Talk:Sex assignment

Proposed correction consensus

The wikipedia text references Hughes et al. Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Arch Dis Child. 2006 Jul;91(7):554-63, as a source for the "consensus" use of the "assigned" nomenclature. Even though the use of the term "assigned" is uncontroversial in science/medicine, the referenced article does not introduce or propose a consensus regarding the use of the "assigned" nomenclature. The proposed changes in the nomenclature are clearly stated in the article, and does not include the "assigned" nomenclature. The referenced article uses the nomenclature "assigned" but it does *not* introduce the nomenclature as a proposed consensus. The reference is wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.76.62 (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Correction about incidence numbers (proportion of live births)

The current article states that "The prevalence of intersex conditions, where a baby's sex characteristics do not conform strictly to typical definitions of male or female, ranges between 0.018% and 1.7%." The upper bound is not correct and references https://interaction.org.au/resource/population-figures/ , which in turn references the original Fausto-Sterling numer of 1,7%, which has been heavily criticized, for example by Sax (referenced in the original text). Moreover the higher number does *not*, not even in the original text by Fausto-Sterling, refer to "where a baby's sex characteristics do not conform strictly to typical definitions". For example the higher number includes late onset CAH. Furthermore the current text references a newer article ( Blackless et al. How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis ) by, among others, Fausto-Sterling (again), that sets the upper bound to 2%, but this is not intersex conditions but "We surveyed the medical literature from 1955 to the present for studies of the frequency of deviation from the ideal male or female. We conclude that this frequency may be as high as 2% of live births." Deviations from "ideal" female and male is not intersex, and, again, it does not say anything about if the "baby's sex characteristics" conformed to "typical definitions". For example in late onset CAH (one of the most prevalent conditions among the 1,7%) sex characteristics at birth (and throughout life for most females with this condition, since the virilization is mostly light) is congruent with both phenotypic and genotypic sex. Furthermore Witchel (2018). "Disorders of Sex Development" is about "Disorders of sex development", which is not strictly the same as intersex. For example Turner syndrome is included in DSD, but it can be debated if Turner syndrome is "intersex" (girls with Turner syndrome have a high probability of no teleache and no menarche, but otherwise are as female as any other female).

The upper bound is incorrect (as the text is formulated) and should be changed, or at least commented.

In Berglund et al. The epidemiology of disorders of sex development. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2025 Jul;39(4):102002. there is at least an honest and scientific approach to the epidemiology of DSD, which, again, is not the same as "intersex".

This article, as it is currently, is biased and not correct based on current science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.76.62 (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Assignment, if happens, doesn't happen "at birth"

The identified gender of a person is, if assigned, not assigned at birth - it is evidenced previous to birth in many many forms. The terminology should be changed as 'registered as female', for example, when talking about what has been written under 'sex' in identification in legal papers. That would be neutral, objective and not impose anyone's view. ~2026-37638-98 (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not for us to make up a new name for the subject. That would be the least neutral thing possible. We have to use the terms that the Reliable Sources use per WP:COMMONNAME. In this case the article is called "sex assignment". Throughout human history this has taken place immediately after birth. It is true that, in places with advanced medical care, it is increasingly common for this to be be done before birth. That doesn't undermine the name of the article as "at birth" is not part of the name. (I'm not sure of the figures, but I strongly suspect that the majority of the world's newborns are still assigned at birth anyway.) What you seem to be doing is looking at a topic and thinking "Well, I wouldn't have called it that". I think we all think that from time to time about something or other. (I'm pretty sure that the bony-eared assfish thinks of little else.) Nonetheless, if something has a name, and that name is broadly accepted by Reliable Sources, then we can't change it. There's really no point in getting in a fight with a dictionary. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Except assigned at birth is a highly political and inflammatory issue. Those who push trans ideology promote the idea of sex being assigned at birth, those who reject trans ideology assert sex is recorded at birth. These are mutually exclusive positions. One records what is reality, the other is subjective, based on individual perception, and provides an option to change later. I doubt Wzpedia will change anything - the mere suggestion would likely trigger a lynch mob, but the divide in treatment should be recognised still e.g. Red v Blue states, liberal v conservative. I'm not sure how the likes of güevedoces would be treated admittedly, but that's such an edge case that it probably doesn't arise outside the local area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39844-54 (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinions but they have no bearing on Wikipedia. You are trying to embroil us in somebody else's arguments with the dictionary. That is not within our scope. This topic has a widely accepted name, as reflected by the Reliable Sources. You don't have to like it but you won't get anywhere complaining to us about it. It wasn't us who named it. We don't have authority to rename it in line with your preferences. Ongoing kvetching falls foul of WP:NOTFORUM. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)