Do midwives tell you the sex of your baby? Or do they let you make your own mind up?

[Sarkyharky]

If gender is fluid.

What happens nowadays if you give birth to what used to be called a boy? With a penis?

Do parents still say that they have a boy?

Is that hate speech? To assume a baby's gender?

Well i have 4 of them and a sonographer told me each time that they were boys, because I asked. Interestingly, I actually know they are boys because they have XY chromosomes in all their cells (had to have genetic testing due to a genetic condition in the wider family, none affected).

I guess if you dont have that, a test which anyone can request or pay for themselves, you could argue that they mught be intersex and just look like boys.

I dont think thats what its about though. Some activists are arguing that you shouldnt assume that that male baby will want to grow up and be an adult male, they may want to transition at some point. Which is interesting really beacaue they are presumably saying dont push stereotypical gender roles on them in the meantime? Which is exactly what gender critical people are arguing..... I still think you have to say male, female or intersex initially though in order to have a starting point. Male and female are obvious and any suggestuon of intersex would, i hope, be thoroughly investigated by the medical professionals and genetisists and then taken from there in conjunction with the parents, though obviously there was some shoddy practice around this in the past, which is where the TRAs are appropriating "assigned at birth" from.

So you can have a male baby but can you still have a boy baby?

well I think so but who knows now in the batshit world of self ID. I guess you can wait until the child is 2 and wants to self ID as a doggy and ask them then.

What about all the It's A Boy/Girl cards?

Are the tras targeting those companies?

I'm pretty gender critical, but these kind of threads could be quite harmful in diluting the very genuine concerns around the actual issues. It just makes people roll their eyes and think 'well that's just plain fearmongering, perhaps the TRAs have a point about those pesky feminists'

Of course sex is observed at birth. Most of the world is still thankfully pretty normal and is taking no notice of this debate on either side of the argument. To try and imply there are any plans that change this, or and real danger of being accused of hate speech for saying a baby is a girl or a boy, is in my opinion quite unhelpful.

Sorry

No but they possibly should be, that's where the silly blue/pink delineation starts nowadays. I try and buy yellow or white " new baby" cards. Interestingly, my parents have a picture of my mum holding my newborn brother in front if the fireplace in 1983 and the cards are mainly white. A pale blue one and a pale green one. My photos are a sea of blue.

Midwives have to register your baby on the hospital systems in order to generate the baby an NHS number (required for formally registering your baby). The gender will be whatever is anatomically evident at birth.

So many of the issues raised on these boards would be resolved if society clearly delineated between sex and gender.

Babies who have developed typically will be born male or female and will remain that way for the rest of their lives.
Babies, all being well, will grow into adults and, for some, their gender identity will be important to them.

There is room in society for recognising sex and recognising gender identity.

I'm sorry if you think it's unhelpful. Presumably you think it's unhelpful because you already know the answer or think everyone just should know the answer? It was a genuine question.

I suppose the answer is, yes the midwife can say you have a baby boy but if the baby boy grows up to be a girl then gender can be changed. I am wondering at where this point kicks in legally - it would be fine to be vague about it if it wasn't becoming a legal issue.

As a midwife I have to state the sex of every new born. I have 3 choices on the computer...male, female or indeterminate. Nhs number is allocated at this stage.

I don't think anything is legal until the birth is registered with the Registrar.

If you want this thread to be useful, you need to sort out your sex from your gender concepts.

No I think it's unhelpful because (I believe) gender is a social construct whereas the sex of a baby is observed at birth as a biological medical fact and gender doesn't come into it at that precise point.

Whilst there may be some absolutely batshit individuals out there who at the birth of the baby would kick up a fuss about its observed sex not being the gender they have decided to raise it as etc etc I expect this is astonishingly rare and they would have no legal basis to insist on a different 'gender' being noted because only sex is considered pertinent at that age. Current proposals around changes to GRA won't impact on babies at all as babies, by their very nature of being babies, won't be able to 'self id'.

There are very real and concerning discussions to be had around self ID and the impact that this may have on single sex spaces. I think trying to whip up a frenzy about something like hospitals not being allowed to misgender newborns and new parents being accused of hate speech just dilutes the message and adds fire to accusations that the debate on mumsnet is part hysterical reaction and part bigotry against gender non conformity.

SarkyHarky, I think there used to be cases where sometimes the sex was unclear at birth, someone just 'assigned' it and then the person grew up to be clearly of whichever sex. These were genuine mistakes. When I was a midwife, the only uncertainty I had was with babies born at around 20-24 weeks when the genitals were a bit ??? Is that an over-developed girl or an underdeveloped boy? But sex wasn't an issue at a birth at that gestation, other things were more pressing. I don't suppose those 'mistakes' actually happen now with the testing etc. we have available to us. When I delivered a baby, I never announced the sex. I always left it for the parents to discover, if they didn't already know via ultrasound of course.

