" myself, that's a word I pulled from the Hardacker source. Thinking about it, I'd like to suggest to just say "generally", as there are many traditions in the world and it is not clear from the text when and where this tradition supposedly started.
- I fully get now why you would like to write "While this is currently the case for most people" but as I said in the beginning of this comment I believe that this is at best confusing to non-expert readers. Also, it is not clear what "currently" means exactly, eg whether this is something that is expected to change or has been different in the past. It is true that most babies grow up to identify as cisgender. I don't believe that the lead section of the article on sex assignment is the place to discuss why this might be a misleading impression. But it should definitely be discussed in the article! The section Sex_assignment#Challenges_to_requirements_for_sex_assignment could be greatly expanded.
- Looking forward to your thoughts!--TempusTacet (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
parents and society
I do agree that we should try to keep it simple for the lead, but we should without being incorrect or potentially misleading as well.
My concern with “parents” and “society” was that the phrasing implied that it was a monolith, howver your brilliant suggestion of using “generally” instead of “traditionally” adresses my concern with it.
I do agree that currently can be quite ambiguous, and the meaning of it can’t be fully communicated in the sentence, so it should be explained later in the article. Though, I think we should add a note saying to see the section of the article discussing it, as to not have conflicting information in the same article, which also prevents the ambiguity.
So, how about “Generally, parents and society, as well as governments and healthcare systems, have assumed that a person's gender identity will develop according to the gender assigned at birth; a condition known as Cisgender. While this is the case for most people [[insert note format showing “[Note 1]” with it saying to see the later section of the article(add this once we add that to later section of article)]], many others’ assigned gender and gender identity do not align; a condition known as Transgender and or Gender non-conforming.” I believe this adresses both of our concerns.
I’m glad we’ve been able to resolve this ^w^ Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Great. I'm not sure about the note but I do not know much about what's usual/acceptable on Wikipedia. I would assume that we can expect readers know that the brief description in the lead is just a summary of the remainder of the text. But I'm happy to add it and see what others think.
- However, as we have discussed above together with Maddy from Celeste and Firefangledfeathers, the adjectives and "gender" should never be capitalized. And while I agree that a quantification is a good idea, I would also like to be more specific than saying "many". I believe the point is that it's not just a few rare cases (in the sense of an anomaly or exception) but it should also not invoke the impression that it's close to a majority. Ideally, we would have an estimate similar to the intersex cases but I don't think such a number exists yet. (There would have to be an agreed-upon definition of gender non-conformity and the number would have to be a world-wide estimate. For example, just giving the prevalence of gender dysphoria would be far from sufficient in my view as it greatly under-estimates the rate of non-cisgender people.)
- So here's my suggestion:
- Generally, parents and society, as well as governments and healthcare systems, assume that a person's gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth; a condition known as cisgender. While this is the case for most people (add a note if you like), for a significant number assigned sex and gender identity do not align; a condition known as transgender or gender non-conforming.
- Note that I have changed "gender assigned at birth" to "sex assigned at birth" in line with the article's title and have changed "assumed" to "assume" to reflect that this is still currently the case.--TempusTacet (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
assigned sex v. gender, and capitalization redux
That’s mostly good, however, while it is correct that adjective should never be capitalized when not at the start of a sentence, as I have explained, in this specific somewhat rare context, Transgender and Cisgender act as a proper noun.
In the sentence “..that a person's Gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth; a condition known as Cisgender.” "Cisgender" functions as a noun. It represents a specific gender identity that aligns with the gender assigned at birth. Nouns are words that identify people, places, things, or concepts. In this case, "Cisgender" is a concept or identity being described and named in the sentence. It serves as the subject complement of the clause, following the verb "known" and providing further information about the condition being discussed. additionally, in the sentence, “as” is a preposition, and could not be followed by an adjective and then a full stop.
So, the typical usage of the word as a adjecive, as you have pointed out, is not neccesary relevant, as for the grammatical reasons I stated, it cannot; is physically impossible, for it to be an adjective, and cannot be any other word type or improper noun, so must be capitalized. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh and also, we should use assigned gender here, rather than assigned sex, as it is followed by gender identity, and so as such the gender that is that of the idenity, not that of the gender assigned at birth, is what is correct, but “.. assume that gender identity will develop according to the assigned sex” does not make sense, as it’s two independent things. And “.. assume that physical sexual identity will match the assigned sex” would be correct if in referance to transsexual people, but we are not refering to them, and there are people who are transsexual but not transgender, and vice versa, so interconnecting the terms phrasally would be illogical, incorrect, and cause misconceptions and confusion, and thus, should not be done. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- There are three people in this discussion who have pointed out that neither cisgender nor transgender are proper nouns. I know that you believe them to be (and I'm certainly no grammar expert) but I believe that we can trust the majority opinion and also the vast majority of academic and non-academic writing where these words are never capitalized. So I'm afraid that this is a point where you'll have to accept being "overruled" by your co-authors.
