Jump to content

Talk:Gender identity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use of "assigned" throughout

[edit]

The consensus is against the proposal.

Cunard (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

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

The use of the phrase "assigned at birth" and "assigned sex" is redundant and implies that there can be a different sex from the one a person is born with. Bypassing any opinions on "gender" as it is used in this article, it is biologically impossible to change one's sex. There is a WP article on this distinction (again, I am writing this in terms of the current WP world and do not intend to make a political/moral statement about this topic).

I move and RfC that the statements containing these phrases should be reworded to reflect definition and the intended wikivoice here. An example:

"Different amounts of these male or female sex hormones within a person can result in behavior and external genitalia that do not match up with the norm of their sex assigned at birth."
To: "Different amounts of these male or female sex hormones within a person can result in behavior and external genitalia that do not match up with the normal attributes of their sex."

Again, even the WP article on assigned sex is about the determination of a person's sex, and this sex cannot change. Gender is a separate beast here. I do think that perhaps for wikilinking purposes, it can be included once in the article, but it makes no sense to me to have it repeated in this fashion over and over, especially given that it could confuse the uninitiated reader about the accepted distinction between gender and sex.

- Dmezh (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that even anatomical sex can be altered through hormones and surgery. Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The determination of sex at birth, as described in the article on Sex assignment, makes no argument about the ability to change sex, and is relevant to the article throughout. Replacing the term with simply "sex" reduces accuracy. For example, the article discusses the gender identities of individuals assigned female at birth, with XY chromosomes, and lacking typical male anatomy. That is to say, their assigned sex, their chromosomal sex, and their anatomical sex are not all the same, and the sex as assigned at birth was relevant to the study. Removing mentions to it would be, frankly, egregiously non-neutral. --Equivamp - talk 01:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP articles need to reflect the reliable sources on their respective subject matter. In this case, the term used is "assigned sex" - there are reasons for this that so agree, including sex determination in intersex cases (roughly 1% of births) and "errors" - but even if I didn't agree with the usage, it would still be correct because it is used by essentially all recent, reliable sources on gender identity, or is also worth noting that the article on sex and gender outlines the terms of a debate; it does not outline pat definitions to be employed mechanically elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the correct solution here would be to replace "sex assigned at birth" with "gender assigned at birth". Changing it to just "sex" would probably be confusing, since people can change their sex (at least anatomically), thus a person's current sex may not be the same as their sex at birth (depending on which definition of "sex" you use). Kaldari (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't WP's job to replace the terminology used in Reliable Sources with something editors feel might be better. Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"...a person's current sex may not be the same as their sex at birth": which is one reason that the clarificatory "sex assigned at birth" is used... -sche (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up

[edit]

The opinions above seem to overlook a key aspect: the phrase "sex assigned at birth" sounds bureaucratic (which it is) and incidental (which it is most likely not). The identity dissonance is between one's gender and their actual genitalia, in contrast to one's gender vs. the ink stains (i.e. male/female) on their birth certificate. For this reason I think it should be "sex assigned at birth". 166.48.82.76 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the reliable sources on the topic don't agree with you. Hmmm. What should we do? Newimpartial (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you have proven to be nothing but biased in your redaction of this topic. It is amusing to me that it is allowed for activists (LGBT) to edit and dictate what is written or not on this page. The criticism wikipedia has received regarding this matter has not been unfounded and is clearly visible here. The fact that there is no
criticisms page regarding this issue when public debate is at an all time high and there is clear division regarding this matter (both by the general public and professionals in the medical field) is both amusing and sad. I have read the talk page regarding this topic and the way editors are handling this issue gives clear indication of the leftist bias that has been reported throughput the media. I know this will be erased as will other matters regarding criticism of how this has been handled. For such reason I will be leaving Wikipedia behind and moving
to Britannica which multiple studies have found is a more objective and neutral source of information. I hope all the people here the best and may all of you learn that having a chokehold on how information is portrayed won’t change actual-factual truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.147.136 (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "assigned" throughout

