Gender assigned at birth

[Ketchup100]

Just applied for dd’s 11+ and the online form asked what was my child’s “gender assigned at birth”. AIBU to find this insulting both to my intelligence and to my daughter? She was not assigned a gender at birth. She is biologically female whether or not she chooses to currently follow any particular gender stereotype. Nobody said at her birth “congratulations, your child will like pink and wear makeup”. They simply looked at her genitals and declared that she was (biologically) female, which she is and will always be.

greyonwhitesky
For a person who’s having a tough time dealing with gender issues it might be a comfort though. Like I said unnecessary, but might help someone who has had it tough like a very young person who feels alienated or something

Recommend by who?

Why is an option other than male or female needed? There is no third sex. All congenital DSDs affect either males or females.

I honestly couldn't care less about this sort of thing. I just tick female and go about my day. Companies are trying to be inclusive, and if the extent of any inconvenience to me is ticking a box on a form then I'll live with it.

So accuracy and reality can be compromised for inclusivity? Is that your stance?

This in my view is discriminatory. Asking 'is your child female or male' following by 'does your child consider themselves to be female or male' would be reasonable. Not the question asked.

Anything other than plain English discriminates against the parent for whom English is an additional language (for the 11+ not unexpected that the child could have parents from parts of the EU where there was increased migration in the mid-noughties, as an example).

Those who are Islamic, Roman Catholic and probably of several other faiths believe that you cannot change gender. Some believe life begins at conception.

OP, please complain, or if you feel unable to, provide the link to the school's complaints procedure, and I am sure I and others on this forum will be happy to submit a complaint.

It’s idiocy.

People who say they don't care abut this stuff because companies are just trying to be 'inclusive' probably haven't thought about the damage being 'inclusive' does to women and girls.

Being 'inclusive' and letting 6 foot 4 Lia Thomas onto the girls swimming team meant that a whole load of girls, aged from 13 upwards iirc had to put up with seeing Thomas loom over them with a boner while they were trying to shower and get changed. There are lots of accounts from different girls about how traumatic they found it. Lots of girls just stopped swimming. And this is hardly a one-off.

Being 'inclusive' to a male person in a space where women and girls are vulnerable is the opposite of kind. It actively excludes a huge number of females just to make the male person feel a bit better.

There is also a difference between being inclusive and giving away your own rights. What’s the saying? I will make room at the table but I won’t give up my seat.
I will stand for the rights of anyone as long as they don’t erode the rights of others.

13% of people disagree with you so 13% of the country are mentally unwell.

We must continue to fight back or this behaviour will continue to be accepted.

Because unless we fight back teenage boys with fully developed genitalia will continue to gain access to our private female spaces.

Other than not wanting my teenage daughter flashed by a mentally I’ll boy at 13 years old you must be all kinds of thick to not realise this access will be exploited by predators.

This is probably reflective of how I feel. It doesn't offend me too much but then when you start looking at the wider impact on general rights etc then it's something I think I should pay more concern to

There isn't one where I work, which would mean I'd have to set one up and from the general feeling of the place my name would be mud. Can I join other ones in different parts of the civil service? There's a womens group but of course it's been made abundantly clear that it is also for men who identify as women.

Cross it out and correct it

Or add something to an email to correct it

Idiots. I despair

What's 'inclusive' about denying biological reality?

I hope you are never affected by any of 'this sort of thing'

SEEN is a cross-government network. If there isn't a chapter in your department you can join the overarching "parent" SEEN. Here's the list on gov.uk, which includes SEEN:

Civil Service staff networks - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

My elderly dad was asked at an NHS appointment 'And how do you identify, Mr Snores?' He thought they meant they needed to see his passport or something.

Out of curiosity, this "gender assigned at birth" thing...:are you able to say "actually, I don't think the baby is male, could you assign it female gender, please?"

I don't think that's possible, is it?

So what's the point of this language.

It's not "assigned", it just "is", surely?

Who said anyone was mentally unwell?

It isn’t a school. It’s an 11+ testing body specific to a large area of England. I will challenge them about their use of language.

It is all because some deluded people believe that wearing a £6.99 lipstick from Superdrug is able to override billions of years of evolution, and their feelings must be protected at all costs

Of course that's a perfectly rational response!

gender diversity has nothing to do with lipstick.

You're right of course. It's more about pink leggings!

Gender assigned at birth.... it's not a bloomin sorting hat that decides which 'house' you are in!

Language matters. You are absolutely right to challenge them OP.

Gender as a social construct has a lot more to do with lipstick than sex, which is rooted in biological reality.