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.

"Pisacake you need to go and study some biology.
This is madness: biology and medical textbooks haven’t changed recently. You are just very confused. You can cut and paste random facts if you like but the facts haven’t changed."

I'm not really sure what part of this you think I am confused about.

Post-zygotic gene mutations occur (to all of us in some way or other) after fertilisation, and certain mutations to certain genes will result in a chromosomically male zygote developing as a female.

Some other mutations are inherited and are present at fertilization, and while in nearly all cases sex is identical to chromosomal sex, I do not think it is useful to assert this outright, because sex is an outcome of embryonic development. Most zygotes do not develop into babies and we generally don't concern ourselves too much with their fate.

It is sufficient to say that sex is determined in utero.

"Intersex conditions have been co-opted by transactivists for political purposes and to make people think it's possible to have a male reproductive system and yet always have been a female. I think many people are ending up very confused - like Sonya."

SonyaY is the one on the other thread giving non-local children monkey nuts instead of sweets for Halloween, complaining about 'council estate kids' taking the sweets, and giving local kids an ID necklace to identify them, so I wouldn't pay them too much attention....

SonyaY

they are assigned the wrong sex their gender was always female even if they where incorrectly assigned male sex at birth so they correct their sex records

I understand that this thread must be very difficult for you.

If you are supporting a child who is trans, you would have needed to have got your head around an awful lot of things that hadn’t occurred to you. And it’s fantastic that you are so supportive of your child.

And of course, agreeing that your child was simply born with the wrong set of genitalia for what is their true sex, is probably a helpful way of understanding them.

It’s a great shame that gender dysphoria has become so politicised. It would be so much simpler if it could be agreed that your child is the sex they were born, but want to present as the opposite sex to alleviate their symptoms.

Because years down the road, your child truly believing that they can change sex, or that they are, in fact, a different sex to the one they were born, will not really help them.

Because it’s pinning your hopes on a fantasy. Furthermore, it’s a fantasy that requires the buy in of everybody else. Something that will never happen.

Can I suggest you take a look at the Transgendertrend website. And maybe contact the woman who runs it, Stephanie Davies Arai.

She receives hundreds of emails each week from parents of children who are trans. She is only ever interested in the well-being of children. She is not a zealot, she is not critical. In fact she is very gentle and kind.

She would have spoken to hundreds of parents such as you and will totally get everything you say.

Either way saying it's assigned at birth is as ridiculous as saying its assigned by whether the proud parents cut open a pink or blue cake at the "gender reveal" party

Assigned sex at birth is a tool of transgenderism. AFAB (assigned female at birth) and AMAB (assigned male at birth) are common acronyms.

However, they are now falling out of use, because they are being used to describe natal born males and females. And of course, even the concept of a natal born sex is beginning to grate with transactivists.

So I have seen AFAB used to describe a transwoman who was born male. Undermining even their own definition of what it means.

Likewise CAMAB is trotted out. Meaning coercively assigned male at birth. As though it was against the baby’s will at the time.

I suspect it almost doesn’t matter. Because whatever word is used to describe natal born women, will be co-opted. As it’s not really the word, it’s the state of being that is the problem to them.

But, in the meantime, I heartily agree that language is important and we should resist its change, every step of the way.

For those of you who don’t see as a problem. I suggest it’s because you don’t understand politics behind it.

Yet.

OK - my point here is that it is not necessary to mention it - surely any personal conditions that require a cautious approach to protect genitalia in gymnastics or any other sport, will be mentioned anyway in the medical conditions box. Which is confidential information. The idea that anyone should have to state whether the medical team at birth decided "boy" or "girl" isn't anyone's business. The gender that the applicant on the form is on the day of filling in the form is relevant.

I was assigned as a human at birth.

Or maybe I just am a human.

Haven't read the full thread, but I had never heard of sex being assigned at birth until the last two or three years. When my children were born in the 80s and 90s their sex was noted or observed. To assign something implies it is given or allocated, when that is, obviously, not how biological sex works.

Is this like the recent news story about GPs (or GP surgeries) having to ask patients about their sexuality?
My understanding was that was to get stats on whether people of different sexualities are being treated differently, and probably a few other things like whether they attend more/less often, for diff types of things, miss more/less appts etc.
If the gym club is being required to ask it is likely for govt stats. I can't help feeling that in many cases the requirement to ask will change the results, and there should be a "none of your business" option.
It must be possible to find out who required the question to be put there and why.

It's's about furthering the stupid notion that sex is made up/fluid/changeable

Totally. One day we will catch up with the lunatics and their lunatic agenda. To me, it shows that society has totally lost the fucking plot when these ridiculous questions are asked. There is an agenda, and its getting very tiresome and creepy.

