Crossroads (talk | contribs) Re |
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) →"Assigned Female At Birth": clarification |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it. It is nonsense as an "objective" statement of fact; biological sex is not "assigned" by anybody (doctor or [[Sorting Hat]]), it is observed, often well before birth. The only exception is for extremely rare intersex conditions where the sex is ambiguous. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 00:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it. It is nonsense as an "objective" statement of fact; biological sex is not "assigned" by anybody (doctor or [[Sorting Hat]]), it is observed, often well before birth. The only exception is for extremely rare intersex conditions where the sex is ambiguous. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 00:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
: I'm sorry but both the CDC <ref name=CDCTerms>{{Cite web |title=Terminology {{!}} Adolescent and School Health|url=https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/terminology/sexual-and-gender-identity-terms.htm |date=December 18, 2019 |website=Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) |url-status=live |access-date=May 23, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200507125554/https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/terminology/sexual-and-gender-identity-terms.htm |archive-date=May 7, 2020}}</ref> and NHS<ref name="NHSTerms">{{cite web|title=Inclusive Language|url=https://service-manual.nhs.uk/content/inclusive-language#sex-gender-sexuality|website=NHS Digital service manual|access-date=2 October 2021}}</ref> disagree with you. I would recommend that you the [[Sex assignment]] article to see an overview how the terminology is currently used by medical professionals and researchers. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 01:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
: I'm sorry but both the CDC <ref name=CDCTerms>{{Cite web |title=Terminology {{!}} Adolescent and School Health|url=https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/terminology/sexual-and-gender-identity-terms.htm |date=December 18, 2019 |website=Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) |url-status=live |access-date=May 23, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200507125554/https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/terminology/sexual-and-gender-identity-terms.htm |archive-date=May 7, 2020}}</ref> and NHS<ref name="NHSTerms">{{cite web|title=Inclusive Language|url=https://service-manual.nhs.uk/content/inclusive-language#sex-gender-sexuality|website=NHS Digital service manual|access-date=2 October 2021}}</ref> disagree with you. I would recommend that you the [[Sex assignment]] article to see an overview how the terminology is currently used by medical professionals and researchers. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 01:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
::{{re| Sideswipe9th}} random question doesn’t assigned sex basically mean observing the genitals and say “it’s a boy”.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 01:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
::{{re| Sideswipe9th}} random question doesn’t assigned sex basically mean observing the genitals and say “it’s a boy”.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 01:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
::: From [[Sex assignment]]: "Assignment may be done prior to birth through prenatal sex discernment. In the majority of births, a relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered and sex is assigned without ambiguity." [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 01:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
::: From [[Sex assignment]]: "Assignment may be done prior to birth through prenatal sex discernment. In the majority of births, a relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered and sex is assigned without ambiguity." [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 01:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{re|Firefangledfeathers}} you forgot the first sentence that says. |
:::::{{re|Firefangledfeathers}} you forgot the first sentence that says. |
||
:::::{{font color|green| Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the discernment of an infant's sex at birth.}} |
:::::{{font color|green| Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the discernment of an infant's sex at birth.}} |
||
Line 83: | Line 80: | ||
:::::::{{u|Dtobias}}, "Observed gender at birth" finds 0 results on Google Scholar and 6 on Google while "assigned gender at birth" finds 823 and 37,000 respectively. Many of the cited sources use the term "assigned gender at birth" while none use the term "observed gender at birth". Independent of whether "assigned gender at birth" is suitable terminology to use, "observed gender at birth" absolutely isn't, since essentially inventing our own jargon would run counter to the purpose of Wikipedia. |
:::::::{{u|Dtobias}}, "Observed gender at birth" finds 0 results on Google Scholar and 6 on Google while "assigned gender at birth" finds 823 and 37,000 respectively. Many of the cited sources use the term "assigned gender at birth" while none use the term "observed gender at birth". Independent of whether "assigned gender at birth" is suitable terminology to use, "observed gender at birth" absolutely isn't, since essentially inventing our own jargon would run counter to the purpose of Wikipedia. |
||
:::::::More broadly speaking, I notice that [[Talk:Irreversible Damage/Archive 2|you've been involved in discussions about this on this talk page before]], and brought up many of the same things, including the cute [[Appeal to ridicule|Sorting Hat reference]]. You've repeatedly been directed to Wikipedia articles and other sources which indicate that much of what you're saying is either untrue or logically flawed, and you've found no consensus to make any changes (nor, as far as I've seen, have you explicitly suggested any). Now, in addition to [[WP:IDHT|repeating the same argument]], you seem to be [[Wikipedia:Casting aspersions|accusing]] unnamed editors of having an {{tq|ideological objective of forcing everybody to think}} a certain way. Out of a genuine desire for productive discussion, I hope you'll think carefully about your path forward here. <span style="color:magenta;">ezlev</span> <small>([[User:Ezlev|user]]/[[User talk:Ezlev|tlk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Ezlev|ctrbs]])</small> 03:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