- Indeed, sex assigned at birth and gender identity are two different things -- which is why we need this paragraph in the first place. The assumption is that gender identity will develop according to the assignment of "male" or "female" at birth. You can also look at how cisgender and transgender are defined on Wikipedia or in the cited sources. Definitions almost always contrast gender identity with sex assigned at birth. Also, according to the Wikipedia article "gender assigned at birth" and "sex assigned at birth" are synonyms (because "sex assignment" and "gender assignment" are synonyms) and the Wikipedia article exclusively uses "sex assignment". We cannot suddenly start using "gender assignment" in the text. I also believe that calling "sex assignment" "gender assignment" is very confusing to the average reader (even though that's traditionally a common term in medical settings) and believe that it is a good idea to separate "sex" and "gender" as much as possible when writing in this context.--TempusTacet (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
First of all, please see WP:PNSD WP:DEM.
Also, it’s not accurate to say that I believe “transgender” and “cisgender” to be proper nouns. I don’t neccesarily believe such. Words and grammar are not as simple as you are saying. While it is true that the word "Cisgender" is commonly used as an adjective in both academic and non-academic contexts, this does not necessarily make its part of speech relevant to its typical usage. The categorization of a word as an adjective, noun, or any other part of speech is primarily based on its syntactic function and behavior within a sentence.
It is a matter of grammar and sentence strucure, rather than that of academic and non-academic usage of the word.
The part of speach it belongs to is determined by this question; What does the word refer to in the sentence?
Let’s answer it. In the sentence “..that a person's Gender identity will develop according to the gender assigned at birth; a condition known as Cisgender.” Cisgender is preceded by preposition “as”, and is the final word in the sentence. In this sentence, "Cisgender" is refering to the concept or identity being described and named in the sentence. It serves as the subject complement of the clause, following the verb "known" and providing further information about the condition being discussed. While it is possible for preposition “as” to be followed by a adjective, that adjective MUST be followed by a noun, or another adjective if it is an adjective phrase. In said sentence however, “Cisgender” is not followed by any word, and as such, cannot be a adjective. Furthermore; in this sentence, "known as" introduces the specific term "Cisgender" as the specific term for the condition being discussed, and specific terms cannot be comprised of purely a adjective. Moreover, for the word to be an adjective, there needs to be a noun which it is modifying, but this is impossible here as “Cisgender” is acting as the specific term proceeding the verb phrase “known as”, which is preceded by the concept/condition being discussed. It is grammatically impossible for it to be an adjective in this context.
As for the next point, assigned sex and assigned gender, although quite related, are different terms;
Assigned gender refers to the societal assignment of a gender identity to an individual based upon their perceived sex at birth, often based on cultural norms, expectations, and assumptions associated with the assigned sex.
Whereas; assigned sex refers to the classification of individuals as either male or female based on physical characteristics.
The term for when one’s identity does not match the assigned sex is transsexual, not transgender. However as for whenever one’s identity does match the assigned gender, the term is transgender. Not all people who’s identity does not match the sex assigned at birth are transgender (eg. HRT femboys), and to imply such would be incorrect and unfair to those people. However, all people who’s gender identity does not match gender assigned at birth are transgender, and that statement is correct.
We should avoid conflating the terms, as doing so would cause confusion, misconceptions, and is incorrect.
And we should use both terms in the text, as the article is about both.
You also said “..and [I] believe that it is a good idea to separate "sex" and "gender" as much as possible when writing in this context.” to which I agree, and as such we should not treat it as if gender identity and sex identity are the same thing, nor should we with transgender and transsexual, and nor should we with assigned gender and assigned sex. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm not interested in discussing these grammar and capitalization questions further. Three people that agree with each other (and have the majority of sources and virtually all of Wikipedia to back them up) have told you that none of these words are proper nouns, as well as that "transgender" and "cisgender" are adjectives. I hope you agree that we're not getting anywhere by repeating the same arguments.
- The claim that "sex assignment" and "gender assignment" are two different things and should be distinguished directly contradicts the article as well as virtually all of the sources used for the article. These terms are used interchangeably and refer to the very same procedure. To quote the DSM-5-TR as just one source that tries to give a complete overview of currently used terminology:
- Gender assignment refers to the assignment as male or female. This occurs usually at birth based on phenotypic sex and, thereby, yields the birth-assigned gender, historically referred to as “biological sex” or, more recently, “natal gender.” Birth-assigned sex is often used interchangeably with birth-assigned gender. The terms assigned sex and assigned gender encompass birth-assigned sex/gender but also include gender/sex assignments and reassignments made after birth but during infancy or early childhood, usually in the case of intersex conditions.
