Response from health care service providers "assigned at birth"

[FernlovingNodosaur]

Can you please give your thoughts on this matter and if your smart wording/thinking could add anything to my response letter.

I complained via email because I very recently received an unsolicited advert from my major health care provider see below for company. About a serious sex based disease yet the advert used assigned at birth manta.

Their response email below:

Dear Ms

I'm emailing you in response to your complain on Wednesday 2nd November regarding your unhappiness that we make reference to the term "assigned at birth" rather than classifying a specific gender.
I apologise if it has caused you any offence - it is not the service that Babylon aim to deliver.
Our marketing team are using the term "assigned at birth" to cause minimal offence to our many patients and we will be continuing to use this term. Unfortunately, we can't adapt marketing emails individually to each person's gender and have to use a neutral term.
If you have any further queries, please let me know.
Cheers,
Clinical Operations Team Leader.
**

And moving on.

I think my other posts discussing the use of this 'term' may have clarified my point.

This scenario sounds very unlikely.

Discoveread your straw man definition is completely wrong, btw.

it’s not

‘a weak or
sham argument that is easily refuted’

it’s actually

‘an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument’.

(see screenshots)

They signed off "cheers"? Cheers???!! Wtaf is that about???

And the same arguments against using the terms 'assigned [sex] at birth' can be then applied to :

"People with internal reproductive organs"

This is a new one. Used on a sign in an NHS hospital department.

"people with a cervix'

A survey discovered that close to 50% of women did not know what a cervix actually was.

There is a whole slew of these variations floating around that are nothing to do with a term (assigned [sex] at birth) that has been used within a specific very small group (just pointing out again for 0.018% of the population) and everything to do with an all or nothing approach that has been denied came from Stonewall by Nancy Kelley.

So where did it come from? (not a topic for this thread, there has been enough derailing as it is and my apologies to OP)

@TheClogLady

Really you must expand your vocabulary because a sham argument is
“‘an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument’.”

My definition wasn’t wrong, it was simply a more concise definition. 🤣

Now you are neglecting to point out that the person engaged in constructing the sham argument was YOU!

My definition wasn’t wrong, it was simply a more concise definition

Your definition wasn’t ‘more concise’ it was a deliberate obfuscation of the term.

To clarify, you positioned yourself as refuting OPs argument re: clear comms in health related emails from healthcare providers by saying ‘it’s just a question on a form’

but the OP wasn’t talking about a question on a form.

The straw man (definition: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument) in this scenario was you pretending ‘it’s just a question on a form’.

so even in your concise (and thus inaccurate) definition, ‘a weak, sham argument’ the person making the sham argument was you.

OP wasn’t talking about a question on a form and you misrepresented her position in order to be able to dismiss it with a weak, sham argument.

HTH.

TheClogLady

Ahh. Clog. When I saw this rabbit hole, I decided to avoid it because it is really just further sparpling. But yes. You have parsed this correctly in my opinion.

@TheClogLady
oh my goodness. Using the word sham argument isn’t an obfuscation. There you go again using words you do not understand.

To clarify, you positioned yourself as refuting OPs argument re: clear comms in health related emails from healthcare providers by saying ‘it’s just a question on a form’. Lol nice try. By the 3rd post on page 1 of the thread your lot had already positioned yourself into a discussion of sex assigned at birth by midwives and through chromosome tests of babies to put on birth certificates, and how your consensus is that “assigned” is incorrect terminology and would cause mass confusion.

This thread departed from the OPs advert long loooong before I joined in. So you cannot lay your strawman at my door. 🤣

you are officially making yourself look silly now!

you are obfuscating by using a ‘concise’ definition for straw man that omits the key part* of what the phrase describes, the misrepresentation of the opponents argument^

a common or garden weak, sham argument isn’t a straw man, it’s just a weak, sham argument,

‘But they did it first!’ Is a weak, sham argument that doesn’t meet the straw man definition.

HTH!

@TheClogLady
How embarrassing for you that don’t know what a sham argument is. Sham argument includes arguments that misrepresent the opponents argument as it means any argument that is not genuine in any way. So, no it doesn’t exclude any “key parts” of the verbose explanatory definition you cut and paste from Wikipedia.

But they did it first!’ Is a weak, sham argument that doesn’t meet the straw man definition.

You have created yet another pop up strawman. I didn’t say “they did it first”- that wasn’t my argument. I said, the fact your side set up a strawman at the very beginning of the thread that I hours and hours later demolished, means that I did not create the strawman in the first place so you cannot lay your side’s strawman at my door.

I feel like I’m in that old cow riding video game constantly running over strawmen/scarecrows you keep flinging into my path.

