Talk:Irreversible Damage/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Assigned Female At Birth"

The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it. It is nonsense as an "objective" statement of fact; biological sex is not "assigned" by anybody (doctor or Sorting Hat), it is observed, often well before birth. The only exception is for extremely rare intersex conditions where the sex is ambiguous. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but both the CDC and NHS disagree with you. I would recommend that you the Sex assignment article to see an overview how the terminology is currently used by medical professionals and researchers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: random question doesn’t assigned sex basically mean observing the genitals and say “it’s a boy”.CycoMa (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

From Sex assignment: "Assignment may be done prior to birth through prenatal sex discernment. In the majority of births, a relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered and sex is assigned without ambiguity." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: you forgot the first sentence that says.

Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the discernment of an infant's sex at birth.

Yeah that kinda sounds the definition of sex assignment I was saying.CycoMa (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"Assigned" is a silly word for that; "observed" would make more sense. But that wouldn't accomplish the ideological objective of forcing everybody to think of it as if it's an arbitrary assignment instead of a biological fact. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Dtobias, "Observed gender at birth" finds 0 results on Google Scholar and 6 on Google while "assigned gender at birth" finds 823 and 37,000 respectively. Many of the cited sources use the term "assigned gender at birth" while none use the term "observed gender at birth". Independent of whether "assigned gender at birth" is suitable terminology to use, "observed gender at birth" absolutely isn't, since essentially inventing our own jargon would run counter to the purpose of Wikipedia.

More broadly speaking, I notice that you've been involved in discussions about this on this talk page before, and brought up many of the same things, including the cute Sorting Hat reference. You've repeatedly been directed to Wikipedia articles and other sources which indicate that much of what you're saying is either untrue or logically flawed, and you've found no consensus to make any changes (nor, as far as I've seen, have you explicitly suggested any). Now, in addition to repeating the same argument, you seem to be accusing unnamed editors of having an ideological objective of forcing everybody to think a certain way. Out of a genuine desire for productive discussion, I hope you'll think carefully about your path forward here. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: while I'm not a midwife, doctor, or parent, that is my understanding of how it works at least simplistically. Outside of circumstances where some form of genetic testing is done prior to or shortly after birth, it is assigned based genitalia either via ultrasound some time after the 12th week, or via visual inspection at the time of birth. The Sex assignment article would be the place to start if you want to understand it further. Why do you ask? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: honestly this chat is being WP:NOTFORUM Op didn’t even provide sources. Also they don’t really know what assigned sex means.CycoMa (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: yeah that is true. Question took me aback is all, that'll teach me to edit before bedtime! Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m probably just gonna collapse this discussion until someone provides sources or actually learns what assigned sex means.CycoMa (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• The saying appears in few or no sources on the topic of this book. This book is about children of the female sex. The phrase "assigned female at birth", in contexts like these, often functions as an ideologically-laden euphemism that converts a material fact into a mere arbitrary social convention and pushes it into the distant past - at birth - rather than something that exists in the present. While it is true that persons are placed into a male or female category when born by medical professionals who observe what they are, and that "assign" has at times been historically used to refer to this process, humans are also literally of a particular sex, same as any other mammal. Of course, we wouldn't refer to the individuals in questions as girls in wikivoice either, not only per GENDERID but because this likewise conflates sex and gender just like the "assigned at birth" euphemism does. It would be far better and more neutral to our readers to reword this as an attribution to Shrier. Use of this phrase results in controversy every time it happens because the meaning of "assign" used here is bizarre and contrary to its use in WP:PLAINENGLISH. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Updated Crossroads ^-talk- 03:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  Crossroads, in past discussions of this issue I've had trouble understanding how the disputed content could be reworded as an attribution in a neutral way. If you have proposed wording, or at least a general idea of how it might be worded, would you mind sharing? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  We can simply change Shrier states that there was a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among teenagers assigned female at birth[note 1] during the 2010s to not truncate the quote; like this: According to Shrier, there was a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls" during the 2010s. Then change She describes what she sees as difficulties facing teenagers who were assigned female at birth:[note 1] isolation, online social dynamics, restrictive gender and sexuality labels, unwelcome physical changes and sexual attention. to According to Shrier, teenage girls face isolation, online social dynamics, restrictive gender and sexuality labels, unwelcome physical changes and sexual attention.. We could even put quotes around "teenage girls" if we must. But either way, it is attributed as Shrier's view. Putting 'assigned at birth' completely garbles what is being said to the point of meaninglessness. Her whole philosophy is that the individuals in question were girls to begin with and that they all have this in common, and that these difficulties motivate 'escaping'. I see no reason to sanitize this. We don't in the other sentences. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  Misgendering trans boys, even in an attributed quote, does not help make this article more neutral. I think you are right to point out the inconsistency in the way other sentences treat this issue. I would advocate for a solution oriented in the other direction: we should elide and rephrase the other sentences. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  The book isn't about trans boys per se. Aside from them, and non-binary persons, it discusses detransitioners quite a bit, as well as those who felt gender-related issues but never actually identified outside of female. Would those latter groups call themselves "assigned" female? Doubtful. It's not that other sentences conflict directly; what I mean is that the article in general accurately relays the views of the book and its reviewers, except for these two spots. I don't see how relaying Shrier's views accurately reflects on anyone but her or implies anything outside of that. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with Crossroads here--in the passage above we are mixing up the meaning of Shrier's words currently and it would be better to directly quote her or if we paraphrase her paraphrase in a way that is more true to her words. More generally, the term "natal female" would be a more neutral term than AFAB. - Pengortm (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  I have no reason to believe that women who have detransitioned, or cisgender girls/women with gender dysphoria, would deny their being assigned female at birth or reject the label. I do have reason to believe that trans boys would reject the label girls, and Shrier is absolutely (though not exclusively) discussing trans boys. As for your point about relating Shrier's views, I agree in part. That said, our willingness to uncritically relay Shrier's views in the lead is an NPOV problem, and that does reflect poorly on us. I find your suggested change to worsen that problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  Many detransitioners, and those who did not consider transition to be the way to go, don't consider their sex to be a mere assignment. But in any case, you did inspire me to try to combine some of the lead material and sidestep one of the uses of the controversial turn of phrase. This is the result, and I think that this could be quite agreeable. Hopefully. I see no problem with it, anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't see this as I was posting my comment below. Now, CycoMa has reverted your change without explanation...

