'Assigned at birth'. I would like to try to change the conversation. Any scientifically literate people willing to take a look?

[Annandale]

The phrase 'assigned at birth' referring to sex is becoming more frequent. The government-published consultation document for the changes to the Gender Recognition Act has the following definition for sex: that it is defined by medical practitioners at birth. This is part of the explanatory glossary for the document, not one of the questions for the consultation.

I think this definition is actively wrong. Biological sex either male or female is observable in the vast majority of cases from the external genitals, either at birth or frequently from an ultrasound image of a foetus's developing genitals in the womb. Many parents now chose to have antenatal chromasomal testing for a variety of reasons, which can include accurate information on biological sex early in human gestation.

I think it is very important that definitions of words in a government document are accurate and complete. 'Assigned female/male at birth' is becoming a more commonly used phrase but does not relate to reality. It has been used in the past in relation to a small number of cases where a baby was born with a disorder of sexual development, befote chromosomal testing was widely available. It is not appropriate or accurate to use it about children born in the UK in modern times.

I want to write to my MP and ask for a vote in the House of Commons about the use of this specific definition in government documents and statements. I'm happy to use my own words, but can anyone tell me if anything in this statement is factually wrong? I obviously want to encourage accuracy, not perpetuate further lies.

Whenever I hear the tern 'assigned at birth' I get a vision of a doctor skipping up and down the maternity ward like the Easter bunny scattering blue and pink glitter with gay abandon

Isn't that what happens then? And I thought it was an actual giant rabbit that did the assigning?

The term “sex assigned at birth” is a bunch of regressive bunk. It’s a remnant from an era before genetic testing or decent imaging. There are two sexes, and very rare intersex variations that sometimes make categorisation more interesting - but these have NOTHING to do with transgender. I am so very sick of this argument, and the stupidity around sex. Stick to “gender assigned at birth,” that at least is consistent with trans ideology. Sex is a real, observed, material, scientific phenomenon and YOU CANNOT CHANGE SEX! If a doctor or midwife looked at a baby with clearly male genitalia and said “there’s no way of knowing that baby’s sex”, or worse “that’s a female” - then they should be sent back to school ASAP for remedial basic biology. Because they’d be an idiot, quite frankly.
Sex - observed, just like the weight of a baby or their numbers of fingers and toes. If a parent or child later felt uncomfortable about the birth weight, they would not be allowed to come back and alter the record. It’s absurd to think sex should be treated differently from other neutral facts.
Eventually someone will just have to rename the sexed bodies because of this absolute lunacy around keeping concepts meaningful. It’s shameful it’s happening around the very process that gave rise to every single person alive.

Starkstaring - about biological basis for trans - pink brain/blue brain territory. It's something that is being bandied about. I always thought Peter Tatchell was a sensible intelligent person - well I still do. But in an interview he said he thought science would prove that transgender identities are to do with different brain structures (from memory so not accurate quote!) and retweeted an article about this study
www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/
I never really trust reporting on individual studies. It's why we need more scientific literacy (including for me!) and public discussion by scientists who know their stuff. There may be something in it, maybe not.

'Assigned at birth' is a central concept to the project. That's how a 'gender reassignment' is possible - eg. the wording of the EA.

so, baby is born, midwife then has to a complicated scan of the child's future, to determine if it's going to prefer pink or blue, football or netball, long hair or short hair. But then also has to take into account cultural differences, if the child is Scottish, they may wear a kilt, they may be a "northern woman", if football-playing is detected, making sure that the family doesn't move to the US, although presumably you could have an "assigned male at birth, but only until the father gets a job transfer to Ohio, then they'll be assigned female at immigration" categorisation?

Alternatively the midwife, could have a look, tell you have a lovely son/daughter and get on with the actual medical checks.

OK. So it has taken me a long time of drafting, and doubting myself, and wondering if this is even worth writing, but here is my draft of a letter to my MP on this very limited subject! Any comments welcome.

[MP's address]

Dear [MP],

‘Gender/sex assigned at birth’

I am writing about the use of the above phrase in publications from the Government (examples listed at the bottom of this letter).

I would like you to consider forwarding this letter to the Minister for Equalities asking them to publicly recommend stopping the use of this inaccurate and unscientific terminology across the whole of the Government. In particular, I would like the definition of ‘sex’ used in the consultation document for the reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to be publicly corrected.

The phrase ‘sex/gender assigned at birth’ is used by people who believe that there is something called ‘gender identity’ which is separate from biological sex. My understanding is that this often includes a belief that everyone has a ‘gender identity’, and that it is possible to have a ‘gender identity’ that conflicts with biological sex. These are not beliefs that are accepted by the whole population, or by all researchers or academics.

