Jump to content

Talk:Gender identity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ejgrimm (talk | contribs) at 17:08, 28 October 2022 (Update LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research assignment details). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aledlc19 (article contribs).

Use of "assigned" throughout

The consensus is against the proposal.

Cunard (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The use of the phrase "assigned at birth" and "assigned sex" is redundant and implies that there can be a different sex from the one a person is born with. Bypassing any opinions on "gender" as it is used in this article, it is biologically impossible to change one's sex. There is a WP article on this distinction (again, I am writing this in terms of the current WP world and do not intend to make a political/moral statement about this topic).

I move and RfC that the statements containing these phrases should be reworded to reflect definition and the intended wikivoice here. An example:

"Different amounts of these male or female sex hormones within a person can result in behavior and external genitalia that do not match up with the norm of their sex assigned at birth."
To: "Different amounts of these male or female sex hormones within a person can result in behavior and external genitalia that do not match up with the normal attributes of their sex."

Again, even the WP article on assigned sex is about the determination of a person's sex, and this sex cannot change. Gender is a separate beast here. I do think that perhaps for wikilinking purposes, it can be included once in the article, but it makes no sense to me to have it repeated in this fashion over and over, especially given that it could confuse the uninitiated reader about the accepted distinction between gender and sex.

- Dmezh (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that even anatomical sex can be altered through hormones and surgery. Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The determination of sex at birth, as described in the article on Sex assignment, makes no argument about the ability to change sex, and is relevant to the article throughout. Replacing the term with simply "sex" reduces accuracy. For example, the article discusses the gender identities of individuals assigned female at birth, with XY chromosomes, and lacking typical male anatomy. That is to say, their assigned sex, their chromosomal sex, and their anatomical sex are not all the same, and the sex as assigned at birth was relevant to the study. Removing mentions to it would be, frankly, egregiously non-neutral. --Equivamp - talk 01:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP articles need to reflect the reliable sources on their respective subject matter. In this case, the term used is "assigned sex" - there are reasons for this that so agree, including sex determination in intersex cases (roughly 1% of births) and "errors" - but even if I didn't agree with the usage, it would still be correct because it is used by essentially all recent, reliable sources on gender identity, or is also worth noting that the article on sex and gender outlines the terms of a debate; it does not outline pat definitions to be employed mechanically elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the correct solution here would be to replace "sex assigned at birth" with "gender assigned at birth". Changing it to just "sex" would probably be confusing, since people can change their sex (at least anatomically), thus a person's current sex may not be the same as their sex at birth (depending on which definition of "sex" you use). Kaldari (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't WP's job to replace the terminology used in Reliable Sources with something editors feel might be better. Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"...a person's current sex may not be the same as their sex at birth": which is one reason that the clarificatory "sex assigned at birth" is used... -sche (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up

The opinions above seem to overlook a key aspect: the phrase "sex assigned at birth" sounds bureaucratic (which it is) and incidental (which it is most likely not). The identity dissonance is between one's gender and their actual genitalia, in contrast to one's gender vs. the ink stains (i.e. male/female) on their birth certificate. For this reason I think it should be "sex assigned at birth". 166.48.82.76 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the reliable sources on the topic don't agree with you. Hmmm. What should we do? Newimpartial (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you have proven to be nothing but biased in your redaction of this topic. It is amusing to me that it is allowed for activists (LGBT) to edit and dictate what is written or not on this page. The criticism wikipedia has received regarding this matter has not been unfounded and is clearly visible here. The fact that there is no
criticisms page regarding this issue when public debate is at an all time high and there is clear division regarding this matter (both by the general public and professionals in the medical field) is both amusing and sad. I have read the talk page regarding this topic and the way editors are handling this issue gives clear indication of the leftist bias that has been reported throughput the media. I know this will be erased as will other matters regarding criticism of how this has been handled. For such reason I will be leaving Wikipedia behind and moving
to Britannica which multiple studies have found is a more objective and neutral source of information. I hope all the people here the best and may all of you learn that having a chokehold on how information is portrayed won’t change actual-factual truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.147.136 (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Criticisms section

There should be a criticisms section that outlines the main points of those who don’t subscribe to gender theory. 2607:FEA8:42E0:3840:1862:BAC1:F61A:8028 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello​! It's not typical for articles to include sections focusing exclusively on criticisms, as this often creates a point-of-view fork and a false balance. Rather, prominent viewpoints are generally incorporated alongside the material they discuss, when relevant.
The neutral point of view involves giving due weight to "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", without regard for the personal opinions ("original research") of editors like you or me.
Can you identify some sources which you think the article should reflect? To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "gender theory", but for the encyclopedia's purposes, the notion that gender (or gender identity, or gender as a social construct, or transgender people) are non-existent is a fringe theory, which will probably not be treated with equal validity in this article. Warm regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 04:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the entire page is based on the premise that gender identity is scientifically valid, where as it's only empirical and studies related to it blur the line with self-perception. Gender itself is a flawed theory so "gender identity" comes from stereotypes based on sex stereotypes and roles.
So yea, it does need a criticisms section, and MANY pages on here do.
Wikipedia is showing a clear bias and it's frankly unacceptable. Pianistinator (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And to add, your "reliable" sources are mostly from opinions, surveys, and even one article is the ideologically inclined "pink news". Pianistinator (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. All major medical organizations in the field recognize gender identity as an actual dimension of personality. This isn't a matter of opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism sections, do bring about a more balanced article. But, I'll leave that to the rest of you, to decide on how to handle that. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

Hello, you need to add that gender identity is a "Philosophical belief". It's not factual, and it's not scientifically valid as would be lead to believe reading this. We also have to weary for people who have ESL that they don't fall in to believing this is verified other than by empirical evidence. Wikipedia's biased stance towards this is frankly unacceptable. Pianistinator (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Cisgender sexuality" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cisgender sexuality and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 15#Cisgender sexuality until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 08:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with last sentence of the lead

The last sentence of the lead days,

The term gender identity was coined by psychiatry professor Robert J. Stoller in 1964 and popularized by psychologist John Money.

In a narrow sense, that is true, but it misses the story about what actually happened with the terms. Taking the narrow view, yes, the term gender identity was indeed coined by Stoller. But, the concept of gender identity was not created by Stoller, it had existed under another name for a decade already. In fact, it was defined by Money in 1955 under another name, namely, gender role. Money defined gender role very clearly and unambiguously in 1955 as the concept we now understand as "gender identity". Stoller correctly renamed the concept to gender identity, as Money's choice of words was confusing. Eventually, the term gender role morphed away from its original meaning as "gender identity", and took on the meaning it has today as societal expectations. In a nutshell, "gender identity" is owned and defined by a single individual; whereas "gender role" is owned and defined by society. Flip side: individuals don't have "gender roles" (well, not since Stoller, anyway), they have "gender identity", while society has "gender roles", but not a "gender identity".

So, back to that last sentence: I think we need to clarify the evolution of gender role away from its original meaning as defined by Money, and the term created by Stoller in 1964 to take the place of the term defined by Money in 1955. In sixty-plus years, no one has ever come up with a better definition for gender identity than the one Money came up with in 1955[107] even though he called it something else at the time. Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there's a half finished version of this story over at either Gender or Sex and gender distinction or both. I believe later scholars describe Money's "gender role" as "gender identity/role" (GI/R)  Tewdar  16:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding culture

How 2001:4453:57D:CF00:8D01:673:5736:7F0 (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a question? If so, it is not clear what it is or how it is relevant to this article. If you have a question or suggestion about this article then please explain what it is. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ejgrimm (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ejgrimm (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_identity&oldid=1118748815"