The whole things just daft anyway

people with vaginas
people with internal reproductive systems
people with cervixes

eleventy billion ways of describing females without saying females

i wouldn’t have a massive issue with women, transmen and non binary OR female

but the twisting and turning to NOT say female/woman is just ridiculous….people actually get paid to come up with this stuff!

Thanks to everyone who contributed. Ladyof2022 I do have acknowledged problems with English grammar/spelling and constructing sentences, that's why I asked this board and it's smart and English savvy women. Fortunately I am considered a good orator, otherwise my confidence to express myself would have taken a bit of dent after your post.

I saw one last week that was partners with eggs!

Err... what? Does that also include males with nits or worm eggs? males who are carrying groceries? males who have just eaten eggs?

I think that marketing newbies and creative agencies are just trying to come up with new and imaginative ways to get around the terms that woman have loudly said 'fuck off with that crap!' and are just getting more and more detached from humanity.

But in the spirit of this thread that got stuck on the post about maddies nephew, "people with internal reproductive systems" is including any male that may still retain their internal testes.

I mean, if we are being told that we have to change the language to suit the half of 0.018% (0.009%) of the population. Let's point out how terms like 'people with internal reproductive systems' are then including people who shouldn't be included.

Helleofabore. It's crazy, that they tie themselves up in linguistic knots, when simply clear words will do.

I just can't get over it really. Why wouldn't you have/use a word to identify the female sex class? How on earth would the benefits of having that word not outweigh any disadvantages?

Many brands are trying very hard to not offend and to remain neutral. They are likely to get blow back from groups whatever they do.

The email that OP received was blatantly 'our marketing team has decided and there will be no alternative information considered so don't bother, just suck it up.' This is also quite poor communication from any brand. And it is worse considering it is a health organisation.

They are likely to get blow back from groups whatever they do.

No. That is not quite right .

They could choose additive language and that would upset far fewer people.

But they haven't. It could well be that one of their objectives is virtue signal as well and we shouldn't lose sight of that.

We would not call this particular patient a man, because sex chromosomes are not the endpoint of sex development.

Well @CharlieParley it seems some of the posters on here would classify this person as a man. So even gender critical people can't agree on a functional definition of sex when it is ambiguous.

For those interested here is a consensus statement from clinicians outlining both the treatment and gender assignment of intersex children: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082839/

"Initial gender uncertainty is unsettling and stressful for families. Expediting a thorough assessment and decision is required. Factors that influence gender assignment include the diagnosis, genital appearance, surgical options, need for life long replacement therapy, the potential for fertility, views of the family, and sometimes the circumstances relating to cultural practices. More than 90% of 46,XX CAH patients41 and all 46,XY CAIS assigned females in infancy42 identify as females. Evidence supports the current recommendation to raise markedly virilised 46,XX infants with CAH as female.43 Approximately 60% of 5α‐reductase (5αRD2) deficient patients assigned female in infancy and virilising at puberty (and all assigned male) live as males.5 In 5αRD2 and possibly 17β‐hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (17βHSD3) deficiencies, where the diagnosis is made in infancy, the combination of a male gender identity in the majority and the potential for fertility (documented in 5αRD2, but unknown in 17βHSD3) should be discussed when providing evidence for gender assignment.5,44,45 Among patients with PAIS, androgen biosynthetic defects, and incomplete gonadal dysgenesis, there is dissatisfaction with the sex of rearing in about 25% of individuals, whether raised male or female."

Etc etc. It's complicated, and a range of factors are used to assign sex with the aim of making an assignation which matches whatever the gender identity of the child turns out to be. It's not done the way people here claim which renders many of the arguments on this thread redundant.

That's from 2006. Is it still pertinent?

And here is livvy still politicising people's rare medical conditions to score points.

Has anyone here said '100% of people can be categorised into male or female'? I haven't, has anyone else?

You are still using a group of people to attempt to destabilise the robust and proven concepts of male and female. You have been called out on it and still persist.

And I agree with damehelena. 2006 is a lifetime in regards to the ability to categorise children into sex classes.

It's not done the way people here claim which renders many of the arguments on this thread redundant.

Can you please be very specific as to what process you think posters have said is being used?

Because I think you are still operating under your own prejudiced views about the beliefs of posters on this board.

I'm not sure if Livvy has grasped that 46XX and 46XY are an absolutely tiny subset of the wider DSDs. Only about 500 individuals have ever been recorded with this particular disorder.

Is no-one going to comment on how this so called professional signed off with "Cheers" in a formal letter. 😭😭 I can't.

I presume you mean in the UK. This paper puts the prevalence at 6.4 per 100,000: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27603905/

"people with internal reproductive systems" doesn't work either.

In both sexes part of the reproductive system in internal and part is external.

In females most is internal to the torso but there's the vulva, the "outer part of the female genitals" as one site puts it.

In males a good deal is external to the torso, but the seminal vesicle, prostate gland and part of the associated plumbing in internal.