Apologies for not reading the whole thread. I just had to register my child with British Gymnastics and was irked by the wording too. I would prefer them to ask for a person's biological sex, then they could ask if they have a gender identity that is separate to their biological sex. That would give those of us who think it's all a load of bs the option to say 'No' Or something. I don't like the whole 'assigned at birth' thing. Sex isn't assigned.

Trouble is now that surely people are worried what they are going to do with this new Information.

Why ask? Because the only way to validate any of it is to believe in such things as girls stuff and boys stuff this will be incredibly damaging

Pseudo science is super dangerous as it is a rehash of half truths.
The same happened with the MMr vaccine scare.
Carry on as you are but it makes no sense to anyone who has studied this.

I can't comment on the "politics" of why this is being asked; but simply from a medical perspective, I can completely understand why they might ask; and thought I might try to constructively offer a bit more info.

"assigned" is a completely appropriate medical term. There are a whole gamut of conditions, from Turners syndrome (XO) to androgen insensitivity syndrome where genetic or clinical observations might not make sex of a baby at birth obvious.

The embryology of the developing genital tract is fascinating; in very simple terms, the first stage of the development is (more or less) female anatomy and then some embryos go on to male differentiation (and this can happen due to the obvious XY or because of something less obvious, like a spike in maternal testosterone). It is completely fascinating how genes and environment interact. And how sexual anatomy development then changes again at puberty.

Anyway. I completely understand the concern with confusion over transgender and the language being used in that context - but I still stand by the need to support children so the question being both appropriate in terms of language used and the actual basis of the question.

I suspect that this thread is conflating together several different issues, which is unfortunate. But I can tell you with complete confidence that "assignment" is a really old medical term; it existed well before the possibility of transgender existed in the sense we know it now. Who knows if this is all some big conspiracy to get transgendered issues into the mainstream... I remain unconvinced by that argument.

simply from a medical perspective, I can completely understand why they might ask

The question in the OP's form is whether the child's gender identity matches the child's sex assigned at birth. It is not asking about whether the child has an intersex condition. For the vast, vast majority of people (those without an intersex condition), the term "sex assigned at birth" makes no sense. They are biologically male or female as they were observed to be at birth. Using the term for people without an intersex condition suggests that everyone's biological sex has been assigned at birth but may in fact not be as observed.

If you don't think there is a big effort to get transgendered issues into the mainstream, you are not paying attention. That's without even getting into the question of what it actually means to say your gender identity matches your sex.

". But I can tell you with complete confidence that "assignment" is a really old medical term; it existed well before the possibility of transgender existed in the sense we know it now. Who knows if this is all some big conspiracy to get transgendered issues into the mainstream... I remain unconvinced by that argument."

You are unequivocally and 100% wrong.

It is NOTHING to do with medical assessment of sex and everything to do with getting transgendered issues into the mainstream.

British Gymnastics state this themselves, why would you doubt them?

cdn3.british-gymnastics.org/images/GDPR/Monitoring-FAQs.pdf

"Equality Monitoring is the process used to collect, store and analyse data about people who use our services. It covers a range of equality groups, known as ‘protected characteristics’.
These are; age, disability, ethnicity (race), sex, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion/belief, sexual orientation, and gender identity. "

"6. Why am I being asked if my / my child’s sex at birth is the same as the gender to which I / they identify?
We are aware of a significant number of people who are or want to take part in gymnastics who identify with a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth, many of whom are children. We are committed to supporting all trans people to have a positive experience in the sport and to be able to access gymnastics activities without barriers. As with all the protected characteristics, it is important that we monitor how well we are doing in terms of the number of people from each group accessing the sport. "

Because it's a load of (if you pardon the expression) bollocks, they say

"5. Why are you asking about sexual orientation?
Only people aged 16 and over will be asked to provide a response to this question. "

yet apparently it's ok to ask a five year old if they identify as a Girl or a Boy.

Bollocks the lot of it.

And sweet fuck all to do with the tiny number of intersex people who might be incorrectly assigned (extremely rare in the UK, quite common in countries without adequate medical care or where intersex is more common, such as parts of Africa).

It's about the transgender trend.

And it is a trend. " 1.2 per cent of adolescents are identifying as transgender and referrals and requests for support are rising". This is in Australia where mastectomies are ok for pre-16-year-olds www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/mastectomies-endorsed-in-treatment-guidelines-for-trans-teens/news-story/2b396fc79f65cc89299a21593ed48366

Fucking ridiculous bollocks. A 15 year old isn't asked if she is a lesbian but she can have a mastectomy based on her declaration as a five year old that she was actually a boy?

Fuck off.

“"assigned" is a completely appropriate medical term.”

Really? Which medical book can we see this “appropriate” term, then?

Do doctors say they “assigned” the blood type as A+ when they see that it is A+ in a blood test? Do they say they “assigned” the bone as broken after seeing the x-ray results?

In which medical context do we say doctors have “assigned” something that they have checked and noted?