- The same goes for "transsexual" and "transgender": As used here, they both refer to the same, with the latter being the preferred term by now and the former being used less and less except when referring to specific defined diagnosis. The distinctions you make between the two as well as gender assignment and sex assignment might be helpful or logical but they do not in any way reflect how these terms are commonly used across fields (which you can see by checking the sources in the article). You would need to provide really good, authoritative sources that show otherwise and large portions of Wikipedia would need to be rewritten.--TempusTacet (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, first, please read WP:PNSD and WP:DEM. We don’t have to discuss the grammar and capitalization further if you wish, however you may not completely dismiss the argument and it’s reasoning and just say that you are correct and differ to other people agreeing, especially since you have not even explained why my reasoning is incorrect, not even explained why/how the word acts as an adjective in the sentence. Wikipedia is not a democracy. You may not replace discussion with polling. ”Decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule.” You are allowed to not discuss the grammar and capitalization further, but doing so means that the opposing position takes place, unless you or another wikipedian choose to further dicuss the capitalization and grammar. And with the repeating of arguments, I have addressed your arguments, and you may choose to not address mine, but that does not mean that your argument wins.
With gender vs sex assignment, they do sorta refer to more or less the same thing at the base. Assigned gender refers to the societal assignment of a gender identity to an individual based upon their assigned sex. This is where the confusion stems from, which is an understandable confusion. Assigned gender is corresponding to the Assigned sex, which is why they are sometimes refered to as synonymous. You can tell one’s assigned gender by their assigned sex, and vice versa. Where the difference stems is the context in which they are used. (apologies for poor explaining of the difference earlier.) Assigned gender is used in the context of gender, and assigned sex is used in the context of sex, hence the names. So the corresponding terms for the identity of each term is gender identity for assigned gender, and sex identity for assigned sex. Someone’s sex identity refers to the sex charectaristics of way they perceive one’s self in terms of their identity. Someone’s gender identity refers to the social roles and charectaristics in which one identifies with. As, gender ≠ sex, one’s gender identity is unrelated to sex.
However, this is ultimately an argument over definitions, which humans made up, and are unempirical. However, as humans invent definitions to serve utility, if definition serves more utility than another, then the more utility serving definition shall be. To which, it appears you already agree with the utility serving, as per “The distinctions you make between the two as well as gender assignment and sex assignment might be helpful or logical”.
or we can just write “..assume that one’s gender identity will correspond to that in which was assigned at birth; a condition known as Cisgender.” to have no ambiguity while simultaniously using Gigaphrasing.
Let me know what you think ^w^ Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I respond to your WP:VOTE and WP:DEM with WP:STICK and WP:SATISFY. Indeed, consensus is not a vote. But consensus is about agreement, and nobody agrees with you. One of the most important skills on Wikipedia is to recognize when that's the case and back down. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Concerning sex vs. gender assignment, what sources back up that point of view? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- You are correct that someone getting tired it doesn’t mean that i’m right, but it also doesn’t mean i’m wrong. That’s what discussion is for, to determine it. And according to WP:CONSENSUS “Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns”, to which I have explained to TT why more people agreeing doesn’t ≠ consensus. I have also explained why TT’s reasoning for the typical usage being an adjective is not applicable, and I went into depth over how “Cisgender” should be capitalized and the grammar of why, which is yet to be addressed.
- So, we are yet to reach consensus over the capitalization.
- Also, with the sources that back up my point of view, as I explained it is subjective and unempritical, and how there is no real answer, so I proposed to write “..assume that one’s gender identity will correspond to that in which was assigned at birth; a condition known as Cisgender.” instead, which I’d honostly rather just use that phrasing than keep going back and forth, as I do want to get this over with.
- Cheers! ^w^ Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your concerns regarding the capitalization have been addressed by multiple people, including several different attempts to describe why they believe your assumption is not correct. That's all we can do here.
- It's not subjective what sex or gender assignment are and whether these terms are synonymous. The article claims that the terms are used to describe the same thing and this is backed up by numerous sources from a wide range of disciplines and perspectives. Whether any of us feel that this is a good thing or a smart choice of words is irrelevant, confusing and misleading terminology is a fact of life. (I'd also like to point out that many of the sources are explicitly trans-friendly and as far as I've seen pretty much all of the sources used are very careful in their use of sex/gender terminology, how people feel about sex/gender in various situations, and the pitfalls of sex assignment.)
