Assigned female at birth

gender, sex ....still used interchangeably in order to confuse. Is gender recorded any where, isn't it sex on your birth certificate and medical records? Who gives a toss what gender, if any, you claim to have?

Bridgeit

Why not say at birth , - gender to be ascertained - when non -discript newly birthed human person reaches adulthood & can choose for themselves, possibly depending on the day of the week. Yes I am being fascitious .( have I spelt, spelled , that correctly?)
People IMO already accept folks for who or what they are , our want to be , please let’s drop the labels altogether.

Actually Bridgeit it is proposed in some places that gender shouldn't be assigned at birth but should be a choice. Sex would be on medical records but nowhere else.

*in each hand should read her hands

Doodledog

How does anyone 'assign' a gender at birth? Is there a quota system to ensure that reproduction continues at the desired rate?

Yep my midwife niece goes out into the community, or into the delivery suite with blue labels and pink ones. Hides one of each in each hand and gets the mother to pick a hand, she likes to involve them in the assigning. Of course, if too many pinks are randomly picked she cheats and puts a blue in both hands

How does anyone 'assign' a gender at birth? Is there a quota system to ensure that reproduction continues at the desired rate?

that in fact is why we need assigned female atbirth to ensure they are reached.

How about females including transmen and non-binary ? That is factual, everyone with a cervix is covered by that, nobody omitted.
I'd still prefer women.
In the format used why assigned which is incorrect, why not observed, which is factual?

trisher we need assigned female atbirth to ensure they are reached
Is that the royal we or are you purporting to speak for everyone?
With repect, you don’t!

argymargy

@Doodledog I no longer know which side I'm on here and which posters are pro or anti, however I disagree with this:

There is no need for anyone to say or do anything. As I said upthread, all that needs to happen is that everyone is invited to come in for a smear test.

As I think we previously agreed, the language included in this invitation is both unnecessarily confusing and potentially offputting. Cervical screening only reaches around 75% of eligible women/persons and the NHS should be making every effort to entice the 25% who don't take it up. Using uncommon (for many) phrases like "assigned female at birth" is not helpful, so for that reason someone DOES need to do something.

Do you have any evidence about the people who are not taking up the test argymargy is it possible that a large proportion of them are transmen or non-binary and that in fact is why we need assigned female atbirth to ensure they are reached.

argymargy

@Doodledog I no longer know which side I'm on here and which posters are pro or anti, however I disagree with this:

There is no need for anyone to say or do anything. As I said upthread, all that needs to happen is that everyone is invited to come in for a smear test.

As I think we previously agreed, the language included in this invitation is both unnecessarily confusing and potentially offputting. Cervical screening only reaches around 75% of eligible women/persons and the NHS should be making every effort to entice the 25% who don't take it up. Using uncommon (for many) phrases like "assigned female at birth" is not helpful, so for that reason someone DOES need to do something.

Yes, you are right. What I meant was that there is no need for terms line ‘assigned female at birth’, as they muddy the waters and may deter people who have always been known as ‘women’.

Why not say at birth , - gender to be ascertained - when non -discript newly birthed human person reaches adulthood & can choose for themselves, possibly depending on the day of the week. Yes I am being fascitious .( have I spelt, spelled , that correctly?)
People IMO already accept folks for who or what they are , our want to be , please let’s drop the labels altogether.

@Doodledog I no longer know which side I'm on here and which posters are pro or anti, however I disagree with this:

There is no need for anyone to say or do anything. As I said upthread, all that needs to happen is that everyone is invited to come in for a smear test.

As I think we previously agreed, the language included in this invitation is both unnecessarily confusing and potentially offputting. Cervical screening only reaches around 75% of eligible women/persons and the NHS should be making every effort to entice the 25% who don't take it up. Using uncommon (for many) phrases like "assigned female at birth" is not helpful, so for that reason someone DOES need to do something.

Well put Chewbacca.

It seems to depend on the interpretation of goading

Just asking, is goading one of the things some posters will get you banned for?

Does that give me any rights to deny other people a different experience?

Not at all. But then other people's experiences shouldn't impact negatively on the rest of society, particularly those members of society who have vulnerabilities i.e. women who need the safety and sanctuary of safe places such as refuges, hospitals and prisons. Nor should those experiences impact in such a way that the word "woman" is removed from health advisory literature, feminine products etc. Nor should those experiences impact on competitive sports where women are being told that their competitors are biologically bigger, stronger and more muscular. Nor should it impact on crime reportage so that the stats are skewed to demonstrate that men are committing fewer sexually motivated crimes whilst "women" are committing more.