[edit]

This remains a problem as sex is determined by the presence or absence of a 'Y' chromosome, and nobody can change their DNA. Nothing is assigned. Only identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.21.168 (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time sex is assigned at birth on external genitals and in the case of intersex people this can lead to mistake. That is why is assigned not determined as right a birth they decide feature of the body that in very rare cases can be misleading. Harriet45 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think our anonymous friend is just having a bit of fun wasting our time here, if their other reverted edits are anything to go by. Anyway, this claim that it is based on chromosomes is very obviously just silly. Nobody is routinely genetically testing babies before issuing them birth certificates. Some people only find out that their sex chromosomes are not what they expected when they either have fertility problems or do a 23 And Me to find out if they really are 1/16 Italian, like their grandma said, and find out something else entirely. The article already uses the correct standard terminology and changing it would only be a confusing obfuscation. The suggestion is no better now than when it was rejected back in 2018. (See above.) --DanielRigal (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No thats still determined noy assigned. It just ha a a tiny margin of error.
Futhermore is there any evidence that being intersex has anny correlation with having a transgender identity ?
Because this is a textbook bait and switch. 120.22.66.149 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of John Money?

[edit]

The recent dispute over whether to refer to Money as "controversial" in the lead is probably reflective of a larger problem. I considered simply removing his mention in the lead section (though not the rest of the article), but I'd like to open this for discussion beforehand, as I feel that my negative opinion of him may result in some bias on my part. I do not think he should be mentioned in the lead. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely, if ever, do articles engage in assessing people who are only mentioned in passing. Even just labeling "controversial" raises the issue in readers' minds of "why? Does it have to do with his popularizing the term 'gender identity', the topic of this article?" Easily confusing. If others want to not mention him at all, I don't mind either way. Crossroads -talk- 16:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that everybody regards him as controversial but for completely different reasons. I've never heard of anybody having a positive opinion of him but, again, for many completely different reasons. Distaste for him might be the only thing that pro and anti-trans groups all agree on. I agree that saying "controversial" without additional explanation is not providing any value to our readers and might give a misleading impression. It is better to avoid mentioning him more than is actually required. I'm inclined to agree that he belongs in the article but not to the extent that he merits mention in the lede. DanielRigal (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
John Money is also the driver for the WP:NPOV template in the "Case of David Reimer and contrasting case" section of the article. Reference this discussion in the archive. CaptainAngus (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that this is so difficult for the same reason that my draft for an article on Kalvin Garrah never got off the ground. It is incredibly difficult to find neutral information on Money, since he seems to mostly be notable for controversy. I suppose I'll try to fix it, any help will be greatly appreciated. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 13:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Six of them changed their gender identity to male, five remained female and three had ambiguous gender identities (though two of them had declared they were male)."
This is one passage that stands out to me, it doesn't seem to fit with the definition of gender identity generally used in the article, but I don't know what the policy is as to what to do about that. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 13:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassie Schebel: Is the sentence, or even the entire "Other cases" subsection, even needed? To me, the flow of the "Factors influencing formation" section is as follows:
  • Nature versus nurture--Discuss the factors on formation of gender identity
  • Case of David Reimer and contrasting case--Deep dive (515 words!) into one particular historical case
  • Other cases--As it currently stands, this section just throws some more observations out there, doesn't really add or draw any conclusions
  • Biological factors--Discuss the contributions of biological factors on gender identity
  • Social and environmental factors--Same for social factors
It looks like 1/3 of this section is devoted to various cases, which, to me, is less important than discussion on contributing factors. How would you feel about a restructuring where the 'David Reimer' section is moved to the end, maybe slim it down per WP:BECONCISE, and remove the 'Other cases' section per WP:IRRELEVANT? Might make for a better presentation on the theme of 'factors influencing formation'. CaptainAngus (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_identity&oldid=1252224121"