- Finally, a consensus is not a compromise and we're not negotiating content or terms/spelling in the way you're now trying to do (see WP:NOTUNANIMITY). Claims and terminology are either backed by reputable sources, in which case they belong in the article, or they're not, in which case they don't belong in the article.--TempusTacet (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
In terms of the sex/gender assignment, it’s a matter of definitions, and I believe that the synonymity you are talking of is more present in general usage. But in my opinion, I think that the phrasing “..assume that one’s gender identity will correspond to that in which was assigned at birth; a condition known as Cisgender.” is better than the using sex or gender assignment. Let me know what you think. (This isn’t a proposal of a comprimise on it, I just geniuinely think this phrasing is better than either)
With the capitalization, I don’t recall anyone adressing my grammatical reasons for why it acts as a proper noun in the sentence. I might be mistaken on this, if so please correct me, but reading the prior conversation I don’t see an explanation for how it acts as an adjective in the sentence, and how my understanding of it acting as a proper noun is mislead. I have acknowledged that the general usage of the word is as an adjective, but that in this specific case it acts as a proper noun. In this case it is refering to the specific condition, not describing one which has the condition.
here is a citation for how what follows “known as” are a noun/noun phrase.
I do apologise if my previous explaining of the grammar was too technical, I tried to explain simply here.
As for the WP:NOTUNAMINITY, as per WP:CONSENSUS, “Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns”, to which I am trying to do, and hopefully you are as well.
I believe we are on the right track to achieving consensus ^w^ Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- The grammar/capitalization question has been settled. Your arguments have been heard, have been considered, and haven't convinced anyone else. Please stop bringing this up over and over again.
- Your claims regarding the use of "sex assignment" and "gender assignment" contradict the article and the sources it cites. Not just some of them, all of them. So far you have failed to provide any sources that back your position.
- The entire point of the paragraph in the lead section is to describe the relationship between sex assignment and gender identity. Removing the word "sex assignment" or leaving it open what exactly is assigned (which following the terminology used in the article is always the "sex", never the "gender") is highly confusing for everyone.
- I will WP:DROPTHESTICK now as I believe everyone's time is better spent elsewhere. Thanks for the discussion and your work on the article.--TempusTacet (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I really do not care anymore about whether we use sex assignment or gender assignment, so I am fine with sex assignment.
So, how about we do this;
- Generally, parents and society, as well as governments and healthcare systems, assume that a person's gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth; known as being cisgender. While this is the case for most people, for a significant number assigned sex and gender identity do not align; known as being transgender or gender non-conforming.
I believe this addresses all of your concerns which you have brought up, and it does address all of mine as well. Is this okay? Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've implemented the changes. The only thing I've kept is the "a condition known as" rather than just saying "known as" to avoid ambiguity.--TempusTacet (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
With respect to capitalization, there is no question that terms such as cisgender and gender identity are not capitalized in sentence-medial position, neither according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, nor according to style rules in the English language generally, at least since shortly after the time of Benjamin Franklin. This is not a question of who favors what here—you would have to overturn the Manual of Style entirely, and that is not going to happen. So please let's put this question to bed, and not discuss it anymore (or at least, not here). Further discussion of this point is a giant time-waster, and may be seen to be disruptive, so please let's concentrate on content issues in the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
refactoring
Housekeeping note: This is a long and rambling section under the header "Intersex" which touches on multiple issues (which perhaps could've been separate sections) and is becoming difficult to navigate and understand. Accordingly, I've refactored it by inserting some subsection headers above, for the convenience of all. I've done my best to label them according to the content; if you think a title is inaccurate, feel free to change it; some users prefer meaningless headers such as "arbitrary break 1", "...2", and so on, especially when the content of a subsection is too jumbled to label. Feel free to add your comments at the end of the appropriate subsection, if there is one, or to introduce new subsection headers, if relevant. Completely new topics should be headed by a == Level two heading == below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am planning to break out some content above into top-level (Level 2) sections, assuming there are no objections. (Per WP:TPO, I generally cannot do this on my own initiative, so please do indicate any objections below. I will hold off for a bit to give time for main stakeholders to respond.) I plan to start with the two sections on capitalization, moving them to a new top-level section on "Grammar, style, and capitalization", and another on "Terminology: sex or gender assignment" (feel free to improve on those titles), and then see what's next. The goal is to make this section readable, and to focus discussion of different subtopics in different subsections (or sections) so that discussion of how to improve the article is more focused and efficient. Please feel free to propose other/better ways to refactor this section, and let's tidy up this page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Mathglot, I really don't think all this work is necessary. The discussion has concluded, consensus was eventually reached, and the changes that were discussed have found their way into the article's text. If you would like to propose further/other changes to the lead section, I suggest that you open an entirely new "level 2" section (even if it is about the same topic/concerned with the same paragraph that has just been discussed). This will also make it easier for new participants to join, as they don't have to read through this very lengthy and repetitive discussion. (If we need "old" arguments in the "new" discussion, it will be much easier to just copy-paste or repeat them.)--TempusTacet (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough; if you think it's concluded, let's just leave it as is. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've made another housekeeping change, to remove excess white space between paragraphs, per the WP:TALK guideline. When writing your comment, please use only one blank line between paragraphs of your post. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Mathglot, I really don't think all this work is necessary. The discussion has concluded, consensus was eventually reached, and the changes that were discussed have found their way into the article's text. If you would like to propose further/other changes to the lead section, I suggest that you open an entirely new "level 2" section (even if it is about the same topic/concerned with the same paragraph that has just been discussed). This will also make it easier for new participants to join, as they don't have to read through this very lengthy and repetitive discussion. (If we need "old" arguments in the "new" discussion, it will be much easier to just copy-paste or repeat them.)--TempusTacet (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