  CycoMa? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think Crossroads' recent edit addresses Dtobias/Dan T.'s objection and is neutral to negligibly positive on my end. If there are other editors who agree that there's an issue with affording Shrier's views too much uncritical publication in the lead, it might help to discuss in a separate section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Just so it is clear, I do not see any consensus emerging in the above section for this edit. Agreement by Firefangledfeathers does not equal consensus, and the previous text (including "assigned female at birth") emerged from the long discussion in Archive 5 of this Talk page. Crossroads, your BOLD "shortening" is not supported by consensus here, or by WP:ONUS, or by BRD, so you really ought to self-report until WP:CON is met. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Replying up here is confusing. My reply to this is below; please keep future comments down there so this isn't a tangled mess. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I placed this comment here because you were repeatedly claiming, apparently based on this fragment of the discussion, that there was consensus for your edit, even though I see no evidence for that claim based on this portion and even less plausibility for it when following the discussion to the end. But substantive discussion can certainly take place below. And the "tangled mess" this time was here before I arrived. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Seriously it feels like y’all aren’t trying to help the article. Please try to discuss ways to help the article or else I’m gonna collapse this article for WP:NOTFORUM. This your last chance.CycoMa (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't do that. There's a specific wording/content discussion now. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: fine I’ll give this discussion a chance. But if I see one more case of WP:NOTFORUM it’s collapse time.CycoMa (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Crossroads, it looks to me as though Dan's (largely FORUM) comment has provoked you to rehash your (rejected) argument, which dominates Archive 5 of this talk page, that "sex assigned at birth" is a POV term. You haven't had much success with that argument, but I admit that this page has too few participants to make a clear determination anyway. I suggest that you take it to WP:NPOVN rather than rehashing it here, again and again. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

References

I agree with Newimpartial here, and fully support their and CycoMa's reverts. Sex assigned at birth is the terminology that's appropriate here, as it is used within the medical field. If Crossroads or *Dan T.* has a problem with that, then WP:NPOVN seems like the appropriate forum to discuss it as it will affect multiple articles across the site.

I also think the use of the term "social contagion" in the lead is giving too much weight to a theory that is subject to heavy controversy (ROGD), and isn't supported, discussed, or criticised in the article body at least as far as I can tell. It's also important to point out that the theory has been pretty widely denounced and discredited by other researchers in that field. I haven't had a chance to read through all the talk archives yet though to find out if this has already been discussed and consensus established on it. If you're aware of prior discussion so I can get up to speed quickly, I'd appreciate a link. Otherwise I'll be archive diving for a while. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: ROPD technically speaking hasn’t been discredited it’s more in a situation where it isn’t recognized. There is a difference between something not being recognized and something being discredited. CycoMa (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Also with regards to assigned sex. I believe this all boils down to what sex assignment means. Although do vary what sex assignment means but sources I have read would tell you that technology sex assignment more accurately means writing the baby off as this sex or that sex. It doesn’t really mean what most people think it means.CycoMa (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Like the doctors written me off as a boy because they saw my genitals and said it’s a boy.CycoMa (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Irony of irony's here given that we're on Wikipedia, but uh [Citation needed] @CycoMa:. My understanding of the literature in the field, as well as recent media coverage of it, is that the theory is not taken seriously by any of the major transgender health organisations. WPATH in 2018 said "The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a medical entity recognized by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Therefore, it constitutes nothing more than an acronym created to describe a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation". AusPATH in 2019 said “The term ‘rapid onset gender dysphoria’ is not, and has never been, a diagnosis or health condition but has been used in a single report describing parental perception of their adolescent’s gender identity without exploration of the gender identity and experiences of the adolescents themselves,”. Of course discussions of this nature are almost certainly better suited to the ROGD talk pages, I'd still like to know what you're basing that claim on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: um according to the Wikipedia article on the topic there are researchers who are noticing a increase rise in transgender youth. Also judging by the article the topic seems to be way too politicized.CycoMa (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I'm aware of those discussions, however most credible researchers state this is more akin to increased numbers of homosexuals in the years after decriminalisation of homosexuality, left-handedness in the mid to late 20th century after school teachers stopped trying to force all children to be right handed through corporal punishment, or neurodiversities like ADHD and autism in the early 2000s. Rather than a social contagion, or as Schrier says something that vulnerable teens are self identifying with, it is merely a logical conclusion due to the wider acceptance and awareness of trans people in society. The current WPATH president has said that instead of being something rare, as it previously was thought, transgender should be seen as a normal variation in human expression, with as many as 1 in 100 now being recognised and identified as trans in some fashion.