:::::::More broadly speaking, I notice that [[Talk:Irreversible Damage/Archive 2|you've been involved in discussions about this on this talk page before]], and brought up many of the same things, including the cute [[Appeal to ridicule|Sorting Hat reference]]. You've repeatedly been directed to Wikipedia articles and other sources which indicate that much of what you're saying is either untrue or logically flawed, and you've found no consensus to make any changes (nor, as far as I've seen, have you explicitly suggested any). Now, in addition to [[WP:IDHT|repeating the same argument]], you seem to be [[Wikipedia:Casting aspersions|accusing]] unnamed editors of having an {{tq|ideological objective of forcing everybody to think}} a certain way. Out of a genuine desire for productive discussion, I hope you'll think carefully about your path forward here. <span style="color:magenta;">ezlev</span> <small>([[User:Ezlev|user]]/[[User talk:Ezlev|tlk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Ezlev|ctrbs]])</small> 03:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::{{re|CycoMa}} while I'm not a midwife, doctor, or parent, that is my understanding of how it works at least simplistically. Outside of circumstances where some form of genetic testing is done prior to or shortly after birth, it is assigned based genitalia either via ultrasound some time after the 12th week, or via visual inspection at the time of birth. The [[Sex assignment]] article would be the place to start if you want to understand it further. Why do you ask? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 02:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
:::{{re|CycoMa}} while I'm not a midwife, doctor, or parent, that is my understanding of how it works at least simplistically. Outside of circumstances where some form of genetic testing is done prior to or shortly after birth, it is assigned based genitalia either via ultrasound some time after the 12th week, or via visual inspection at the time of birth. The [[Sex assignment]] article would be the place to start if you want to understand it further. Why do you ask? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 02:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{re| Sideswipe9th}} honestly this chat is being [[WP:NOTFORUM]] Op didn’t even provide sources. Also they don’t really know what assigned sex means.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 02:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
::::::{{re| Sideswipe9th}} honestly this chat is being [[WP:NOTFORUM]] Op didn’t even provide sources. Also they don’t really know what assigned sex means.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 02:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::::::{{re|CycoMa}} yeah that is true. Question took me aback is all, that'll teach me to edit before bedtime! [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 02:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
:::::::{{re|CycoMa}} yeah that is true. Question took me aback is all, that'll teach me to edit before bedtime! [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 02:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
Line 102: | Line 96: | ||
*:::::::{{u|CycoMa}}? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 04:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
*:::::::{{u|CycoMa}}? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 04:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
*::::::I think Crossroads' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreversible_Damage&curid=65922638&diff=1047701828&oldid=1047700171 recent edit] addresses Dtobias/Dan T.'s objection and is neutral to negligibly positive on my end. If there are other editors who agree that there's an issue with affording Shrier's views too much uncritical publication in the lead, it might help to discuss in a separate section. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 04:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
*::::::I think Crossroads' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreversible_Damage&curid=65922638&diff=1047701828&oldid=1047700171 recent edit] addresses Dtobias/Dan T.'s objection and is neutral to negligibly positive on my end. If there are other editors who agree that there's an issue with affording Shrier's views too much uncritical publication in the lead, it might help to discuss in a separate section. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 04:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
** Just so it is clear, '''''I do not see any consensus emerging in the above section for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreversible_Damage&curid=65922638&diff=1047701828&oldid=1047700171 this edit]]'''''. Agreement by {u|Firefangledfeathers} does not equal consensus, and the previous text (including "assigned female at birth") emerged from the long discussion in Archive 5 of this Talk page. Crossroads, your BOLD "shortening" is not supported by consensus here, or by WP:ONUS, or by BRD, so you really ought to self-report until [[WP:CON]] is met. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Seriously it feels like y’all aren’t trying to help the article. Please try to discuss ways to help the article or else I’m gonna collapse this article for [[WP:NOTFORUM]]. This your last chance.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 03:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
Seriously it feels like y’all aren’t trying to help the article. Please try to discuss ways to help the article or else I’m gonna collapse this article for [[WP:NOTFORUM]]. This your last chance.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 03:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:42, 2 October 2021
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Deletion of Revisions
The addition of Jesse Singal's rebuttal of the Science-Based Medicine articles has been repeatedly removed from this page. This seems odd, considering that the addition of this recent context does not violate any Wikipedia guidelines. His article forced Science-based medicine to make a number of corrections, though, to date, they have not fixed everything. If this information has been removed by an editor for partisan or ideological purposes, it would be deeply distressing. If the purpose of the removal is for something other than personal bias on the part of the editor, I would like to ask for a legitimate explanation as to why the info was removed.
