“Assigned at birth” - help me with the counter argument!

[CaveMum]

I’ve got into a discussion with a former colleague who is working on a “diversity and inclusion” policy for our industry as part of a “diversity steering group” set up by the industry governing body.

They’ve put together a learning pack (which I cannot access as I do not work in the appropriate area) but on Twitter I discovered that the very first question in the “Learning Pack” is “Sex is assigned at birth?” with a True/False option. Needless to say if you click on “False” you are told you are wrong.

I’ve raised the point that sex is observed and recorded at birth, not “assigned” and the rebuttal has come that it is a Government designated definition of sex. I was provided with a screenshot which I’ve since dug out as coming from the ONS.

My issue is that I’m having problems articulating why the phrase is problematic. No doubt it is another piece of Stonewall institutional capture and I’m pretty sure that the phrase is meaningless in terms of a legal definition of sex, but I need a coherent argument and evidence to back up why the phrase should not be used.

So far the topic of transgender has not come up, but I’m sure it will at some stage.

I did also mention that sex is determined at conception and that describing sex as “assigned” indicates ambiguity and that there is somehow choice in the matter.

Sex is assigned at conception; it's determined by chromosomes. If anyone could be said to be responsible for it, it's your dad, since his sperm are the ones that come in X and Y flavours.

The thing that's "assigned" at birth is a set of sex-stereotypes (aka gender) considered socially appropriate for the baby's sex. This is not assigned by midwives or doctors, but rather as a lifelong ongoing process by the family and the sociocultural context.

"Assigned at birth" is problematic because it's a) factually incorrect while also b) deliberately obfuscatory to further a political ideology.

It’s true in a tiny proportion of births, where genitalia are ambiguous due to disorders of sex development (Intersex disorders). They extrapolate from that to the majority of cases where it isn’t true because it suits transactivists.

Might be an idea to ask your former colleague if they can clarify the difference between sex (biological, chromosomes, phenotype, etc etc) and gender (sex stereotypes applied to individuals on the basis of their sex). Bet you a quid they're conflating the two.

The whole 'gender scan' business is built on observing the sex of the baby and no matter how nicely you ask, the midwife isn't going to assign a sex of your choosing when the baby is born. Perhaps that should be tried and a legal case mounted against the NHS if they won't.

It suggests that if a midwife isn’t available to fill out the forms then your baby will be left without a sex. Which is plainly ridiculous.

Assigning implies that someone is making a decision about the baby’s sex, whereas what is actually happening is that the sex is observed based on the genitals and nothing else, no one can assign a baby with a penis as female, they would be told they are incorrect based on the evidence in front of them.

"Sex assigned at birth" was originally used by some intersex people who were actually assigned a sex. Then others started to use it to be "inclusive" and not to "other" the people with an intersex condition who had undergone unnecessary genital surgery.

Sorry, not very helpful but it is a case where terminology was appropriated under the guise of inclusivity but has actually obscured the original issue.

Sex is observed before birth, which is relevant to both when treatment of fetal conditions in utero, and sex selection before birth.

But to reflect the ONS position she needs to put all three down, not just one. She's ignoring the first two - the ordinary, most common - in favour of the third - rare, and used in actuality where there is a DSD. Why? Why is she not including all three aspects? In most cases, it's very biologically clear whether someone is a boy or a girl, which is why we have scans in the womb telling people. The idea it isn't is just risible - if it weren't, how would we know the necessary pairing to have our own babies? Just idiocy that people seek to argue this. And as it happens, people with DSDs are still either male or female... and there is no overlap with being trans, either.

If she wants to use all three noted explanations, great. Cherry picking Stonewall's preferred one, and appending it to everyone, is just disingenous.

When I was pregnant with my daughter, I had a blood test at 10 weeks or so, which extracted feotal DNA and ran various tests to check for Patau, Down, Edwards syndromes etc. They also ran a chromosome test and told me she was a girl.

She was not 'assigned at birth'. She was independently confirmed to be female in the first trimester, via chromosomal sampling. Which was later confirmed by the 20 week scan (in fact it was apparently pretty clear at the 13 week scan - as was my son's sex, as that was when we were told he was a boy).

