introduction

Sex assignment (sometimes *incorrectly* known as gender assignment) is the determination of an infant's sex at birth.

Sex and gender are two different concepts; it is impossible to assign gender at birth since infants do not yet possess gender identity or expression. Suggest removing the text in parentheses.

It's assigned gender, not representative of the actual gender identity. i.e, the gender assignment is unrelated to the actual gender identity. Also remember to sign your posts on talk page with 4 tildes. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't suggest using your own wording over the terms used almost universally by the reliable sources. This has been discussed numerous times before by others who had the same question as you (see for example, Archive 1 sections § Gender or Sex Assignment? and § Implied inaccuracy of sex assignment, conflation of sex and gender, and others.) It's a basic principle of Wikipedia that we follow the usage of the preponderance of reliable, secondary sources on the subject, so regardless of any logical interpretation you may have about the meaning of the words sex or gender, since there is near-universal agreement about the wording among reliable sources, that's what we have to do. Putting it more bluntly to make this point crystal clear: regardless of the logic of the situation, or your own experience, or the dictionary meaning of the words, if the sources say, "The sky is green", then so do we (along with a citation, of course). Hope this clears up your question. Mathglot (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All very good, except that you don't actually point to any of "the reliable sources", "the sources", the "preponderance of reliable, secondary sources", "reliable, secondary sources", "near-universal agreement [about the wording among reliable sources]", "the sources".
That is somewhat surprising if (i) Wikipedia is supposed to be based on those very things and (ii) they actually exist, clearly, unambiguously and are near-universally agreed upon.
To use your own words, putting it more bluntly to make this point crystal clear: you do not provide any evidence that the near-universality or reliability which you claim exist actually do exist. You have effectively said, "I don't have any evidence to present but I'm right anyway, and this is how Wikipedia works". That suggests that Wikipedia is based on your own, unsubstantiated opinion, interpretation or the world.
Proposal: for consistencey with your claims Wikipedia should be renamed to Mathglotipedia.
(Aside: having decided upon a mathematics-related name for yourself you don't seem to regognise the ironic inadequacy of your reasoning from a mathematcal or logical perspective). 86.139.37.148 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've seen the reliable sources, they're in the article and elsewhere, I revoke my previous claims, I was both wrong and being annoying, with my own logic self contradicting myself. (FYI my username was 'Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia' before I changed it) A Socialist Trans Girl 10:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

This is just wrong. Please read the article.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is effectively arguing that a "bachelor" can be a "married man". The word "assigned" has a well-understood definition, as does the word "observed". It is objectively true - regardless of whatever "source" disagrees - that what a doctor does with a baby is observe the baby's sex, rather than assign it, in the same way that there are no married bachelors, regardless of however the "sources" define "bachelor". 2600:6C84:8600:4F:29E5:AA0B:477A:428F (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(before message deleted by writer because edit was fixed)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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