Personally, I can see no reason that the removal of Jesse Singal's reporting is legitimate. It adds important context for the reader as to the quality of Science-Based Medicine's critique of Irreversible Damage. The referenced article can be found and examined here: [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.3.210 (talk)
- The source you tried to add is a weblog. Do you have a policy-based reason to include it? The way you tried to do it seemed likely to confuse the reader by presenting self-published "rebuttals" to reliable publications as though they were all on the same level of authority. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- SBM doesn't strike me as particularly reliable given the large number of errors in their articles and the obvious ideological bias, as well as the editor's propensity to make straw man arguments about gender critical people. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not that consensus can’t change, but the summary at WP:RSP is that SBM is generally considered reliable with the caveat that it isn’t MEDRS. It seems reasonably used in this article. The claims are clearly attributed, and it’s talking more about the actions SBM took rather than saying in Wikivoice that their response was correct. POLITANVM talk 04:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I do not think anyone is objecting to the use of SBM on the page. It is the fact that, because this book is contentious, every effort to provide the reader with as unbiased a view of the available information should be taken. In my estimation, contextualizing the absolutely legitimate critique of this one particular SBM article is not only valuable but needed, given how controversial the topic is and the significantly egregious errors in the articles. Ending the paragraph with SBM's articles to this topic gives them an air of conclusiveness and definitiveness, which they do not have in this case. Including a small note of Singal's critique allows the reader to see that these issues are not settled. This reflects the inherent truth of the situation, more than SBM stamping the entire episode with something akin to a royal seal, avoids bias, and provides the reader with valuable context with which they can explore and decide for themselves. -MN 10:42, 22 July 2021 (EST)
- Is there evidence that we have an
absolutely legitimate critique of this one particular SBM article
? What it seems that we have is a blog that one IP editor happens to favor - that doesn't usually translate as absolutely legitimate critique. If it were, we would normally have a RS saying so. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC) - Have you read Singal's article? It is perfectly legitimate to any reasonable person, so much so that SBM made several corrections already. I think you are using language here, like your seemingly pejorative use of the word "blog," which reveals that you have a significant bias in this situation. This bias is precisely why I think the inclusion of Singal's critique should be noted on the page. -MN 10:53, 22 July 2021 (EST)
- Yes, I read the blog post, which managed to balance sloppiness and pedantry in equal measure. That isn't bias speaking, except a certain bias I have for clean writing when it comes to difficult topics. In any case, it isn't a genre of source policy suggests that we include in WP articles, and you haven't offered any policy-based support for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Like Newimpartial said, the bias here is for Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, which are pretty clear on the reliability of self-published blogs (see WP:BLOGS). As a friendly note, you may find WP:THREAD to be a helpful guide for indenting and signing talk page posts. POLITANVM talk 15:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Singal isn't just some rando though. He's a journalist who has done a lot of writing on trans issues including for major RS such as The Atlantic. The recently added text (
These articles have, in turn, received criticism for their own errors and false information.