Are the people who say there is nothing noteworthy at all about the use of the word "assigned" aware of the terms AFAB and AMAB as they are used in the context of trans?

pisacake that is interesting; and puts a totally different light on the question.

Surely in this context it'd be better to ask if a child identifies as transgender?

Because they'd still need support, etc.

it's really unfortunate if 'assignment' (in its medical sense) is politicised. Because in terms of helping a child and family to cope - and to have a decent treatment plan (if needed), it sometimes needs a clinical decision at birth, or soon after . (Outwith the context of the trans debate).

Also, the question doesn't even ask if an intersex condition has been identified so there is no support being given to those children as a result of asking this question. If you want to achieve the purpose set out in the guidelines of tracking how many transgender children access gymnastics to provide them with support, you could simply ask "does the child's gender identity match the child's sex" and stop there. The reason it doesn't stop there but says "sex assigned at birth" is due to the push from transactivists to suggest that sex is a social construction that is simply assigned rather than being a material reality that exists independently of any social constructs. This is very confusing for a lot of people, including Sonya, and lies to children and adults that a person with a male reproductive system can nevertheless be female or become female.

cross post with Owl.

It would be very useful if more medics and scientists would engage themselves with what is happening with the politics of this, especially before defending what is going on with trans activism, albeit out of good intentions.

"In which medical context do we say doctors have “assigned” something that they have checked and noted?"

Well I think the point is that it is slightly more complicated than A+ or AB- or whatever.

As I understand it the current 'assigned' trend actually dates from the 50s. A doctor declared that gender was socialized and used as an example the case of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer where after a botched medically indicated (but unnecessary) circumcision led the boy to be experimented on by Dr. John Money, who performed a sex change on the boy, which, naturally, the doctor declared to be a wonderful success.

"Reimer said that Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements", with David playing the bottom role. Reimer said that, as a child, he had to get "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks". Reimer said that Money forced David, in another sexual position, to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. Reimer said that Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections". On at "least one occasion", Reimer said that Money took a photograph of the two children doing these activities. Money's rationale for these various treatments was his belief that "childhood 'sexual rehearsal play'" was important for a "healthy adult gender identity"."

Money was for all appearances a paedophile, even being interviewed in Paidika, the scientific journal 'by paedophiles for paedophiles', saying a mutual sexual relationship between a boy of '10 or 11' and a man in his 20s or 30s is 'not pathological', and apparently appeared in almost every issue of said journal.

Anyway, Money's point, which was then accepted, was that you could simply socialise children as girls or boys and so the best thing was to operate on them as soon as possible.

So broadly speaking you had for :

1. from an antiquity an examination of genitals to determine the true sex - where genitals were ambiguous, further examination would determine the 'true sex'
2. from the 1950s a 'optimal gender' policy whereby a child would be operated on to obtain 'correct' genitals which they would be socialised according to. This model reflects the following beliefs: (a) that gender is a preference, and essentially an expression of arbitrary societal explanations, and therefore should be socialised according to the appearance of the subject. (b) that the gender assigned in infancy determines the likely adult gender, not biological markers.
3. subsequent to this time there is now a fuller understanding of the role of hormones at different stages in development and what we have now is an 'optimal gender' policy that reflects specific conditions. For example an XY individual with complete androgen insensitivity (due to a mutated gene) will grow up female, because the male hormones - from prior to birth - have had no influence on the body or brain of the subject. OTOH, an XY cloacal exstrophy, where a child is born potentially with no penis at all - and who according to Dr. Money should have a vagina carved out of him, because that is the 'optimal gender' for someone with no penis - will grow up male. The condition is merely a genital abnormality and male testes should not be removed, because the newborn baby is ALREADY male, the process of masculinization having occurred in utero from a few weeks gestation as a result of their male sex hormones. www.isna.org/node/564

So now intersex people are 'assigned' a gender according to the known outcomes for their (sometimes very rare) conditions. This assignment is no longer accompanied with gender reassignment operations, as it is better for the adult intersex person to make a determination for themselves. What it is a statement that person A's condition means they will grow up female or male as the case might be.

I think the interesting issue is that whereas we went from in antiquity saying 'you are female' or 'you are male', to quacks in the 50s saying it was a matter of socialisation and totally arbitrary, and while that appears discredited along with its quacks, people want to continue with that and say 'my gender is whatever I say it is', even though there is no evidence for that, even though we have more evidence now for assignment.

Unsurprisingly, I'm going to suggest that just because one doctor who historically was involved with gender assignment happens to have been a paedophile, does not, by extension mean that all doctors are paedophiles.

It's easy to find examples of weird extremes, but also very unfair to use that to paint an entire profession. Actually I've worked with very compassionate, caring doctors who have needed to look after children who needed gender assignment and suggesting they are somehow 'quacks' is just plain wrong.