Assigned at birth

[HDDD]

I have a real issue with this phrase. It seems to have crept into common parlance. I've just read it in a news report on SKY. I've seen it in a questionnaire I had to fill in for my local authority. It was in the charity commission doc about LGBA.
It's blatantly not true. Sex is observed, not assigned. I get that some people will 'identify' as different to their sex as observed at birth. I feel the need to 1. collect instances of use of the phrase 2. challenge use of the phrase. Anyone with me?

Too*

The language around this topic is just packed with nonsense and internal contradiction. Sex isn’t ‘assigned’, because being ‘trans’ (in terms of the claim itself) isn’t a claim that you should have been ‘assigned’ the other sex, it’s a claim of incongruence between some internal idea of gender ‘identity’ (which is claimed to be innate, but for some reason, can also be ‘fluid, or you can deny you have a gender, and then you are ‘agender’, but it’s not clear, then, why women are called TERFs for denying they have this innate ‘identity’), and your recognised biological sex.

Gender identity is just one of thousands of sex characteristics.

No it isn’t. The only people who feel they have one are a subsection of the people who claim they are the opposite sex. I suspect it’s a psychological disorder created by confusion when children are at the stage of forming an understanding of who they are, most likely related to negative experiences associated with their actual sex.

Gender identity has no more been proven to exist than the soul has been proven to exist. It certainly is nothing to do with sex characteristics.

When allocating sex, GC people sometimes prioritise gametes, sometimes gonads, sometimes chromosomes, sometimes socialisation - kind of depends which one you ask, and when you ask them,

Sex is recognized based upon a number of biological markers. Generally at birth (assuming it hasn’t been diagnosed before that point) the genitalia are sufficient for identification of sex. Occasionally further tests are required. Sex was recognized and recorded long before anyone knew about chromosomes or even gametes. Current knowledge has increased our understanding of biological sex, but the idea that only GC people accept the biology of sex as a perfectly normal concept is as ludicrous as the suggestion that everyone has a gender identity and that somehow that is a sex characteristic.

no circular arguments are required.
Not sure how this relates to the rest of your statement, but obviously the definition of woman I mentioned in a previous comment is 100% circular.

Gender identity is just one of thousands of sex characteristics.

I mean, I’m all up for new knowledge, but it does actually have to have evidence attached to it. I don’t mind if this is true. I mind that it’s not proven and there are people demanding I believe it anyway.

A call for evidence to back up the fantasies stated as fact?

"When allocating sex, GC people sometimes prioritise .....socialisation"

What? How much socialisation has a new-born baby done? Or are we allocating all the time? "here's a sex for you and here's a sex for you"

"When allocating sex, GC people sometimes prioritise .....gonads"
Seems a bit out of kilter with gametes and chromosomes, do you mean genitals?

No one says your baby has a vagina.

That would involve a pretty invasive check around-.

Not sure why but their external genitals are really obvious. Especially scrotum. I mean a glance is all it takes. The difference is pretty bleedin obvious and continues to be.

Nope assigned because.. let's piggyback on the genuine issues of the small number of people with DSDs, nick their language, and pretend it has anything to do with the vast majority of trans people

When I had my babies the NHS blurb said I should include on my birth plan whether we parents wanted to discover our baby's sex or whether we wanted the midwife to. This absolutely puts pay to the ridiculous statement that 'Doctors assign gender at birth'.

That's a thought. All those people "hoping for a girl next time" just need to assign differently. Why does it cause so much agony and debate.

I had no idea about this either, but apparently yes, different milk for infant boys and girls. Opposite sex twins end up shorter than same sex twins if breastfed because the milk isn't tailored to them. The difference disappears if they aren't breastfed. Really interesting research here: milkgenomics.org/article/twin-study-suggests-moms-make-sex-specific-milk/

'Allocated' is maybe a shade even worse than 'assigned' for inaccuracy and false implication.

Observed, or as someone mentioned below from some evidently more sensible NHS blurb. 'Discovered' are accurate, completely neutral terms.

I dislike the term unless it’s being used properly - ie for babies born with a DSD. I find the attempt by some trans people to steal the language associated with people with DSDs very offensive.

Sex is observed in 99.98% of births. It’s what you are.

@NiceGerbil

No one says your baby has a vagina.

That would involve a pretty invasive check around-.

Not sure why but their external genitals are really obvious. Especially scrotum. I mean a glance is all it takes. The difference is pretty bleedin obvious and continues to be.