) was, I agree, inappropriate, since it puts a contentious claim (that the articles contain errors and false information) in wikivoice. But I think it's appropriate to have a sentence about the Singal criticism using in-text attribution. If the claim is something like "Journalist Jesse Singal published a criticism of SBM's coverage, stating that X, Y, and Z." then there's no issue of verifiability. The only question is of WP:DUE weight, but given that the author is an established journalist with experience in this subject area, I don't think it's undue (though it would be even more of a slam dunk if Singal's criticism was itself covered in independent RS). Colin M (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)- If by
(not) just some rando
you mean someone with a clear pro-desistance POV on trans issues, I agree. While the summer 2018 cover piece in The Atlantic wasn't labelled "Opinion", the fact that The Atlantic had to run a series of critical responses after publishing it shows me that it is clearly opinion-ated. I am not saying that Singal's views need necessarily be excluded from this article, but he doesn't have the kind of recognized expertise on trans issues that the WP:SPS carve-out for experts would apply. We need a better source than this blog, I'm afraid, even for an attributed statement. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)- WP:SPS is a facet of verifiability. But there is no question that Singal's article verifies a claim of the form I mentioned above ("Journalist Jesse Singal published a criticism of SBM's coverage, stating that X, Y, and Z."). SPS would only be relevant if we were repeating a claim from the Singal piece itself (e.g. to take a random example, "Physicians Novella and Gorski have no firsthand experience with youth gender medicine") and citing Singal. Colin M (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- If by
- Singal isn't just some rando though. He's a journalist who has done a lot of writing on trans issues including for major RS such as The Atlantic. The recently added text (
- Is there evidence that we have an
- SBM doesn't strike me as particularly reliable given the large number of errors in their articles and the obvious ideological bias, as well as the editor's propensity to make straw man arguments about gender critical people. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The section WP:SPS is a subsection of WP:NOTRELIABLE, and specifies, Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as ... personal websites ... and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.
It also states if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources
. Normally, self-published commentators become DUE when they are covered in Reliable Sources, which is not the case here, so I just haven't seen why the clear cues in WP:SPS should not be followed in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, the creation of an article on Jesse Singal has not made this self-published material more appropriate for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Colin M. Singal clearly has substantial expertise in this area and per WP:SPS “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications” we should include this, but with clear attribution to Singal. Yes, Singal’s perspectives are not liked by many as pointed out by Newimpartial—but this does not discredit his expertise in the area. Indeed, we need to be careful to not exclude views because they are unpopular--especially in light of the substantial number of activists who shape the discourse on this topic.-Pengortm (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- What is the evidence for this
expertise
? This has been alleged, but no evidence of recognition as asubject-matter expert
in a relevant domain has been put forward here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)- Singal is pretty clearly a specialized journalist in the sciences--especially related to psychology and trans issues. The general expertise in science and psychology can be seen here [1]. Even a critic of his acknowledges that "Jesse Singal has become a leading public intellectual and one of the most prominent journalists covering trans issues, including but not limited to adolescent transition." [2]. Another critic notes " Singal is considered one of the leading voices in journalism on trans issues" [3].al While I respect that many disagree with Singal's coverage and conclusions, he's clearly an expert journalist in this area and his comments should be included. -Pengortm (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- You have provided three sources on Singal's expertise; thank you. The first is his own website, which had no bearing on this discussion, and did you actually read the other two? The quotes you have provided are both brutally ripped of context: neither source agrees that he is an
established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications
- instead, the two independent sources you have provided both argue that Singal is decidedly unreliable on trans issues. - Also, we are in the "D" phase of "BRD", here - please don't reinsert disputed text until we are done. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- While those sources individually reject Singal, they nevertheless recognize his general prominence on the topic in addition to rebutting him, which counts for something. Still, how to define 'expertise' for journalists is fuzzy at best. Secondary sources covering this would help decide the matter. Crossroads -talk- 04:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- You have provided three sources on Singal's expertise; thank you. The first is his own website, which had no bearing on this discussion, and did you actually read the other two? The quotes you have provided are both brutally ripped of context: neither source agrees that he is an
- Singal is pretty clearly a specialized journalist in the sciences--especially related to psychology and trans issues. The general expertise in science and psychology can be seen here [1]. Even a critic of his acknowledges that "Jesse Singal has become a leading public intellectual and one of the most prominent journalists covering trans issues, including but not limited to adolescent transition." [2]. Another critic notes " Singal is considered one of the leading voices in journalism on trans issues" [3].al While I respect that many disagree with Singal's coverage and conclusions, he's clearly an expert journalist in this area and his comments should be included. -Pengortm (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- What is the evidence for this
Another critique of Science-Based Medicine, and a Canadian Federation of Library Associations reaction to challenges of this book
- Irreversible Reputational Damage - Dave Hewitt
- Challenges to the book Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier – a CFLA-FCAB Intellectual Freedom Brief
*Dan T.* (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- The first "source" is another blog post; what's up with that?
