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]
This article isn't a good read for people like me, who don't know any jargon of the new paradigm. For some observing bystander it reads more like a pamphlet that tries to justify rather recent concepts with even more recent language. I don't feel informed this way but confused. Maybe the need to clarify this "muddy terrain" (perception wise spoken) would deserve less ambiguous language?2A02:8109:C28A:1900:ACC0:F2DF:F4F0:4571 (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is supposed to reflect the consensus of reliable sources on the subject, and is written accordingly. If you have specific examples please provide them. When it comes to your understanding you may also benefit from reading the sources provided. Flat Out (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The version you want already exists at simple english Wikipedia https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity Flounder fillet (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gender identity as a concept is contested

[edit]

The introduction makes clear gender identity is a relatively new idea. The measurement section makes clear there is no way gender identity can be objectively measured (or identified). The introduction should therefore make clear that gender identity is a concept many people do not accept. The article could then be read with a more open mind. 2A00:23C6:CBB3:2E00:259B:DC27:DDFE:3FB0 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pain cannot be objectively measured either, but we don't say in the lead that people don't accept its existence. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but we all experience pain and lack of belief in pain would be, I should think, very rare indeed.
Only some people report experiencing a gender identity and it’s fair to say others do not feel it or believe in it. 2A04:4A43:521F:C8AA:C040:B37B:5205:8B8E (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources that support the claim that "only some people report experiencing a gender identity"? JasonMacker (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More than 99.9% of people have a gender identity. Those who don't typically describe themselves as agender. They are a real but very small minority even with the trans community which is itself a small minority of the overall population. The idea that cis people don't have a gender identity is one that I have heard from nutcases on Twitter but it is not something that we need to take seriously here (or indeed anywhere else). Anybody who describes themselves as a man, woman, boy or girl is reporting experiencing a gender identity. Most non-binary people also experience a gender identity, just not exclusively one of the two binary ones. DanielRigal (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see do you have a source that confirms more than 99.9% of people believe in gender identity and report having one? 2A04:4A43:521F:C8AA:C040:B37B:5205:8B8E (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to show WP:Reliable Sources that claim that the majority of the population is agender if that is what you want to claim. You can't because they are not. Please drop the stick. DanielRigal (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry no no I’m not claiming the majority of the population are agender, I didn’t mean that at all. 2A04:4A43:521F:C8AA:C040:B37B:5205:8B8E (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The department for education (UK) published draft guidance which refers to gender identity as a “contested belief”.
That is one source I found. 2A04:4A43:521F:C8AA:C040:B37B:5205:8B8E (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares. The idea that men and women exist is not contested and those are gender identities covering the vast majority of the population. What is actually being sneakily alleged is that some people's gender identities are contested. That is a form of abuse targeted at those people and Wikipedia will not be used as a vector for the abuse for minorities. Please drop the stick. DanielRigal (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I’m not sure what you mean by “nobody cares”.
I can see evidence that people exist who do not believe in it.
The original point was there are people who do not accept such a concept and should the article acknowledge that, or should we ignore such people? 2A04:4A43:521F:C8AA:C040:B37B:5205:8B8E (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that this article already covered that topic but, after looking at the article a little more closely, I see that we don't cover anti-gender rhetoric as much as I thought we did. So, yeah. I'll agree with you on that specific point. The article could do more to cover this. The main article about that topic is Anti-gender movement but this article should mention and link to that. DanielRigal (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that sounds like a good idea as the page is already there. 2A04:4A43:521F:C8AA:C040:B37B:5205:8B8E (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_identity&oldid=1281652172"