Okay whoever you are please sign your comments. And just to make things clear what I said wasn't my interpretation, it was on the article for ROGD researchers have noticed a rise in transgender youth in recent years. Also, I recommend you read WP:NOTFORUM.CycoMa (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't quite follow you, CycoMa. What do you think most people think it means?

As far as ROGD is concerned, a wide variety of commentators - including ones with actual expertise in the field - recognize that self-reported gender dysphoria has increased in many places over the last 10 or 15 years, without subscribing to the tropes of ROGD (such as social contagion, etc.) as an explanation. I would also point out that an impartial observer would expect for detransition rates, broadly construed, to increase roughly in proportion to rates of reported gender dysphoria, which seems to be exactly what has happened and which therefore does not require an extra-wheel framework, like ROGD, to explain. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Like I said I believe the whole assigned sex thing just goes down to what they mean they say assigned sex.

But, to be brutally honest with you I don’t know what to think about that terminology anymore.CycoMa (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought the literature on assigned sex was pretty clear, tbh.

Anf as far as ROGD is concerned, that is a very specific interpretation of the rise in transgender youth, and is not an interpretation supported by actual scholarship, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Um just to make things clears regarding my statement of ROGD that was something the article on the topic said that was not my interpretation. They mention the increase isn’t currently known tho so I can’t really say much on that. To be real with you I don’t care about ROGD, the reason I’m here is because this topic has too much edit warring.

But anyway what I was trying to say with assigned sex is this. Assigned sex doesn’t really mean they picked your sex for you at birth. Reliable sources on it and the Wikipedia article on sex assignment would say it’s basically judging your sex characteristic at birth and writing you off as this sex.CycoMa (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I have to agree with Newimpartial here. The literature on assigned sex at birth is pretty clear, which is why it is used in that way by major medical bodies like the CDC or NHS. There are some people, namely transgender and intersex, for whom the initial assignment is faulty. This is partially why historically Sex reassignment surgery has that name, as the surgery was seen as correcting a mistake in the original assignment. The main group of people who object to the terminology "assigned female/male at birth" are transphobic, and tend to fall into one or more of the major anti-transgender groups eg;TERF, GC, etc. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: but my definition of assigned sex isn't wrong isn't it. Assigned sex does mean observing sex characteristics and writing them off as this sex. Am I not wrong? That's how reliable sources define it.CycoMa (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, I am not aware of any medical sources that state the assignment of sex in a person who later comes out as transgender was a "faulty" assignment. That is what trans people are transitioning from, medically, after all. Sex reassignment having that name implies no such thing. And the use of this terminology outside of very rare contexts where sex is ambiguous is rather new. Do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS on editors who question the use of this terminology. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: for clarity sake, could you please restate what the definition you're using is? As I think this may be the confusion between the three of us. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: the article on sex assignment literally says this.

Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the discernment of an infant's sex at birth.