- The second one is an actual intellectual freedom brief, but doesn't really say anything significant about the book that I can see. I'm not sure how we could use it for the article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Psychology Today
Hey @Crossroads: and @Banglange: if y'all are still interested in continuing the discussion regarding the reliability of Psychology Today. I kindly ask you two to discuss it here.CycoMa (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- My fault, I apologize. I misinterpreted which talk button meant talking where. My comment is/was: My understanding is that blogs count as SPSs and RSs according to the author. As far as I can tell, Turban appears still to be in training rather than being an established expert. So, I don't think it's a contradiction to have Psych Today in other articles, but not in this one. No?Banglange (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
What do you think @Crossroads:?CycoMa (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Banglange, what makes you think he is still in training? I think quality-wise it is about on-par with most other sources here. If it is removed, then other editors will wish to remove other sources. Ultimately it serves the purpose of NPOV of showing the variety of views on the subject. Crossroads -talk- 05:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
"Assigned Female At Birth"
The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it. It is nonsense as an "objective" statement of fact; biological sex is not "assigned" by anybody (doctor or Sorting Hat), it is observed, often well before birth. The only exception is for extremely rare intersex conditions where the sex is ambiguous. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but both the CDC [1] and NHS[2] disagree with you. I would recommend that you the Sex assignment article to see an overview how the terminology is currently used by medical professionals and researchers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: random question doesn’t assigned sex basically mean observing the genitals and say “it’s a boy”.CycoMa (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- From Sex assignment: "Assignment may be done prior to birth through prenatal sex discernment. In the majority of births, a relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered and sex is assigned without ambiguity." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: you forgot the first sentence that says.
- Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the discernment of an infant's sex at birth.
- Yeah that kinda sounds the definition of sex assignment I was saying.CycoMa (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Assigned" is a silly word for that; "observed" would make more sense. But that wouldn't accomplish the ideological objective of forcing everybody to think of it as if it's an arbitrary assignment instead of a biological fact. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Dtobias, "Observed gender at birth" finds 0 results on Google Scholar and 6 on Google while "assigned gender at birth" finds 823 and 37,000 respectively. Many of the cited sources use the term "assigned gender at birth" while none use the term "observed gender at birth". Independent of whether "assigned gender at birth" is suitable terminology to use, "observed gender at birth" absolutely isn't, since essentially inventing our own jargon would run counter to the purpose of Wikipedia.