Other than that, I agree, live as you like.

Indeed it is. Which is why so many feminists oppose having the language mangled.

I know it seems trivial to a lot of people, but I really feel that words matter, and that it is worth making a fuss about this sort of thing. Saying that 'gender is assigned at birth' is buying into a dangerous agenda, and I will not have it applied to me.

Doodledog

You haven't answered the question, though.

If there is a group of people which comprises two subsets, and one of those subsets comprises 99% of the total number and the other makes up 1%, and if language is deemed to 'negatively impact' one or other of these subsets, which would you choose to impact?

Or put another way, would you put the rights of transmen over those of women in this circumstance, and if so, why?

I think language should be inclusive (I do remember when any reference to a person in general in any document always used "he") and therefore I would use language which encompassed both so if some wanted "woman" and some"assigned at birth" I'd use them both.
One person's rights do not need to take precedence over another's. That's the patriarchal conditioning kicking in.

No.

But nobody is saying that you should have that right, are they?

I know there are a few "pseudo" trans women.. using that identity to to behave inappropriately towards women. But as trans figures are tiny compared to the total population that must be an even tinier number. Live & let live I was born with female sexual organs & have lived my life as a woman& identify strongly as a woman. Does that give me any rights to deny other people a different experience?

You haven't answered the question, though.

If there is a group of people which comprises two subsets, and one of those subsets comprises 99% of the total number and the other makes up 1%, and if language is deemed to 'negatively impact' one or other of these subsets, which would you choose to impact?

Or put another way, would you put the rights of transmen over those of women in this circumstance, and if so, why?

Chewbacca

^I just wonder how many groups of women can be ruled out .^

The only thing that can mark what the right type is are a bodies genomes trisher. Nothing can alter them; nothing can change them, no chemical intervention or external presentation - they are what they are. And that's been said over and over again. They are immutable. Period.

But no one has checked mine as far as I know. I have given birth but I don't think they checked my genomes. Does that mean I don't qualify as a woman again? Do I have to have them checked to make sure? I'm apparently a bad woman because I'm an intersectional feminist am I now a bad woman because my genomes haven't been checked?

I just wonder how many groups of women can be ruled out .

The only thing that can mark what the right type is are a bodies genomes trisher. Nothing can alter them; nothing can change them, no chemical intervention or external presentation - they are what they are. And that's been said over and over again. They are immutable. Period.

Doodledog

You know perfectly well that saying 'it is a statement of fact' is goading, trisher.

As to which women are negatively impacted - a statement like that negatively impacts those who are aware that sex differences are there at conception, and are not 'assigned'. Many people won't care, but many others are offended at the idea that someone else 'assigns' them a 'gender'.

As you know.

Given the small number of transmen compared to the number women in the population, it makes no logical sense to default to the language that suits the transmen. If women are not negatively impacted by language, why do you see transmen as being negatively impacted?

Which do you see as 'the wrong type of women' in this scenario?

Well I think transwomen are women and transmen are men Doodledog So I'm clear that everyone who identifies as a woman should be treated the same.
But some people believe transwomen are men and therefore that transmen are women, but women whose requests for inclusive language are ignored by other women so the wrong sort of women.
I've also posted earlier in this thread how terms of abuse such a mysogynistic and hating women have been used to myself and other intersectional feminists, so we are the wrong sort of women as well.
Oh and transwomen are the wrong sort of women as well.
I just wonder how many groups of women can be ruled out .

Ilovecheese

But it's not a fact though. Sex is observed at birth or even before, not "assigned"

So it's the semantics we are arguing over. Well although the sex may be observed it is perhaps the medical record that records the child's sex and that medical record assigns a sex to the child. Interestingly some countries now permit designations other than just male or female on birth certificates. In Australia
A March 2018 discussion paper produced by the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia recommended doing this on the basis that:
it is preferable to avoid conflating information about a person’s biological sex (recorded at birth) with information about a person’s gender identity (which cannot be known at birth and only becomes apparent at a later time when the child is able to form and articulate their own gender identity)
Medical records still record the person's sex.

You know perfectly well that saying 'it is a statement of fact' is goading, trisher.

As to which women are negatively impacted - a statement like that negatively impacts those who are aware that sex differences are there at conception, and are not 'assigned'. Many people won't care, but many others are offended at the idea that someone else 'assigns' them a 'gender'.

As you know.

Given the small number of transmen compared to the number women in the population, it makes no logical sense to default to the language that suits the transmen. If women are not negatively impacted by language, why do you see transmen as being negatively impacted?

Which do you see as 'the wrong type of women' in this scenario?