Isn't the definition of sex assignment that I have been saying align with that definition?CycoMa (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding pointing to old discussions, consensus can change. Editors had reached agreement above that the lead could be shortened and those sentences combined, like this. Nothing was added, not "girls", not anything; it was only subtraction. There is nothing gained by keeping "assigned" in the lead except attracting controversy due to the atypical meaning of "assigned" and the fact we are not talking about newborns. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Crossroads: you are correct in saying that consensus can change, however you have not tried to establish a new consensus here. The edit you made was not discussed prior to making it. While I understand WP:BOLD, given that we were already discussing this from the initial comments made by *Dan T.*, it would have been more appropriate for you to propose and us to critique the phrasing when establishing a new consensus. As for keeping "assigned", while I understand that the author of this book does not like it, it is the correct terminology to use per my discussion points raised above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Regarding this, Dtobias obviously opposes the term, Pengortm supports my edit, I also do, and finally Firefangledfeathers supported it. 4 editors. I was there for Archive 5, and what it was about was very particular uses of "girls" at that time. It was never that we cannot combine these sentences or that certain phrasing must appear in the lead. There was no closure or any official finding of the sort, and again, consensus can change. I cannot see the consensus you claim exists there, likewise. Lastly, WP:ONUS supports me. It states, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The phrase "assigned female at birth" clearly lacks consensus at this time, and therefore should not be included; we can easily write around it, as I did and received support for. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't see any such consensus above. At least three editors have objected to your proposal (myself, CycoMa and Sideswipe9th), so even if three or four editors support your change it doesn't have consensus. There is a very strong argument that the stable version of the article, including AFAB language, had achieved WP:CON and no evidence yet that the consensus has, in fact, changed. And by removing AFAB and moving directly to "girls" as the group under discussion you have indeed made a BOLD change to the lead section. Hiding behind the fact that you did so by removing rather than adding words is rather beneath you, I would have thought. TBCH I thought you were smarter than this.
    • And your argument that this meaning of "assigned" is atypical, which I have seen you make at least half a dozen times on various pages in various ways, needs to be supported by at least some sort of evidence if you expect anyone to take it seriously. Right now it just reads as a handwave to a certain FRINGE POV on trans issues, whether you intend it to or not.
    • The above bullets refer to your original bullet, and I have moved them to this level to avoid further entanglement. In response to your e/c addendum, you have frequently made the argument that long-term stable content is deemed to achieve WP:CON, and in the case of "assigned female at birth" we had an extensive discussion which, while not formally closed, supported this language. If you are not being disingenuous in where you have placed the goal posts this time, I don't know what you think you are actually doing, since it isn't compliant with either actual policy or what you have frequently interpreted policy to be. Newimpartial (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I would argue that you're reading WP:ONUS wrong in this case @Crossroads:. The phrase "assigned female at birth" is WP:NPOV and supported by established medical literature. To change it, as you have once again done is arguably an edit war per WP:EW. There is a reason why both CycoMa and Newimpartial have reverted your attempts at including this edit. Consensus for it has not been established. WP:CONSENSUS is clear that consensus is neither unanimity nor a simple vote. It is a process "to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." That process has not been done in this case, you have no addressed the criticisms of this edit. WP:STATUSQUO states that "If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles).". Your edit is moving us away from the established status quo, and if reverted again which I am tempted to do, would be an edit war per WP:3RR. Please stop doing that and propose the change here, along with your reasons for/against it so that we can establish consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Sideswipe9th: just to make things clear I only reverted because I feel like this needs to be discussed more. @Crossroads: I'll side with your edits with you explain yourself a bit more.CycoMa (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) CycoMa's only objection was a single revert with literally zero explanation then or later despite copious discussion since then. All edits should be explained per WP:EDITCON. Perhaps he could explain his current view on the edit.
      • As for the other two, there seemed to be the impression that new terminology had been added, which was not the case.
      • As for "atypical", it's clear to English speakers that usually the term "assign" is used when making basically arbitrary divisions. What is being assigned started in the mind of the assigner rather than in reality, in this sense. I know you've said before you don't hold the view that sex does not exist in reality, which would be its own fringe view, but such terminology implies that sex is an assignment, a mere label, rather than a material fact. And, we aren't talking about newborns, so whatever happened "at birth" is not relevant. What is being discussed is a trait that exists later in life. What might that trait be, I wonder. Lest someone misinterpret my words, none of this negates the existence of the sex and gender distinction or medical change to sex characteristics.
      • As for claims I am disingenuous, nope. This isn't a case where one person is objecting to the text and pretending it never had consensus, where I've pointed to implicit consensus before. We had a discussion above and the edit seemed to be an improvement. You are the one repeatedly pointing to "Archive 5" as though it holds any authority. This sort of insistence on keeping the old wording is what WP:STONEWALLING is against. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Bullpucky. There was an extensive discussion previously, now archived. As a result of that, there was a stable wording. Based on one editor agreeing with your proposed change and no replies on the Talk page for a couple of hours (even though the edit itself was reverted), you argue that your bold version had consensus. That just isn't the way literally anything works.
        • And would you stop implying that only the addition (and not the subtraction) of words can change the decoration and connotation of the lead section. I really thought you were smarter than this.
        • And no, I never stated or implied that sex does not exist in reality. Stop making things up. Saying that something is socially constructed is pretty much the opposite of saying it does not exist, and philosophical realists who are also social constructionists do not believe that construction is ex nihilo. Do better. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
        • The term "Stonewalling" is a bit ironic here, given the British organization involved heavily in this culture war. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• • • • I have now reverted the article back to WP:STATUSQUO. Please do not make another attempt at adding this passage @Crossroads: until consensus has been established. Otherwise I will have to open a WP:3RR/WP:4RR dispute. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Sideswipe9th, that medical sources say "assigned female at birth" sometimes is not a reason to use that technical phrase in this specific spot. Nobody has given a policy or guideline based reason not to simply combine these sentences. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Crossroads, you should just admit by now that "assigned" as in "sex assigned at birth" is no longer a technical phrase but is the everyday term used generally, byjournalists and academics as well as medical and legal specialists in this field. You can't retroactively reverse that shift, which which I have laboriously provided links for you in previous discussions.
        • As far as a policy or guideline based reason, in the discussion in Archive 5 of this page it was clarified for you - at great length and not just by me - that girls is a POV term for the people Shrier was talking about (at least some of them), not a neutral reason. It is therefore a violation of both WP:NPOV and MOS:GENDERID to present these young people as "girls", which is what your combination of sentences, in fact, achieved, whether intentionally or not. Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Sometimes I feel I've woken up in the looking-glass world or the Bizarro World, where perfectly normal terminology in use for centuries and defined in dictionaries is "POV" and "fringe", while ideologically-motivated neologisms are "NPOV" and standard. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
            • What matters on Wikipedia is the way things are understood and presented by reliable sources published over the last 15 or 20 years. The perspectives of pre-"Bizarro World" sages and contrarian sleuths aren't really relevant to WP disputes, from the perspective of policy. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Addressing some of your points here @Crossroads:.
          • I know you've said before you don't hold the view that sex does not exist in reality. I'm not sure if this is directed at me or Newimpartial. I don't believe anyone has made that claim here and I'm not sure why you feel it is relevant to this discussion.
          • but such terminology implies that sex is an assignment, a mere label, rather than a material fact. Sex is an assignment, hence why medical literature and organisations use the term "assigned female/male at birth".
          • And, we aren't talking about newborns, so whatever happened "at birth" is not relevant. Your sex assignment at birth remains your sex assignment in both childhood, adolescence, and adulthood unless you go down one of a number of pathways to change it later in life. The exact way to do that varies depending on where in the world you live. If you do not change your sex assignment later in life, then you are always known as "assigned female/male at birth", regardless of your age. That is how the phrase is known and used in English and thusly reflected in the medical literature.
          • This isn't a case where one person is objecting to the text and pretending it never had consensus, where I've pointed to implicit consensus before. We had a discussion above and the edit seemed to be an improvement. Correction, you felt the edit was an improvement. Three editors have disagreed with you, and asked you to explain. You have yet to do so, and yet to do so while addressing our concerns per WP:CONSENSUS The edit content was not discussed before you proposed it.
          • This sort of insistence on keeping the old wording is what WP:STONEWALLING is against. That would be true, except that WP:CONSENSUS has not been established. There are many ways to establish consensus, one is WP:BRD. You have been WP:BOLD through WP:BRDB, your edit was reverted by three editors WP:BRDR. The final step of that is discussion WP:BRDD. Per the first bulletpoint in WP:BRDD If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. Instead, take it to the talk page (see below). If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD. WP:BRDD has not yet happened.
          • that medical sources say "assigned female at birth" sometimes is not a reason to use that technical phrase in this specific spot. Citation needed. Where do medical sources say that this is a reason not to use that phrase, in this context?
        • I can see that while writing this up, Newimpartial has raised several other issues with this edit. Please address them all in some manner, as part of proposing why we should change phrasing in this obviously and clearly contentious manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
          • It was at Newimpartial, which is who the comment was originally to before the edit conflict. Sex is a biological trait that affects the whole phenotype. As I said clearly, it is not a mere assignment rather than a material fact. And I did explain my edits. As for "Where do medical sources say that this is a reason not to use that phrase", that isn't what I was saying. You and others keep saying this is a mainstream medical term. Sure, but that is not a reason to use it in that spot in the article. It's a non sequitur. As I said, we can simply combine the sentences. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
            • I am not saying that it is a mainstream medical term. I am saying that it is a mainstream term tout court, and have previously documented its extensive use in middlebrow, non-specialist journalism. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Wait a minute I just say WP:NOTFORUM behavior is this discussion. So, I'm just gonna collapse this discussion entirely. I did warn y'all if I see one more NOTFORUM behavior it's collapse time. You try again by starting a new discussion on this article if you like.CycoMa (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: given the nature of the discussion above re WP:3RR a collapse is not appropriate at this time. I may have accidentally undone that with my last reply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I might just throw an admin in here to collapse this for me. Because this discussion keeps jumping into NOTFORUM behavior and edit warring.CycoMa (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, no sensible admin would do that. And if you doit, I will revert you, so just leave it be. But posing this discussion to NPOVN or something for more eyeballs would be a good idea.Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Don't collapse the discussion, I only just got here! Personally, I find the version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreversible_Damage&curid=65922638&diff=1047701828&oldid=1047700171 (the one endorsed by Firefangledfeathers above) better than the current version. The full quote accurately summarizes the book's contents, and gives the author enough rope, which everyone can see without having to click on the distracting note. Tewdar (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No, Tewdar. That version violates NPOV by effectively referring to Shrier's subjects in wikivoice as "girls", even the ones who are trans men. Not cool, brah. Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • It is an attributed quotation, not in Wikivoice, unless I am mistaken? Tewdar (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Exactly! Crossroads ^-talk- 17:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
        • It's almost that simple. I wish it was that simple. It might even be that simple according to the letter of WP:WIKIVOICE, but in practice it just isn't. Here's a quote from that section of the NPOV policy: A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Emphasis mine. A major lack of clarity is created by including Shrier's use of "girls" without context (the context being, based on the article since I haven't read the book, that Shrier refers to people assigned female at birth who are not girls as "girls"). I think we can all agree that's a seriously contested assertion which we should treat as opinion rather than fact, and not present as a direct statement? From the same policy, and converted plural->singular by me.
        • So I understand the arguments made by Tewdar and Crossroads directly above, but I agree with Newimpartial above them that by allowing Shrier's use of "girls" in this context or lack thereof we are effectively referring to Shrier's subjects in wikivoice as "girls" – because the quote, while attributed to Shrier, is building on the strongly POV premise that all these people are in fact girls. Even if it's technically attributed to Shrier and therefore not in wikivoice, the decontextualized use of "girls" directly supports Shrier's argument directly because of the lack of context, so I'd argue that by allowing the lack of context to stand we are violating WP:NPOV. In order to achieve NPOV we need to contextualize the statement, and that's what the status quo version does or at least attempts to do. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) The stable version (now restored) was clear that Shrier was writing about AFAB people - including those with transmasculine identities - and referred to them as girls. The Crossroads version obscures this, presents Shrier's view as though it were fact, and does so by splicing quotations from different sources while removing the note about her choice of terms. Surely this is a BOLD enough change that ONUS applies? Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• • • • CycoMa, can you please state which version you prefer and why? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
        • @Crossroads: I am still on the fence, right now I am on no one's side for this discussion. Please discuss more on why you had an issue with the lead?CycoMa (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • We don't sanitize or rephrase the David Starkey article lede, do we? "Slavery was not genocide otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or Britain would there?" - oh dear, end of career! 😁 Tewdar (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of this, but perhaps I just haven't read the latest issue of Outrage Culture. Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
          • So, talking about 'so many damn blacks in Britain' is fine, but referring to trans boys as girls is not? Got it. Tewdar (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
            • If you think anyone reading the Starkey article is going to get a dopamine hit from the insight, yes, wikipedia recognizes that Starkey is right, then you hold rather different expectations of our readers than I do. But Crossroads' edit will precisely tell our readers that "Shrier is writing about girls" - which already concedes half of her (POV) argument. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