- More broadly speaking, I notice that you've been involved in discussions about this on this talk page before, and brought up many of the same things, including the cute Sorting Hat reference. You've repeatedly been directed to Wikipedia articles and other sources which indicate that much of what you're saying is either untrue or logically flawed, and you've found no consensus to make any changes (nor, as far as I've seen, have you explicitly suggested any). Now, in addition to repeating the same argument, you seem to be accusing unnamed editors of having an
ideological objective of forcing everybody to think
a certain way. Out of a genuine desire for productive discussion, I hope you'll think carefully about your path forward here. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Assigned" is a silly word for that; "observed" would make more sense. But that wouldn't accomplish the ideological objective of forcing everybody to think of it as if it's an arbitrary assignment instead of a biological fact. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa: while I'm not a midwife, doctor, or parent, that is my understanding of how it works at least simplistically. Outside of circumstances where some form of genetic testing is done prior to or shortly after birth, it is assigned based genitalia either via ultrasound some time after the 12th week, or via visual inspection at the time of birth. The Sex assignment article would be the place to start if you want to understand it further. Why do you ask? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: honestly this chat is being WP:NOTFORUM Op didn’t even provide sources. Also they don’t really know what assigned sex means.CycoMa (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa: yeah that is true. Question took me aback is all, that'll teach me to edit before bedtime! Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: honestly this chat is being WP:NOTFORUM Op didn’t even provide sources. Also they don’t really know what assigned sex means.CycoMa (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- From Sex assignment: "Assignment may be done prior to birth through prenatal sex discernment. In the majority of births, a relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered and sex is assigned without ambiguity." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: random question doesn’t assigned sex basically mean observing the genitals and say “it’s a boy”.CycoMa (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I’m probably just gonna collapse this discussion until someone provides sources or actually learns what assigned sex means.CycoMa (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- The saying appears in few or no sources on the topic of this book. This book is about children of the female sex. The phrase "assigned female at birth", in contexts like these, often functions as an ideologically-laden euphemism that converts a material fact into a mere arbitrary social convention and pushes it into the distant past - at birth - rather than something that exists in the present. While it is true that persons are placed into a male or female category when born by medical professionals who observe what they are, and that "assign" has at times been historically used to refer to this process, humans are also literally of a particular sex, same as any other mammal. Of course, we wouldn't refer to the individuals in questions as girls in wikivoice either, not only per GENDERID but because this likewise conflates sex and gender just like the "assigned at birth" euphemism does. It would be far better and more neutral to our readers to reword this as an attribution to Shrier. Use of this phrase results in controversy every time it happens because the meaning of "assign" used here is bizarre and contrary to its use in WP:PLAINENGLISH. Crossroads -talk- 03:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Updated Crossroads -talk- 03:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Crossroads, in past discussions of this issue I've had trouble understanding how the disputed content could be reworded as an attribution in a neutral way. If you have proposed wording, or at least a general idea of how it might be worded, would you mind sharing? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- We can simply change
Shrier states that there was a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among teenagers assigned female at birth[note 1] during the 2010s
to not truncate the quote; like this:According to Shrier, there was a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls" during the 2010s
. Then changeShe describes what she sees as difficulties facing teenagers who were assigned female at birth:[note 1] isolation, online social dynamics, restrictive gender and sexuality labels, unwelcome physical changes and sexual attention.
toAccording to Shrier, teenage girls face isolation, online social dynamics, restrictive gender and sexuality labels, unwelcome physical changes and sexual attention.
. We could even put quotes around "teenage girls" if we must. But either way, it is attributed as Shrier's view. Putting 'assigned at birth' completely garbles what is being said to the point of meaninglessness. Her whole philosophy is that the individuals in question were girls to begin with and that they all have this in common, and that these difficulties motivate 'escaping'. I see no reason to sanitize this. We don't in the other sentences. Crossroads -talk- 03:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)- Misgendering trans boys, even in an attributed quote, does not help make this article more neutral. I think you are right to point out the inconsistency in the way other sentences treat this issue. I would advocate for a solution oriented in the other direction: we should elide and rephrase the other sentences. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- The book isn't about trans boys per se. Aside from them, and non-binary persons, it discusses detransitioners quite a bit, as well as those who felt gender-related issues but never actually identified outside of female. Would those latter groups call themselves "assigned" female? Doubtful. It's not that other sentences conflict directly; what I mean is that the article in general accurately relays the views of the book and its reviewers, except for these two spots. I don't see how relaying Shrier's views accurately reflects on anyone but her or implies anything outside of that. Crossroads -talk- 04:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Crossroads here--in the passage above we are mixing up the meaning of Shrier's words currently and it would be better to directly quote her or if we paraphrase her paraphrase in a way that is more true to her words. More generally, the term "natal female" would be a more neutral term than AFAB. - Pengortm (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have no reason to believe that women who have detransitioned, or cisgender girls/women with gender dysphoria, would deny their being assigned female at birth or reject the label. I do have reason to believe that trans boys would reject the label girls, and Shrier is absolutely (though not exclusively) discussing trans boys. As for your point about relating Shrier's views, I agree in part. That said, our willingness to uncritically relay Shrier's views in the lead is an NPOV problem, and that does reflect poorly on us. I find your suggested change to worsen that problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Many detransitioners, and those who did not consider transition to be the way to go, don't consider their sex to be a mere assignment. But in any case, you did inspire me to try to combine some of the lead material and sidestep one of the uses of the controversial turn of phrase. This is the result, and I think that this could be quite agreeable. Hopefully. I see no problem with it, anyway. Crossroads -talk- 04:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't see this as I was posting my comment below. Now, CycoMa has reverted your change without explanation...