"or gender expression"
I noticed your recent revert, but I actually agree with IP 2601..C14C's removal of "or gender expression" in this edit:
| − | ''[[Transgender]]'' people have a [[gender | + | ''[[Transgender]]'' people have a [[gender identity]] that differs from their assigned sex.<ref name="Altilio">... |
(I should just add that obviously, they cannot remove anything from the |quote= param in the citation, so that part I disagree with; but that's tangential to my point.) However, the statement in our article is not double-quoted, thus as a summary or paraphrase of a reliable source, there is no need to adhere to the original phrase word-for-word (in fact, it's better not to). Furthermore, in the context of sex assignment, the IP's change is a definite improvement. The problem is that this definition of transgender (including both gender identity *and* expression) is part of the "broad" definition of transgender as an umbrella term, in which it includes those with variant expression, which includes drag queens, female impersonation, the Hasty Pudding Club shows, transvestic fetishism, cross-dressing, men who paint their nails or use eyeliner, original Shakespearean actors, and so on.
This is clearly not what we mean when we talk about transgender in this article about sex assignment; rather, we mean the "narrow" definition, which includes gender identity mismatch, but not mere gender expression variance: i.e., not the broader umbrella definition. Part of the problem may be that the Altilio source uses the "broad" definition, and thus may not be the best one to use in this article. I'd argue that it is an okay source, and that the IP's change was an okay summary; but we can resolve your concern about that, if you have one, by choosing a different source, and that's what I'd prefer to do. I'd say that in the Transgender article, we would need to address both the broader umbrella term, as well as the narrower, GI-focused one; but this is not that article, and in the context of sex assignment, we are not talking about the broad definition, where transgender may include many categories of people who exhibit all sorts of gender expression variance, while nevertheless identifying as the gender of their birth assignment. We should restore IP's change (minus the |quote= param alteration), and perhaps choose a better source which highlights the GI aspect of it.
As a style footnote: the term transgender should not be italicized in that sentence, because it is being used in a normal sense as an adjective, and not being mentioned as a word. This is the case, *even* if the original source italicizes it: per our Manual of Style, we regularize quotations from sources to our style, overriding their style choice when it disagrees with MOS. (Link on request.) Mathglot (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion. Both sources define transgender as having a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex assigned at birth. If you believe a different definition of the term is better suited for the article, and have reliable sources supporting that, I'm by no means opposed to making such a correction. While we're discussing that part, I'm also not convinced that "Transgender people are sometimes called transsexual if they desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another" is correct and/or useful as a definition. Do we actually need that term? Who defines/uses it that way?
- (Also, on a more personal note, I'm just a person who was more or less randomly drawn into a lengthy discussion while trying to revise and smooth out the lead section of the article. If you have ideas for how to improve/expand/change the article please just go ahead, I'll be happy to just keep an eye on the article and might contribute or offer suggestions if I can. But if we can avoid it I would favor boldly editing – and perhaps some back-and-forth revising with comments in the edit summaries – over discussions about style issues or phrasing.)--TempusTacet (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Article needs more reliable medical references?
The article has the template at the top saying that the article needs more reliable medical references. What points are the medical references needed for? I'll try to find medical references for said points. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- From my point of view, an article on such a fundamental/basic topic should predominantly cite secondary and tertiary literature on the topic (such as up-to-date textbooks and clinical practice guidelines). For example, the definition of "intersex" in the terminology section is referenced solely with a human rights publication and generic dictionaries or primary sources are used as references for the definition of other terms. These definitions are not necessarily wrong but the sources don't carry a lot of weight. See WP:MEDRS for more information on how to identify reliable sources.--TempusTacet (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, it's the Council of Europe, which is very reliable. Though, for definitions, finding definitions in academic literature is quite difficult, and not really necessary, as dictionaries entire purpose is defining words, so they are appropriate for the terminology (definition) section. I do understand your concern however. Are there any medical claims in the article that you feel are not adequately sourced with reliable medical/IO citations? I'll try and find citations for them if so, if not I think we can remove the notice. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've removed most of the definitions since I don't think they serve any purpose that can't be fulfilled by wikilinks. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- The Council of Europe is not a reliable medical source and neither is the Collins dictionary. I'm not arguing for restricting the article to medical sources or a medical viewpoint (quite the contrary!) but I believe that the article should present the currently accepted medical terminology and guidelines for sex assignment. (I've added the definitions listed in the chapter on gender dysphoria in the DSM-5-TR because that's what I have at hand and I believe that the authors go through a lot of effort to make sure that they include all relevant terminology/synonyms so that readers across the world can understand it.)