              Exactly this. All the terms Starkey uses are clear, so attribution is clear and his meaning is precisely conveyed through the quote, so no NPOV issue arises from including it. That's not the case in this dispute for the reason Newimpartial explains here, much more concisely than I did above. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No, my edit clearly says that Shrier calls her subjects girls. I have no idea what dopamine has to do with it. I'm pretty sure none of us consider Starkey right. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• • Easy fix: "Shrier, who refers to trans boys as 'girls' throughout the book, states..." Tewdar (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I would support something like this. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I would also be OK with something like this as a fix, as it makes clear the distinction between Shrier's opinion in her work which is contentious, and Wikivoice which should be neutral, that was missing on the previous edit. Could we get the entire text here with that edit in mind, so that we can see what it looks like in context with the previous and subsequent sentence if necessary? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Full version: "Shrier, who refers to trans boys as 'girls' throughout the book, states that during the 2010s, there began a social contagion creating a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder" Tewdar (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I have replied to this line of thinking above: The stable version (now restored) was clear that Shrier was writing about AFAB people - including those with transmasculine identities - and referred to them as girls. The Crossroads version obscures this, presents Shrier's view as though it were fact, and does so by splicing quotations from different sources while removing the note about her choice of terms. You can keep the discussion above, if you like, but I want readers to see that this point has been addressed. And if you need to do more research into the role of dopamine in contrarian thinking, that isn't on me. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