If you want this thread to be useful, you need to sort out your sex from your gender concepts.

Bingo. If you're using boy with the definition of "human male child" - descriptive, pertaining to sex observed at birth.

Worth pointing out that non invasive prenatal testing is now available on the nhs (am not sure the criteria for it) but I had it privately last year before it was, due to miscarriages and my age (I'd know far too many friends who had recently found their baby had incompatible with life issues) - there's an option to test for sex linked conditions and find out the biological sex. Some of this includes trisomies which might be some types of intersex. There's a more complex one called the panorama test too (possibly still private?)

This can be done as early as 10 weeks and tests fragments of dna from the foetus in the baby's blood. I don't know if this will potentially change the way sex is recorded but it could certainly help if there is any ambiguity.

@Sarkyharky
I suppose the answer is, yes the midwife can say you have a baby boy but if the baby boy grows up to be a girl then gender can be changed. I am wondering at where this point kicks in legally - it would be fine to be vague about it if it wasn't becoming a legal issue

It would be helpful if you explain what you mean by 'boy' and 'girl'.

A male can become legally female once they receive a GRC (and vice versa), they can never become biologically female - but I guess you realise that. GRCs are only available to over 18s.

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic (as per the Equality Act) and so an under 18 who is transgender has legal protections relating to their transgender status. However, their protections relating to their sex will remain linked to their natal sex so a male transgirl will have protections relating to their 'gender reassignment' status and protections relating to being male.

On the blue/pink point - apparently, up until the 1940’s the societal norm was that pink was for the boys and blue was for the girls. Pink was seen to be closer to red which was seen to be a strong colour. Blue was seen to be more delicate and related to the Virgin Mary!

Given that Canada is often cited as an example of how self-id is unproblematic I wouldn't assume that this will never be an issue. The question reinforces the importance of being very clear about the difference between sex and gender.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40480386

Talking of Canada, I noticed that Dr Jack Newman has had to change some language here and there on his excellent breastfeeding site.

There is an explanation of how they induce lactation in adoptive mothers or mothers genuinely struggling with milk - and trans women. All newspeak.

I guess being in Canada they have to. He generally refers to mothers etc on his blogs/ fb.

I've just had a vision of TAs watching One Born Every Minute and when the midwife announces it's a boy or it's a girl yelling at the screen "But how do you know?"

It's so farcical.

Given that Canada is often cited as an example of how self-id is unproblematic I wouldn't assume that this will never be an issue

Thank you. I don't appreciate being dismissed on here.

On the blue/pink point - apparently, up until the 1940’s the societal norm was that pink was for the boys and blue was for the girls. Pink was seen to be closer to red which was seen to be a strong colour

It's true prior to the 20th century all infants were put in white or beige/grey clothing (white more for the upper classes who could use it to display their cleanliness) the first instance of boy=blue, girl=pink was found in Vogue in the 1920's which at the time was extremely influential and whatever Vogue said filled all the shops. By the 1940's it had taken hold.

Gender ideologues are completely ignorant of history.

Did you actually read the link though.

The Canadian authorities have refused to issue a birth certificate without an observation of sex. They haven't turned round to the parents and gone 'you know what you have a good point, from now on we will tell midwives not to observe sex at birth and we will accuse any parents that gender their children at birth that they are committing a hate crime'

They have done quite the opposite. In a country that has adopted self ID.

I'm not dismissing you I just don't think that its a part of the current trans/ GRA debate that is considered a female/feminist issue, which is where you have posted, and that the kind of hyperbole in your OP is exactly what the TRAs are looking for to prove that the women's rights side of the debate are fearmongering. Because at this point that's pretty much what it is, even the 'evidence' from Canada doesn't back up what you are 'fearing' will happen.

The threat to single sex spaces however, is very real.

Hi @Sarkyharky. I am sorry that you think you have been dismissed.

I am not sure why you feel this way. You weren't the person who raised the point about Canada - as far as I can see.

Perhaps it is because your point about 'hate speech' hasn't been picked up?

My answer is that it is not hate speech to categorise a child 'a boy'. The term relates to their biology and is a fact.

If, as they get older, they begin to express a desire to 'reassign their gender', they fall under the banner of the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'. At this point, someone could be accused of hate speech if the speech was deemed to be an attack on the person on the basis of their protected characteristic.