To believe that sex is not 'assigned' at birth, but observed?

[Splandy]

I filled in a form for British gymnastics yesterday and was asked whether my child's gender identity matches the sex he was assigned at birth. I started a thread about this elsewhere and other people said that they have also had this question on forms. Upon asking, one person was told that it is a result of new government regulations coming in, meaning they have to ask it.

Does anybody know what these regulations are? Is there anybody who genuinely believes that sex is assigned at birth rather than observed? If so, could you explain why? I am very concerned that something so clearly untrue is being slipped in under the radar. There was no option to disagree with the question and any answer implied that I agree with what the question states: that sex is assigned at birth.

Would be especially interesting to hear from midwives/doctors.

To clarify, I am talking about your biological sex. Not gender.

If a baby girl with no abnormalities was recorded as "boy" do you really think they would receive all of male privilege and none of the societal disadvantages of being a girl then a woman

If someone thinks they are a boy / girl and 'can't see their biology, society does treat them differently.

“can't see their biology”

How often does this happen, really? Practically never. Millions of years of evolution has hardcoded into each of us the ability to judge whether someone is male or female from very subtle clues - not just on the face but also gait etc.

Right. So if a woman decided to pass as a man, was able to fake all of her records to indicate "male" or "man", and then was sufficiently convincing in her presentation then she could be viewed by society as a man.

You are saying that if a woman is able to mimic gender stereotypes to a sufficient degree, then she could pass as a man so long as she's not rumbled.

Does this have anything to do with whether sex is not 'assigned' at birth, but observed?

We can't deny sex to erase gender stereotyping though can we.

Imaging all the extra time and wasted appointments calling everyone over the age of 60 for a prostate exam. How many butts could a Dr get away with shoving his or her finger up and not finding one befire they were accused if inappropriate behaviour?

How many women would wait longer then necessary for smear tests?

How many unnecessary pregnancy tests performed on victims in a coma befire x rays etc

The concern seems to be that the wording will contribute to a world where biological sex is no longer considered important and gender identity is the only valid identifier.

Seems to be a strange concern in this case considering the entire point of the question is to establish biological sex and whether that conflicts with current gender identity.

Considering the phrasing more important than the function of the question seems pedantic.

Besides, while I agree biological sex is an inherent attribute (although not always as binary as some assume) it cannot be factually determined by observation only. Observation is extremely reliable in most cases. But not always. So assigned is, I think, fine. It's accurate. Not because there's a choice about your genetics but because in the vast majority of cases a best guess assignment is accurate and adequate. But... that's still what it is.

Of course if we could all successfully disguise ourselves as men we wouldn’t be treated as women (until biology).

It’s hardly the answer to feminism.

Right. So if a woman decided to pass as a man, was able to fake all of her records to indicate "male" or "man", and then was sufficiently convincing in her presentation then she could be viewed by society as a man.

Plenty of women have done this throughout history in order to be able to access the privileges that men hold. If they are rumbled, then they are punished (including being raped and/or killed). If they get away with it then we are now being told that they were never women at all, but men.

If someone thinks they are a boy / girl and 'can't see their biology, society does treat them differently.

I agree that this happens. And it shouldn't happen.

The solution is to campaign for a society where people are treated the same, regardless of their biology, and regardless of how they present themselves.

Not to conceal biology, entrench gendered behaviour and rely on a person's self-presentation to determine how they are treated.

I know this has already been says but yes, this question is a result of pressure from the trans lobby and nothing to do with intersex people.

Many TRAs now reject the narrative of "I was born gender A and am now gender B" - their preferred narrative is "I have always been gender B". If this sounds Orwellian to you...it should do

Late to this, but re smear tests I'm pretty sure transwoman will be sent letters about this. The reason is that they are given a completely new NHS number when they transition (regardless of surgery/hormones/no treatment) and clinicians are not supposed to refer to their previous existence as the opposite sex. GPs will be fined if they don't remove 'transitional' entries. They have to be treated exactly as any other woman, so will be offered breast screening too.
I've come across a case where a transwoman did have possibleprostate cancer and was referred to urology with this...not my patient and I don't know what the outcome was. Referral was along the lines of 'this 60 year old woman has a raised PSA(blood test relating to prostate)
It's utter madness

I totally agree that assigned is a term which has been hijacked from intersex/people with ambiguous genitalia and has nothing to do with trans people -whoever much they claim it has

A baby’s sex is usually identified by the mother when the midwife hands over her newborn. Most of the time doctors don’t have anything to do with it. The use of the word assign is an offence against the English language.

There was a doctor commenting here a few months ago. She said it is now a criminal offence (not civil, criminal), to refer to someone’s status as trans or their biological sex, when referring them to a specialist.

And whilst most of the time that is going to be entirely counter-productive to the person’s own health, in terms of validation, and AGP, I can easily see it happening.

So she would have to just give a general description of symptoms, without mentioning the biological sex of the person or the specific part of their anatomy to which she was referring.

So will this also mean that male-to-female transgender people will never get their prostate checked or reminders to do it?

aurynne

It would look like it. Unless they opt in. Which I’m assuming most of them will.

NHS doesn't do a prostate screening programme (lack of evidence of benefit vs harm) but we would often check depending on development of symptoms, so yes, it's possible that could be missed out if the trans woman 'passed' iyswim