But we see here the fundamental roadblock - some editors are convinced that not using AFAB is "conceding" something to Shrier. E.g., WP:BATTLEGROUND. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I would be fine with a statement in Wikivoice in the lede that Shrier refers to trans boys as girls. I just think "AFAB" in this context is the correct and neutral term in English, which is what interested readers will find in Archive 5 as well. But at least we are solving the hash shortage. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The argument I'm making, which I believe is similar to the one Newimpartial is making, is that your proposed version supports Shrier's POV and that we shouldn't do that. It's quite a stretch to characterize a desire to follow WP:NPOV as WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

While I'd prefer we stick with AFAB, given that it's the correct term to use, I would also be supportive as I've stated above, of something like the fix Tewdar proposes as it makes abundantly clear the distinction between Shrier's opinion which is contentious, and Wikivoice which should be neutral. We appear to be approaching something of a consensus towards this point, so I'd like to suggest again we put the full version here to see what it looks like as a whole. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

New proposed version

• Full version: "Shrier, who refers to trans boys as 'girls' throughout the book, states that during the 2010s, there began a social contagion creating a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder" Tewdar (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this is OK. It fits as a drop-in replacement in the lede with the existing citations well, and makes clear the distinction between Shrier's opinion and Wikivoice. I'd still prefer AFAB, but this is an OK middle ground for me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Is "trans boys" the right term to use here? Does Shrier refer to anyone non-binary as "girls" in the book? Most importantly, what do we have sourcing to support? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd need to check the book to be sure, which I don't have to hand, but I don't think she mentions non-binary people at all in it. She simply refers to everyone she is writing about as "biological girls". Maybe using something like "Shrier, who refers to trans boys and non-binary children as 'biological girls' throughout the book," would fit better? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Alternative suggestion to get around these issues: "Shrier, who refers to natal female children/adolescents as 'girls' throughout the book, states that during the 2010s, there began a social contagion creating a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder". Seems like a more neutral phrasing that accurately describes the situation without needing to worry about non-binary, trans or cis distinctions. -Pengortm (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

How about just something like "Shrier, who refers to 'biological girls' throughout the book..."? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be comfortable using 'biological girls' on its own like that, given that that phrasing is used pretty much exclusively by gender critical people, and would not be neutral. Unless you want to add "to refer to trans and non-binary children and adolescents" after the word book, just to make clear again the distinction between Shrier's words and neutral Wikivoice.. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternative: "Shrier, who refers to those AFAB as 'girls'..." Tewdar (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

After reading over the above: How about "Shrier, who refers to those she writes about as "girls"", or similar? (AFAB is right back where we started, and is an unfamiliar acronym to the vast majority.) I also would have been fine with "Shrier, who refers to 'biological girls' throughout the book". One can read the lead as a whole with this plugged in and it's perfectly clear. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree completely that AFAB is an unfamiliar term, it's self explanatory what it means and as discussed previously is used by medical professionals and in medical literature. WP:BURDEN would put it on you to substantiate the claim that is is unfamiliar and uncommon. However even if it was an uncommon term, I don't think there is a reason why we cannot link it to the terminology section on Sex assignment which spells out exactly what AFAB and AMAB. We aren't writing for the Simple English Wikipedia space here and directing readers to related reading should be OK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just being in a rush. Naturally I meant we should write "assigned female at birth". Not sure how this puts us "back where we started"... are we trying to avoid saying "assigned female at birth" at all in the lede here? Tewdar (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