The government’s glossary for the consultation on the reform of the Gender Reassignment Act 2004 attempts to define ‘sex’ as follows:
‘Sex: Assigned by medical practitioners at birth based on physical characteristics.’
As I am sure you are aware, this definition is neither correct nor complete. Humans are sexually dimorphic, and this is the case from very early in gestation. As you know, many parents in the UK and elsewhere in the world now benefit from antenatal testing, which can include, among other information, accurate identification of biological sex, either from imaging of the genitals, or from more specific genetic testing of placental tissue, blood or amniotic fluid. So sex exists and can be known, well before birth.
Humans have a sex whether or not it is observed by a medical practitioner. We all know this, but perhaps I have an extra confirmation - there was no medical practitioner at my birth. I was born at home and my grandmother supported my mother. Together they looked at my genitals and saw I was a girl. According to the definition described earlier, therefore, I don’t have a biological sex. Clearly this is not the case. As in most births (according to figures I can find, between an estimated low of 97.3% and an estimated high of 99.082%), at birth my sex was observable in my primary sexual characteristics and there was no agency required to assign anything to me.
The phrase ‘gender/sex assigned at birth’ is not accurate or adequate as a definition. The existence of biological sex is a fact. In my view, government documents should always strive to be accurate according to the best understanding we have at the time. I know that you are a professionally trained science teacher, and I hope that this is common ground between us.
I would be very grateful if you would forward this letter to the Minister for Equalities and any other individual you feel appropriate, for their early response. In particular, I would like the Minister to consider making an erratum correction to the definition in the GRA consultation document, before the end of the consultation on 19 October 2018, replacing the above definition of ‘sex’ with one accurately describing known facts.
Yours sincerely

[Annandale]

Government documents using the phrase ‘assigned at birth’:

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/review-into-the-care-and-management-of-transgender-offenders

equalities.blog.gov.uk/2017/07/28/lgbtsurvey-asking-about-your-sex-and-gender-identity/

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/484855/The_recruitment_and_retention_of_transgender_staff-_guidance_for_employers.pdf

www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/

bump - though feel free just to say 'too long'!

I think it's excellent, Annandale.

I really like it, OP! Well-written, clear, persuasive. Fantastic job.

This is excellent. I wonder if we should all write to our mp’s asking for this erratum?

Brilliant annandale

That phrase grinds my gears. Every time I hear it, because lets face it nobody says it in real life. I mean when the midwife hands you your baby she never every says ' I have assigned this baby as a girl, as you can observe she has a penis, but I have decided that she is a girl'.
This is hilarious. If I was a doctor or midwife I would actually be tempted to do this just to expose the lunacy of the whole thing.

It's good. I wonder whether the phrase 'biological sex' is right. It suggests there is another type of sex. It's just sex. Maybe clarify what you are referring to by the word sex near the beginning. I always describe sex as 'the fact of being male or female' but I don't know if that's good either.

Is it worth asking 'what is the advantage of using this inaccurate phrase? Why has the NHS and government departments started using it?' It might prompt the MP to ask him/herself.

It won't do any good on its own. But it people keep chipping away ...

That is a great letter op. Very clear.
Quentin - yes, while saying you made that decision based on “her” long hair/curly eyelashes/obvious dislike of blue baby hat.

Great letter. I see lots of good 'write to your MP' ideas on here, I wish I could do it myself but mine is a young, stubborn and relatively uneducated Brexit ideologue... I can't ever call to his other job (as he had none previously).

(slight derail:
On the topic of the hint of 'State' imposition in the 'assignation' (which also comes up in some TRAs' bandied 'refusal to apply for a GRC' ) - it also has a whiff of 'freeman of the land', doesn't it? Hyper libertarianism for barely literate folk? )

The other thing to point out is where the underlying idea of 'coercively assigned female at birth' will logically lead. And yes beadadorsrock 'hyperlibertarian for barely literate folk' is spot on.

The NUS says "We are also calling for an end to coercively assigning gender at birth, and an end to gatekeeping of gender identity and experience by the state." I take that as saying they want an end to any record of whether a baby is male or female (because the baby can't decide) - a big hole in the baby's medical file. A big hole in population data collected to shape public policy …. And that's what the NUS will put in their response to the GRA consultation.

The WHO growth charts are different for boys & girls. What on Earth do the NUS suggest we do instead? Allow babies to fail to thrive?

They need to have a conversation about it over a cup of tea with their mum.

We are also calling for an end to coercively assigning gender at birth

Good idea. Just note the baby's sex, and then don't allow anyone to impose gender stereotypes on her or him. I'm not sure how that can be done in practice though - check the parents don't have disproportionate numbers of blue or pink babygros?

FFS.

It's an example of giving them an inch and they take a mile. They started with 'assigned at birth', now it's 'coercively assigned at birth'. What next I wonder?