Talk:Sex assignment

Can’t we say that sex (biological) is discerned and gender (psychological/social) is assigned?

That’s my understanding. Sex “assignment” sounds wrong. Thanks! 82.36.70.45 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Since there hasn’t been an answer I’ll go ahead and make small edits. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it’s blocked. So an answer would be good. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sex assignment at birth is the terminology overwhelmingly used by medical professionals, working in the English language. The only circumstances where we'd change the title or content would be if the terminology shifts within the medical profession, which to my knowledge hasn't happened.

This terminology has been discussed a few times on this talk page now, see the section directly above this one, as well as this discussion in Archive 2. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"...terminology overwhelmingly used by medical professionals". Maybe in the US, but not in the UK, where it's only used in exceptional circumstances; see [1], for example. I might add that the phrase "sex assignment" is rapidly becoming one of ridicule, especially in the MSM. I'm beginning to wonder why this article exists at all. 31.52.163.234 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

How media sources respond to this terminology isn't really our concern. This is primarily an article about a medical topic, so WP:MEDRS applies, which tells us that health-related content in the general news media should not normally be used to source biomedical content in Wikipedia articles. Within the medical literature, as evidenced by the sources in the article and the many discussions that have occurred on the talk page about this term over at least the last ten years (see the talk page archives for this), that term is sex assignment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you not follow the link I provided? 31.52.163.234 (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I did, however that guide is for writing inclusive content targeted at patients and members of the public. The term "sex someone was registered with at birth" is not used within actual medical literature (PubMed search, Google Scholar search, JSTOR search). This article uses the language used within medical literature, which is "sex assigned at birth" (Google Scholar search, PubMed search, JSTOR search). Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Your suggested searches included the full phrase (admittedly it's a bit unwieldy) from the NHS website. If you try this one [2] ("sex registered at birth"), a large number of meaningful results are returned. I'm not sure WP:MEDRS is fully applicable here. In this article we're not really talking about medical research, but rather about a social issue. Again, I think the "sex assignment" terminology is largely used in the US. It might be appropriate to have a section detailing the relevant wording preferred in other English-speaking countries. 31.52.163.234 (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Assigned Vs Discerned

There seems to be an avoidance of clarifying what is actually being described since 'assigning' describes the act of a person making a choice or decision which subsequently describes a state, whilst 'discerning' describes a person recognizing a state that already exists. Yet one term is used in the explanation of the other, leaving a muddle. If nothing clearer can be formulated the whole matter leaves the subject of the article in a somewhat fragile state that does not bear scrutiny. The consequence is that the article conveys the impression that no one knows exactly whether sex is something that exists, a priori, or something that only comes into being as a result of a person's stating it.

Special contributions/2A00:23EE:1550:27ED:90D0:271A:E059:2E88|2A00:23EE:1550:27ED:90D0:271A:E059:2E88]] (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

What actual change would you want to happen to the article? Whatever your philosophical or definional quibbles with the term, it is widely used in academic and medical contexts, in news reporting, and in legal writing, and as a matter of general policy, wikipedia reflects that. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it doesn't need "perfect" definitions. Usable working definitions of terms are often included to make sure that the important content of the article is properly understood, but they are not the point of the article. Waitingtocompile (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I would also refer you to the archives of this talk page, the "discerned not assigned" argument has been hashed out plenty of times before, and you may want to familiarise yourself with those discussions and make sure that you actually have something new to bring to the table. Waitingtocompile (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, it's absurdly contradictory. "Sex assignment... is sex discerned"; literally two completely different meanings.

@Waitingtocompile you say "the "discerned not assigned" argument has been hashed out plenty of times before"; then why on Earth does this article use "discern"? Zilch-nada (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Seperate section on debate of terminology

This is a thorny one.

Sex assignment is already sensitive topic, I imagine especially so for trans and intersex people. And now to add to it, the term "sex assignment" itself has become a matter of debate. That the term has become controversial is easy to see if you search the internet for sources. It is also evidenced by the vandalism, numerous repetitive talk topics, and the need to protect the article, right here on Wikipedia. The debate is rather one-sided, which makes it difficult to present with a neutral point of view. However, I don't think the problem is insurmountable.

Given this debate certainly exists, it makes sense to include it in the article. However, the existing paragraph just didn't sit with any of the surrounding text. It was awkward, and at risk of promoting opinions as equal to medical consensus. And, while notable as public figures, the cited invididuals certainly aren't authoritative for what is a medical article.

I have kept the paragraph of criticism but put it in its own section. And I have ensured that the context of the debate is there -- with citations -- in two ways. First, with an article on the debate itself, describing it as such. Here we establish that there is a debate, and set up the topic of the subsection. Second, I close out by being clear that there *is* a medical consensus. That's clearly relevant, and I think it is actively misleading if we don't do this, because it leaves open the term is controversial in the field that invented it. Quite the opposite. There is literally a consensus statement from 2006 that uses it heavily. I cite this, and a 2017 source on sex assignment also.

Again, this is incredibly sensitive topic. Be respectful and think again if you are even the least bit tempted to use this article as a political battleground. Robnpov (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)