On a related note. Could we stop interchanging between asterisks and colons when indenting comments please? The Help:Talk Pages entry is pretty clear that you should stick to one over the other, and we keep getting mangled formatting, especially when trying to indent a bullet point list twice or more for the first entry. Thanks Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. Perhaps I should read some of these guides sometime.😁 So, colons, then, from now on? Tewdar (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Haha, no worries. Yeah, mixing colons and asterisks causes issues. And asterisks with double line breaks causes issues. Strangely colons are fine with double line breaks between replies. Definitely worth reading the help pages though, just to keep yourself right :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, whaddabout "Shrier, who refers to 'girls' throughout the book irrespective of their gender identity, states..." Tewdar (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I dare say this could be the best one yet. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Newer proposed version

• Full version: "Shrier, who refers to 'girls' throughout the book irrespective of their gender identity, states that during the 2010s, there began a social contagion creating a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder" Tewdar (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't support this version, since it begs the question of who Shrier refers to as girls. The answer, of course, is people AFAB, which means we have made it around the Ferris wheel again. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

    I agree. AFAB is the only unambiguous term for the group she’s referring to as ‘girls’ that includes trans men, cisgender women, and other non-binary folks. Politanvm ^talk 21:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to "Shrier, who refers to those assigned female at birth as 'girls' throughout the book, states that during the 2010s, there began a social contagion creating a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder" Tewdar (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No question begging occurs in this version, as when the lead as a whole is read with this in it, it is very clear whom she means. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

22:10 BST proposed version

"Shrier, who refers to those assigned female at birth as 'girls' throughout the book, states that during the 2010s, there began a social contagion creating a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder" Tewdar (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It's like the bleddy Potsdam Conference on this site... Tewdar (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ha! I was going to support this version, but if that would make me Stalin, Churchill, or Truman, I might have to reconsider... I'm joking, of course, and I agree with this proposed version and the reasoning behind it. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm the one who has to tell Stalin they're not giving the USSR any gold, so it's the gulag for me. Tewdar (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternative: "Shrier, who refers to those discerned to be female at birth as 'girls' throughout the book, states..." Tewdar (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems fine (“assigned”, not “discerned”), but I don’t really see how it’s an improvement on what’s currently written. It basically just pulls note 1 into the text directly and makes the article wordier. Politanvm ^talk 22:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I give up. There can be no compromise between the "AFAB vs natal female" proponents, it seems. Tewdar (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I said it seems fine, but what’s the improvement? Keeping the quote more intact? (Edit conflict: Agree with Sideswipe9th below) Politanvm ^talk 22:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Aside from being, as Politanvm pretty much identical to the current lede minus moving the note into the text, this would be my preferred option. It certainly makes the distinction between Shrier's commentary and Wikivoice unambiguous, and has a link to the relevant article for people unfamiliar with the term. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"Shrier, who refers to those assigned female at birth as 'girls' throughout the book irrespective of their gender identity..." might be better. It's hardly War and Peace, so I don't know how "wordy" it is really. How about just "Shrier states that there was a sudden increase in transgender identification among teenagers assigned female at birth" then, with no quotes at all? Tewdar (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

All of these seem fine to me. Politanvm ^talk 22:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd be against the second of those two quotes. WP:MOSLEAD in a nutshell states The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. One of the major repeated criticisms of Shrier's book is that she spends the entire book misgendering those she is writing about. That is already reflected in the criticism section, so spelling it out in the lead as in the first quote makes more sense. Having a link to assigned female at birth also addresses any potential inaccessibility due to a lack of familiarity with the term without being inherently biased. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Here's the "AUTHOR’S NOTE" at the start of the book, for reference: "I take it for granted that teenagers are not quite adults. For the sake of clarity and honesty, I refer to biologically female teens caught up in this transgender craze as “she” and “her.” Transgender adults are a different matter. I refer to them by the names and pronouns they prefer wherever I can do so without causing confusion." Tewdar (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Alright, whaddabout: "Shrier, who refers to children and teenagers as 'boys' and 'girls' throughout the book irrespective of their gender identities, states...?"