- The article should also present other terminology (eg colloquial terms or terminology preferred by specific groups of trans and/or intersex people) but these definitions should be appropriately sourced as well, making sure that they reflect some consensus and are not just the working definition used in a single academic's paper or the fringe preferences of a single advocacy group.--TempusTacet (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I do agree with the removal of the content, are there any other claims in the article that are medical citation needed? Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest to work on adding well-sourced sections on the topics that are currently only covered in the lead:
- How is sex assignment performed? (eg are there standard guidelines)
- Can anybody do it "legally"? (eg if a child is born at home without assistance from a healthcare system can a parent just go and obtain a birth certificate with a sex marker of their choosing?)
- Relationship between sex assignment and gender identity and complications that surround it
- How is sex assignment handled around the world?
- How was sex assignment handled in the past? Are there ideas how to make it better?
- --TempusTacet (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding bullet one, I looked around for requirements in the U.S., California, New York, United Kingdom, England, Hampshire, and Scotland, searching in particular for what happens in births outside hospitals or clinics, and found no explanation or guideline anywhere about how to perform sex assignment. My assumption is that that is assumed to be obvious, with no instructions required, but "absence of evidence", and all that. I did find several examples of procedures required to change gender on a previously issued birth certificate (or "certificate of live birth", not the same thing), but nothing on how the original assignment is to be performed. Mathglot (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- I also think that it's obvious, or, rather, that it's not a topic that gets much attention/focus (which some of the sources on intersex births actually complain about at least between the lines). As far as I know, within structured healthcare systems, a lot of checks are done right after a child is born and in the hours and days following birth. This includes things like checking whether a child can hear, reacts to visual stimuli, shows an appropriate reaction to being touched/pushed etc and also screening for some typical conditions that benefit from immediate treatment (see eg the NHS's information on their standard physical examination, which actually includes checking that the testicles have properly descended). Sex assignment will be a regular part of that, just like weighing and measuring the child, which are two things that are also done right away but are probably not given much thought beyond remembering to take and record the measurements (the NHS's information page only mentions height and weight, not sex). This page has a brief description under "What happens after the birth of a baby" but it's very vague.
- I'm actually more curious about the legal side of things now. With all the trouble and discussion around retroactively changing birth certificates or introducing an option to not record sex on birth certificates, can one really just walk into the responsible office and say "I'd like to register my child, it was born yesterday at my house, it's a male, and the name is ..."? (the British government just says that one "should know" "name, surname and sex of the baby" when registering a birth.) Maybe we should ask the Wikipedia:WikiProject Law whether someone has some insight into that?--TempusTacet (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- To the latter point, I believe so, although I'm no expert. Iirc from my research yesterday, you have to sign and are subject to penalties for knowingly filing false information, so in that sense, it's like filing other government documents where you are liable for what you say. Here's one county government's instructions for registering a birth: see page 6, fact 3 about proof of live birth for a home birth. (I found that page by googling "difference between certificate of live birth, and birth certificate"). To the earlier point regarding perinatal checks, it sounds like you're referring to Apgar score. Mathglot (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding bullet one, I looked around for requirements in the U.S., California, New York, United Kingdom, England, Hampshire, and Scotland, searching in particular for what happens in births outside hospitals or clinics, and found no explanation or guideline anywhere about how to perform sex assignment. My assumption is that that is assumed to be obvious, with no instructions required, but "absence of evidence", and all that. I did find several examples of procedures required to change gender on a previously issued birth certificate (or "certificate of live birth", not the same thing), but nothing on how the original assignment is to be performed. Mathglot (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest to work on adding well-sourced sections on the topics that are currently only covered in the lead:
- I do agree with the removal of the content, are there any other claims in the article that are medical citation needed? Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2023
 | This edit request to Sex assignment has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not done: closing this until editors can reach a consensus on the exact change to be made Xan747 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The number of births where the baby is intersex—where their sex characteristics do not fit typical definitions of male and female—is estimated to be between 1.7% and 4%.[6]
Reference 6 points to this article: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244017745577
This article is not the original source, it says: "Research has generally estimated that 1.7% to 4% of people go on to actually have intersex variations (Carroll, 2005; Fausto-Sterling, 1993; OII Australia, 2012b)."
None of the provided references contain the figures 1.7% or 4%.
For reference the Wikipedia page in French indicates 1 in 500 and the one in Spanish 0.06%.