Nope assigned because.. let's piggyback on the genuine issues of the small number of people with DSDs, nick their language, and pretend it has anything to do with the vast majority of trans people

Quite and especially when birth is attended by generally experienced medical staff! The exception might be guinea pigs - we had a lot of trouble sexing ours and had to seek specialist help! But they generally dont worry about the possibility of having thousands of gender identities. What a load of old b......

“ 'Allocated' is maybe a shade even worse than 'assigned' for inaccuracy and false implication.”

Sexes will be allocated on arrival

Gender identity is just one of thousands of sex characteristics.

Tosh. Gender identity is a belief system - nothing more, nothing less.

As a retired doctor, I am thoroughly sick of this nonsense. The TRAs are very obviously trying to devalue “sex” to make it a meaningless label arbitrarily attached at birth, so they can elevate “gender identity” to be more important.
Thankfully their laughable ideology does not withstand the most cursory exposure to scientific facts.
Sex is fixed at conception for life. No human has ever changed sex. No matter how much cosmetic surgery or opposite sex hormone treatment they engage in. They can only “present” in the cultural stereotypes of the opposite sex.
If they would accept this, and live happily in their chosen presentation, without trying to invade women’s single sex spaces or claim to actually be women, the world would be the better for it.

Eurgh its ridiculous isn't it. No mention of gender at birth, either medically or on birth certificates etc, they are observing the biological sex.

And "assigned at birth" is not synonymous with "sex" anyway.

We're currently discussing Caster Semenya on another thread. Semenya was "assigned female at birth", but is actually male.

Our position is not that women's sport is only for those assigned female at birth. That would permit Semenya.

It's that women's sport is only for those who are actually female.

@EyesOpening

"When allocating sex, GC people sometimes prioritise .....socialisation"

What? How much socialisation has a new-born baby done? Or are we allocating all the time? "here's a sex for you and here's a sex for you"

"When allocating sex, GC people sometimes prioritise .....gonads"
Seems a bit out of kilter with gametes and chromosomes, do you mean genitals?

bloody hell, I've just found out women have gonads too, now I feel stupid!

Maybe just have to have a birth certificate saying XY or XX blood test.

Then what could be said?

Not caught up.

Because if you're having blood tests done on all newborns it would open up to have lots of other tests which would be a can of worms best left closed.

That I'm not sure that complex DSDs can be picked up from a blood test- does anyone know?

That taking blood from a baby if you don't need to is not a good thing (pain).

That the possible results of the thing(s) tested for- and it would become a tranche of tests I'm sure- would be stressful for the parents.

What would it mean for babies born all over the world where this was not done? For a host of reasons.

What would it mean in countries where certain things are less acceptable etc... What is it opening the doors to and what could it mean in practice?

I think it would need gene sequencing (could well be wrong on this) and that's very expensive. So while you're there what other genes are you going to look for.

Terrible idea.

And not sure why it's needed apart from in cases where sex is not clear. And even then it might push things back to the type of 'corrective' surgery when a tiny baby that people with DSDs have been campaigning against for ages.

'Gender identity is just one of thousands of sex characteristics. When allocating sex, GC people sometimes prioritise gametes, sometimes gonads, sometimes chromosomes, sometimes socialisation - kind of depends which one you ask, and when you ask them, but trans inclusive people tend to prioritise gender identity.'

Just to post that comment again.

It's fascinating really.

The thread is about newborns.

'GC' people don't have control of the global birth records

I mean unless you mean the 99.99999% of the world population who knows what boy and girl means and when they say it about a new baby they're referring to sex... But it can't be that as were told frequently that most people are totally onboard with self ID etc

The fact that through human history everywhere it's been bleeding obvious the vast vast majority of the time what sex a baby was from a quick glance is... Not of consequence? Or, not and never was universal? To look at a baby and even from the beginning of humanity know if it was a boy or a girl?

This is now supposed to be an outlying and bigoted position?

That's pretty bold. All humans for thousands upon thousands of years have been sending babies incorrectly?

@NewlyGranny

If sex really were "assigned at birth" rather than determined at the moment of conception, how are "gender" reveal parties even possible? What is happening when people are told m or f at 20 week scans?

And why oh why did Henry VIII not just "assign" Elizabeth male at birth and live happily ever after?

Something - or the absence of something - must have stopped him... 🤔

Nursie had a great Blackadder line to this effect. Ending in "and then Sir Thomas Moore pointed out that a boy without a winkle was a girl - everyone was so disappointed..."