- CycoMa? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think Crossroads' recent edit addresses Dtobias/Dan T.'s objection and is neutral to negligibly positive on my end. If there are other editors who agree that there's an issue with affording Shrier's views too much uncritical publication in the lead, it might help to discuss in a separate section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Many detransitioners, and those who did not consider transition to be the way to go, don't consider their sex to be a mere assignment. But in any case, you did inspire me to try to combine some of the lead material and sidestep one of the uses of the controversial turn of phrase. This is the result, and I think that this could be quite agreeable. Hopefully. I see no problem with it, anyway. Crossroads -talk- 04:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- The book isn't about trans boys per se. Aside from them, and non-binary persons, it discusses detransitioners quite a bit, as well as those who felt gender-related issues but never actually identified outside of female. Would those latter groups call themselves "assigned" female? Doubtful. It's not that other sentences conflict directly; what I mean is that the article in general accurately relays the views of the book and its reviewers, except for these two spots. I don't see how relaying Shrier's views accurately reflects on anyone but her or implies anything outside of that. Crossroads -talk- 04:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Misgendering trans boys, even in an attributed quote, does not help make this article more neutral. I think you are right to point out the inconsistency in the way other sentences treat this issue. I would advocate for a solution oriented in the other direction: we should elide and rephrase the other sentences. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- We can simply change
- Just so it is clear, I do not see any consensus emerging in the above section for this edit]. Agreement by {u|Firefangledfeathers} does not equal consensus, and the previous text (including "assigned female at birth") emerged from the long discussion in Archive 5 of this Talk page. Crossroads, your BOLD "shortening" is not supported by consensus here, or by WP:ONUS, or by BRD, so you really ought to self-report until WP:CON is met. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Crossroads, in past discussions of this issue I've had trouble understanding how the disputed content could be reworded as an attribution in a neutral way. If you have proposed wording, or at least a general idea of how it might be worded, would you mind sharing? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Seriously it feels like y’all aren’t trying to help the article. Please try to discuss ways to help the article or else I’m gonna collapse this article for WP:NOTFORUM. This your last chance.CycoMa (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Don't do that. There's a specific wording/content discussion now. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: fine I’ll give this discussion a chance. But if I see one more case of WP:NOTFORUM it’s collapse time.CycoMa (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment - Crossroads, it looks to me as though Dan's (largely FORUM) comment has provoked you to rehash your (rejected) argument, which dominates Archive 5 of this talk page, that "sex assigned at birth" is a POV term. You haven't had much success with that argument, but I admit that this page has too few participants to make a clear determination anyway. I suggest that you take it to WP:NPOVN rather than rehashing it here, again and again. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Terminology | Adolescent and School Health". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). December 18, 2019. Archived from the original on May 7, 2020. Retrieved May 23, 2020.
- ^ "Inclusive Language". NHS Digital service manual. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
- I agree with Newimpartial here, and fully support their and CycoMa's reverts. Sex assigned at birth is the terminology that's appropriate here, as it is used within the medical field. If Crossroads or *Dan T.* has a problem with that, then WP:NPOVN seems like the appropriate forum to discuss it as it will affect multiple articles across the site.