Basically, I think I would make the argument that it is incorrect based on the dictionary definition of assign, therefore would be confusing to people with English as a second language, people with low reading ability and people who have learning difficulties and it is best when writing anything for public consumption that it be as clear as possible so as not to cause confusion.

The correct argument is that legislation that has “assigned sex at birth” is poorly written and should be rewritten. It permeates legislation and it’s ridiculous.

Ask them:

How does the NIPT confirm the sex of fetuses?

How do sonographers do it before birth?

If a pregnant woman is stood before you, does the sex of the baby not exist yet, until the baby is born? At which point of the birthing process is the sex finalised?

It’s just nonsense, and the fact legislation says it doesn’t make it right, it just highlights a major error in the writing of such legislation.

I always think assigned at birth sounds like all the babies born on that day were lined up and randomly told that they are male or female like some kind of lottery which when you say it like that sounds ridiculous.

There are those with a difference of sexual development (DSD) or the old term intersex who may have been assigned a sex, but today with western medicine I doubt this happens as you have 6 weeks to register the birth so a chromosome test and ultra sound etc. could be carried out on the baby to determine sex before the baby is legally registered.

I would bring in the DSD argument and say how it is using them. People with DSD are very unique in their medical needs and it is an insult to suggest that the rest of us have these struggles.

Ok - the best argument I can think of which is likely to work is that they are confusing sex and gender. Sex is dictated by chromosomes and as Covid has shown, should not be treated as unimportant. If he wishes to go down this path he could put “gender is assigned at birth”. Which in my view is irrelevant unless the female baby is immediately given some housework to do but whatever

Sex is not assigned. It's biology.

Could she be persuaded to compromise on a statement that that "gender is assigned at birth" (...based on observed sex characteristics).

It's not just an arbitrary 50-50 lucky dip!

I always say that I don't understand the process of assigning sex at birth. Play dumb and pretend you don't understand the actual process. Say something like " So here is a newborn, just popped out, please describe the process that Drs/midwives etc do in order to assign sex. Ask them for a step be step breakdown of how it's done. Then when it comes to looking at the genitals part, say something like " so,sex is observed, then?".

Wild animals do not have their sex assigned at birth.

How are they reproducing?

For context ex-colleague is a gay male, he left our company last year to start a PHD, part of which is based around diversity within our industry, hence why he is part of the "Diversity Board".

Thanks very much for the points raised, you are all saying what I know but have been struggling to put articulately without shouting "Don't be stupid you idiot!"

He has said he will email me so I'm waiting to see what his points are.

merrymouse the ironic thing is that, without giving too much away, our industry is very dependent on the breeding of animals

I had NIPT at 10 weeks gestation. They told me she was a girl when she was the size of a strawberry. At the 12 week scan they pointed out her ovaries. How is that possible if it's only assigned at birth?
At her birth the midwife merely observed that her external sex characteristics were aligned with expectations of a female baby.
If anyone says the assigned nonsense to me I will just repeat the above.

If it could be assigned at birth surely the baby girls that are killed just for being girls could be assigned as boys then they could be saved

Try that one on him

My DH has a serious genetic condition that is vastly more common in boys than girls (inherited from xx carriers on the X chromosome). His sister is a carrier. She did ivf to ensure that she only had children with xx chromosomes (I.e girls). The biological sex of the embryo was able to be ascertained before implantation.

Even the Guardian style guide uses "observed at birth" now. It's terminology stolen from people with DSDs.

unwanted.interactivethings.io/#/

The word assigned implies that the assigner has some kind of input into the outcome.
When in reality sex is determined at conception, in some cases it’s confirmed before birth by testing such as amniocentesis.
It’s a biological reality of observation, except for a very small number of babies who are born with disorders of sex development or intersex, and it’s a bit more difficult. This has been appropriated to apply to all births. However there are a number of individuals personally affected by these disorders who strongly disagree with this and you could point him in the direction of them for a better understanding of the issues.