Talk:Gender identity

Use of "assigned" throughout

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)

Except that even anatomical sex can be altered through hormones and surgery. Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

"...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)

• Oppose per sources which demonstrate the "assigned (fe)male at birth" and "assigned sex at birth" is common: American Psychological Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Academy of Pediatrics NBC News, Washington Post, Cosmopolitan, WBUR, Entertainment Tonight, NYTimes, and Newsweek. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: People who are assigned a sex are also assigned a gender. A person assigned male is usually assigned as a boy. A person assigned female is usually assigned as a girl. It's why "gender assignment" is the WP:Alternative title for "sex assignment." Well, other than the fact that the sex and gender distinction is commonly disregarded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. SAAB is a set phrase. ARR8 (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC) (summoned by bot)
• Oppose; use the language used in the most (and MED-) reliable sources, as others have said. Individual instances might need to be changed to "assigned gender" or the like. -sche (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The assignment of sex at birth (and the idea that it is not always clear-cut) is well-established in medical literature, and the arguments posed here against that terminology are WP:OR at best, even if we accept their underlying logic (which I do not thing is at all well-cited or established.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, as an example, intersex people are "assigned" a gender - whether or not it is the one they later identify with - so trying to claim that there cannot "be a different sex from the one a person is born with." as per the proposal, is clearly unsupportable - Arjayay (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

---

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

WP:NOTAFORUM. WP:CITE or WP:DROPSTICK. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 02:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Criticisms

There is a page for gender critical feminism, why isn't there a topic on this page about the criticisms of self ID as being all that is needed to be a man or woman? Polkol777 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

"Criticism" is covered in the Opposing views section. I suspect the reason it doesn't link directly to the article about the Gender-Critical movement is because that is a small subset of the overall Anti-gender movement, mostly focused in the UK. We want to cover the topic broadly with an international perspective. Anybody following the link to Anti-gender movement will get a good general overview, which includes coverage of the GC movement and a link to the article about it for anybody who wants more detail. It's an extra step from here to there but the context it provides is worthwhile. DanielRigal (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah gotcha I was expecting a whole section about criticisms, thanks for pointing out the section about opposing views. Do you think it would be at all worth it to mention the gender criticals directly, despite it being a more local belief system? Polkol777 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it is OK as it is but I wouldn't completely rule out maybe adding a brief mention to the opposing views section. Does anybody else have a view on this? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2026

Change "For example, someone who is assigned female at birth (AFAB) and identifies as a woman has a cisgender gender modality" to either "For example, someone who is assigned female at birth (AFAB) and exclusively identifies as a woman has a cisgender gender modality" or "For example, someone who is assigned female at birth (AFAB) and identifies as a man has a transgender gender modality". Alternatively remove the example entierly.

Rationale: e.g. an AFAB woman who also has other gender identities would not be considered cisgender bigender, and other genderqueer or non-binary gender identities exist, and the term gender modality is explicitly created to expand the understanding of cis and trans modalities. The currently given example is too vague to be a good example that honors the intent behind the term gender modality. LinkPlay9 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Any sources that specifically discuss the combination gender modality–bigender–cisgender and support the statement that an AFAB woman who also has other gender identities would not be considered cisgender bigender?

Reading one of the sources though, I can see the broader point about that section oversimplifying what the concept is supposed to be about, so some kind of reframing does seem necessary. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:29, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

i also suggested the option to remove the example entirely. how would i provide a source that supports removing the example? it doesn't even have a source itself. LinkPlay9 (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed it for now, but I feel like the section could still explain better the full scope of what is meant by gender modality. I don't have the time right now to cook up a good edit, though. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:13, 1 September 2026 (UTC)