- I also think the use of the term "social contagion" in the lead is giving too much weight to a theory that is subject to heavy controversy (ROGD), and isn't supported, discussed, or criticised in the article body at least as far as I can tell. It's also important to point out that the theory has been pretty widely denounced and discredited by other researchers in that field. I haven't had a chance to read through all the talk archives yet though to find out if this has already been discussed and consensus established on it. If you're aware of prior discussion so I can get up to speed quickly, I'd appreciate a link. Otherwise I'll be archive diving for a while. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: ROPD technically speaking hasn’t been discredited it’s more in a situation where it isn’t recognized. There is a difference between something not being recognized and something being discredited. CycoMa (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Also with regards to assigned sex. I believe this all boils down to what sex assignment means. Although do vary what sex assignment means but sources I have read would tell you that technology sex assignment more accurately means writing the baby off as this sex or that sex. It doesn’t really mean what most people think it means.CycoMa (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Like the doctors written me off as a boy because they saw my genitals and said it’s a boy.CycoMa (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Irony of irony's here given that we're on Wikipedia, but uh [Citation needed] @CycoMa:. My understanding of the literature in the field, as well as recent media coverage of it, is that the theory is not taken seriously by any of the major transgender health organisations. WPATH in 2018 said
"The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a medical entity recognized by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Therefore, it constitutes nothing more than an acronym created to describe a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation"
. AusPATH in 2019 said“The term ‘rapid onset gender dysphoria’ is not, and has never been, a diagnosis or health condition but has been used in a single report describing parental perception of their adolescent’s gender identity without exploration of the gender identity and experiences of the adolescents themselves,”
. Of course discussions of this nature are almost certainly better suited to the ROGD talk pages, I'd still like to know what you're basing that claim on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)- @Sideswipe9th: um according to the Wikipedia article on the topic there are researchers who are noticing a increase rise in transgender youth. Also judging by the article the topic seems to be way too politicized.CycoMa (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @CycoMa: I'm aware of those discussions, however most credible researchers state this is more akin to increased numbers of homosexuals in the years after decriminalisation of homosexuality, left-handedness in the mid to late 20th century after school teachers stopped trying to force all children to be right handed through corporal punishment, or neurodiversities like ADHD and autism in the early 2000s. Rather than a social contagion, or as Schrier says something that vulnerable teens are self identifying with, it is merely a logical conclusion due to the wider acceptance and awareness of trans people in society. The current WPATH president has said that instead of being something rare, as it previously was thought, transgender should be seen as a normal variation in human expression, with as many as 1 in 100 now being recognised and identified as trans in some fashion.
- @Sideswipe9th: um according to the Wikipedia article on the topic there are researchers who are noticing a increase rise in transgender youth. Also judging by the article the topic seems to be way too politicized.CycoMa (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I can't quite follow you, CycoMa. What do you think
most people think it means
? - As far as ROGD is concerned, a wide variety of commentators - including ones with actual expertise in the field - recognize that self-reported gender dysphoria has increased in many places over the last 10 or 15 years, without subscribing to the tropes of ROGD (such as social contagion, etc.) as an explanation. I would also point out that an impartial observer would expect for detransition rates, broadly construed, to increase roughly in proportion to rates of reported gender dysphoria, which seems to be exactly what has happened and which therefore does not require an extra-wheel framework, like ROGD, to explain. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: Like I said I believe the whole assigned sex thing just goes down to what they mean they say assigned sex.
- But, to be brutally honest with you I don’t know what to think about that terminology anymore.CycoMa (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I thought the literature on assigned sex was pretty clear, tbh.
- Anf as far as ROGD is concerned, that is a very specific interpretation of the
rise in transgender youth
, and is not an interpretation supported by actual scholarship, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I can't quite follow you, CycoMa. What do you think
- @Newimpartial: Um just to make things clears regarding my statement of ROGD that was something the article on the topic said that was not my interpretation. They mention the increase isn’t currently known tho so I can’t really say much on that. To be real with you I don’t care about ROGD, the reason I’m here is because this topic has too much edit warring.
- But anyway what I was trying to say with assigned sex is this. Assigned sex doesn’t really mean they picked your sex for you at birth. Reliable sources on it and the Wikipedia article on sex assignment would say it’s basically judging your sex characteristic at birth and writing you off as this sex.CycoMa (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding pointing to old discussions, consensus can change. Editors had reached agreement above that the lead could be shortened and those sentences combined, like this. Nothing was added, not "girls", not anything; it was only subtraction. There is nothing gained by keeping "assigned" in the lead except attracting controversy due to the atypical meaning of "assigned" and the fact we are not talking about newborns. Crossroads -talk- 16:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)