I think this sentence needs to be substantiated correctly or removed. Jeanmarcbillod (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. Do you have a source and could you please propose a sentence that we can use in the article?--TempusTacet (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- According to the Intersex Society of North America, it's estimated that about 1 in 2000 (or 0.05%) children, are born with ambiguous genitalia that might make it hard to clearly assign them as male or female at birth. [1] Jeanmarcbillod (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a source that meets WP:MEDRS for that number?--TempusTacet (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- What about this one?
- "The reported frequency of genital ambiguity is estimated to be in the range of 1:2000–1:4500.1 Review of the Danish Cytogenic Central Registry showed that the prevalence of XY females is 6.4 per 100,000 live born females; the prevalence of androgen insensitivity (AIS) was 4.1 per 100,000 live born females while the prevalence of XY gonadal dysgenesis was 1.5 per 100,000 live born females."[2] Jeanmarcbillod (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's yet a different number, no? doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2017.03.016 is not a secondary source per WP:MEDRS. They cite doi:10.1016/j.beem.2007.06.003 for the "range of 1:2000–1:4500", which is also not a review and actually just says "Abnormalities of the external genitalia sufficient to warrant genetic and endocrine studies occur in one in 4500 births." citing a chapter of this handbook that I don't have access to right now and hence cannot check where they get these numbers from. Ideally, we would able to directly cite a high-quality paper (review or meta analysis) that provides an estimate based on a wide range of studies, or alternatively a recent study that analyzes a large number of health records.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- 1:2000 is the same rate than estimated by the Intersex Society of North America. This figure is thus pretty consistent across sources.
- The second source is this one actually: https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2016-2248
- It is based on the Danish population registry, I think that is the most reliable source that exists. So for the time being I suggest we use it. Jeanmarcbillod (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- The FAQ fails WP:MEDRS and thus cannot be cited. doi:10.1210/jc.2016-2248 is just a study on the "prevalence of phenotypic females with a 46,XY karyotype", most of which do not have ambiguous genitalia (see Table 2 and Prader scale for reference) and, as the paper describes, are therefore usually not identified at birth but throughout childhood and adolescence.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- The original reference also fails WP:MEDRS because the figures given are part of the introduction and are not a subject nor a result of the review process. Jeanmarcbillod (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hence we're looking for a better one, no? Replacing one not-so-great source with another not-so-great source is clearly not the way to go. (At least, the source currently used is a peer-reviewed publication.)--TempusTacet (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- The original reference also fails WP:MEDRS because the figures given are part of the introduction and are not a subject nor a result of the review process. Jeanmarcbillod (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- The FAQ fails WP:MEDRS and thus cannot be cited. doi:10.1210/jc.2016-2248 is just a study on the "prevalence of phenotypic females with a 46,XY karyotype", most of which do not have ambiguous genitalia (see Table 2 and Prader scale for reference) and, as the paper describes, are therefore usually not identified at birth but throughout childhood and adolescence.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's yet a different number, no? doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2017.03.016 is not a secondary source per WP:MEDRS. They cite doi:10.1016/j.beem.2007.06.003 for the "range of 1:2000–1:4500", which is also not a review and actually just says "Abnormalities of the external genitalia sufficient to warrant genetic and endocrine studies occur in one in 4500 births." citing a chapter of this handbook that I don't have access to right now and hence cannot check where they get these numbers from. Ideally, we would able to directly cite a high-quality paper (review or meta analysis) that provides an estimate based on a wide range of studies, or alternatively a recent study that analyzes a large number of health records.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a source that meets WP:MEDRS for that number?--TempusTacet (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- According to the Intersex Society of North America, it's estimated that about 1 in 2000 (or 0.05%) children, are born with ambiguous genitalia that might make it hard to clearly assign them as male or female at birth. [1] Jeanmarcbillod (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also, please note that per WP:MEDRS Wikipedia prefers secondary sources such as the systematic review that's currently used over primary sources.--TempusTacet (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, but the current source is just bogus. Jeanmarcbillod (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I believe its best to be very careful when judging sources, especially peer-reviewed publications. (Also, it's not appropriate to assume that another editor added "bogus" to a Wikipedia article.) Just a quick observation: The review currently used as a source cites a 1993 paper by Anne Fausto-Sterling, who is also co-author of a more current review that the FAQ you linked cites.--TempusTacet (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I checked the 1993 source. It is not a peer-reviewed article but an assay / opinion piece. The 4% figure is a "suggestion" from a very controversial person in the field. Nothing scientific here:
- "The psychologist John Money of Johns Hopkins University, a specialist in the study of congenital sexual-organ defects, suggests inter-sexuals may constitute as many as 4 percent of births. As I point out to my students at Brown University, in a student body of about 6,000 that fraction, if correct, implies there may be as many as 240 intersexuals on campus- surely enough to form a minority caucus of some kind.". Jeanmarcbillod (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking, I agree that this is not a reliable estimate and it's not the number we're after anyways. The rate of intersex conditions in the population is substantially larger than the number of births with ambiguous genitals, and not all births with ambiguous genitals are due to intersex conditions.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've restored the higher quality sources; these were removed at some point fairly recently in favor of the one that erroneously treated 1.7% as the lower bound. Agreed that the 4% claim is not reliable as noted; we would need much better sourcing than an open access megajournal to support such an inflated and WP:EXTRAORDINARY figure. Crossroads -talk- 23:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Crossroads fyi when reverting edits following a talk page discussion or discussing an edit on the talk place please tag the person who made the edit. I'd say we should include it in the article, but with the neccesary attribution and agknowledgement of it being a very high speculative estimate, and noting it's likely status of being "nah" as a source. A Socialist Trans Girl 15:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking, I agree that this is not a reliable estimate and it's not the number we're after anyways. The rate of intersex conditions in the population is substantially larger than the number of births with ambiguous genitals, and not all births with ambiguous genitals are due to intersex conditions.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I believe its best to be very careful when judging sources, especially peer-reviewed publications. (Also, it's not appropriate to assume that another editor added "bogus" to a Wikipedia article.) Just a quick observation: The review currently used as a source cites a 1993 paper by Anne Fausto-Sterling, who is also co-author of a more current review that the FAQ you linked cites.--TempusTacet (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, but the current source is just bogus. Jeanmarcbillod (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Sex isn’t assigned it is observed scientifically
| Go read Talk:Sex_assignment/Archive_2#This_article_is_confusing_me. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
We need to stop with this delusion that sex is assigned by someone after birth of a child. Sex is observed based on science. What a person feels about their sex some decades later should have no bearing on the biology at birth. 2600:4040:46D6:9400:6DE7:E4BA:53F4:2A2F (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
|
(before message deleted by writer because edit was fixed)
- I revised to omit the word "condition" and lead the sentence to flow better. (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've reverted that particular change because it was now unclear what "being" refers to exactly. I'm also afraid I don't understand the edit request. "condition" is used in the sense of "state of being": A person whose gender matches their sex assigned at birth is cisgender. Simply by definition of the word "cisgender". Note that this does not necessarily relate to self-perception/self-identification only. One can be perceived to be cisgender/transgender by others. For example, a passing trans person will be perceived as being cisgender and many trans people will have at some point in their lives perceived themselves to be cisgender.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely convinced by the op's rationale but I actioned the request because in context the words were just cluttering the sentence and not adding information. I also disagree that it's relevant how someone is perceived. (t · c) buidhe 15:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- You edited the sentence to read:
- "assume that a person's gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth (being cisgender)"
- In this sentence, it is not clear who or what is "being" cisgender: Is it the person? Is it the gender identity? Is it the development of the gender identity?
- The previous sentence read:
- "assume that a person's gender identity will develop according to the sex assigned at birth; a condition known as being cisgender."
- Here, it is clear that "cisgender" refers to the person's "state of being" and that "cisgender" is a specific term for the condition described in the sentence.--TempusTacet (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think that "cisgender" could describe all three. I'm sure the sentence can be improved, but I would look at ways to make it shorter rather than longer, given that gender identity is not the focus of the article. (t · c) buidhe 16:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- It does not describe all three. "cisgender" describes a state/condition (specifically: a person's gender identity at a given point in time) and not an (ongoing) development. The reason the terms cisgender/transgender are used in the introduction is that their definitions are given as part of describing the difference between assigned sex and gender identity and it makes sense to tell the reader that these short terms for the concepts exist.--TempusTacet (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- @buidheTo quote my revert edit summary The current phrasing is a result of very extensive discussion on the talk page, usage of brackets/parentheses here is inappropriate, current wording is better readability, "(being cisgender)" communicates/reads as more an independent verb phrase as in "They are being cisgender" which is grammatically abhorrent, ambiguity over whether "being" is in reference to said hypothetical person or an implied "condition known as" as a state of being. In conclusion; No. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think that "cisgender" could describe all three. I'm sure the sentence can be improved, but I would look at ways to make it shorter rather than longer, given that gender identity is not the focus of the article. (t · c) buidhe 16:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- You edited the sentence to read:
- I'm not entirely convinced by the op's rationale but I actioned the request because in context the words were just cluttering the sentence and not adding information. I also disagree that it's relevant how someone is perceived. (t · c) buidhe 15:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've reverted that particular change because it was now unclear what "being" refers to exactly. I'm also afraid I don't understand the edit request. "condition" is used in the sense of "state of being": A person whose gender matches their sex assigned at birth is cisgender. Simply by definition of the word "cisgender". Note that this does not necessarily relate to self-perception/self-identification only. One can be perceived to be cisgender/transgender by others. For example, a passing trans person will be perceived as being cisgender and many trans people will have at some point in their lives perceived themselves to be cisgender.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)