The version above, "Shrier, who refers to those assigned female at birth as 'girls' throughout the book, states..." appears to be factually incorrect. It would have to be "children and teenagers assigned female at birth..." Tewdar (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Or has it already been decided that the phrase "assigned female at birth" must be included in the lead? Tewdar (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I should probably point out that terms like "assigned female at birth" are often avoided in a lot of recent, scholarly, peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals, and substituted with "biological(ly) female", especially (but not exclusively) outside of transgender-related fields, including psychiatry, psychology, feminist theory, anthropology, and genetics. Nobody accuses these scholars or journals of being in any way transphobic. Probably because their readers can be reasonably expected not to try and weaponize the term, I expect... Tewdar (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't use the term in my writing because I find it extremely stylistically awkward. But if you have the motivation to make the argument in detail, you're probably going to have to provide actual sources, and not merely assert it as a matter of fact. GMG^talk 14:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait and see if the phrase "assigned female at birth" has already been determined to be an essential part of the lead before presenting sources. It's kind of irrelevant anyway - I am not suggesting that we use the term "biological females" here. What I am suggesting is that we don't have to use "assigned female at birth". Tewdar (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I still think it should be in the lead. She isn’t using “girls” in the standard way when talking about transgender people, and AFAB is the one term I know of to refer to the same group she is, when on the topic of transgender people. Politanvm ^talk 15:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar, how about you read Archive 5 and call us back? Also, I do see "biological(ly) female" weaponized in transphobic/"gender critical" writing in psychiatry, psychology, feminist theory, anthropology, and genetics. But then again, I am situated within the Canadian English language community and know that other speech communities have different sensibilities. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I have read Archive 5, thank you. Tewdar (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Please show me some weaponized sources from the named fields in the kinds of journals I described.Tewdar (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I found the arguments made by the respected administrator participating in the Archive 5 discussion quite compelling, myself.

And while I don't have access to the full version of this article at present (sorry for the ugly link), I do observe that Burt weaponizes "biological male" and "biological female" in some of her work that is not behind a paywall. Feminist legal theory counts as feminist theory, as far as I know. Newimpartial (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Having less than zero interest in the bureaucracy and politics of this place, I'm not sure who you mean (GorillaWarfare?) by "respected administrator". But what I do know is, I read journals all the time, in archaeogenetics, or endocrinology, or medicine, or whatever, where "biological male/female" is ubiquitous, and neutral, and has almost zero possibility of weaponization, either by the authors or readers. Thanks for the link, I'll have a look. Tewdar (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: if Shrier's book was limited to those fields, then I think that would be a relevant point to make. However given that her book is explicitly about transgender youth, the term AFAB is the correct terminology to use here. In the fields of transgender research and particularly transgender discourse, the term "biological male/female" is often heavily weaponised against transgender people both in an individually targeted manner eg "you are a biological X", and more generally against groups "all trans X are biological Y". And indeed Shrier herself has done this to dismiss trans women as men, for example in her testimony on the US Equality Act from March 2021. As such using "biological male" or "biological female" is significantly problematic given it's very specific use in transgender discourse. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Well, I can find quite a few very recent reputable eg medical journal articles that focus on transgender issues that use "biological male/female" (check out ProQuest or Google Scholar). It is true that AM/FAB is more common in this area, but this is not universal even here. And notice that even the jolly old NHS often uses "sex registered at birth" instead of 'assigned , because people are confused by this terminology. Tewdar (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: actually the NHS use both assigned and registered in different contexts. For transgender health they use "assigned". For cisgender health they use "registered". I've already stated why I believe that "biological male/female" is problematic, not just because of how it is used against trans people, but also because the author of this book has also directly used it against trans people. AFAB is the correct terminology to use here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Here's a few from the last five years (DOIs):

10.1371/journal.pone.0233026 10.1089/cap.2020.29184.bjc 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110356 10.1038/s41443-020-0291-z 10.1186/s13293-016-0067-9 Tewdar (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I am not suggesting we use "biological female" in this article Tewdar (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

re: NHS, different contexts - yes, you are correct. Tewdar (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I'm not disputing that the term is sometimes used in medical journals that refer to transgender people. I'm saying that in this context, about a book that misgenders transgender youth, written by an author who has also misgendered trans adults, to use the terminology "biological male" or "biological female" is inherently problematic. This issue was already discussed heavily in Archive 5, as Newimpartial stated by pointing out the comments made by @GorillaWarfare:, I don't think we don't need to rehash that discussion again. However perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed in either MOS:GENDERID or WPGENDERID, or a new MOS entry needs to be created for this, to get some clarity in this area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Sure, I'm just sort of pointing out that terms like "biological sex", "biological male", and "biological female" are not inherently evil or unscholarly or whatever... Tewdar (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, but you started that with a claim about who is or is not likely to weaponize the term. A claim that, at the very least, left out some evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: No, I finished with a claim suggesting one possible reason why these journals don't attract accusations of transphobia, that didn't require any evidence because it was a guess made in passing, which you decided was the most relevant part of what I wrote when, in fact, it was the least relevant part. Tewdar (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't think my pointing to an article published in one of the fields you were discussing, where the most notable thing about the author is now the accusations of transphobia based on her work, is somehow not relevant to your argument? That's a strange conception of relevance, grasshopper. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

In general, "biological male / female" is often used in a wide range of reputable, scholarly journals in a neutral way. I'm sure you can find a fair number of articles, especially in feminist theory, where it is used less neutrally for point scoring. Tewdar (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It is used both ways, which is not a point in its favor IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Not much improvement version

Shrier, who refers to children and teenagers assigned female at birth as 'girls' irrespective of their gender identity, states that during the 2010s there began a social contagion, creating a sudden increase in transgender identification among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder".? Tewdar (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I support this version per the discussion in previous sections above.Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

But... didn't people want to shorten the lede? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Politanvm is the only one commenting on length that I can see. They said that an earlier version of this was fine, but that they didn't feel it was an improvement over the current version as it just pulls note 1 into the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideswipe9th (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That 'note' thing is a terrible solution, IMO Tewdar (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

All of these options with some form of AFAB would work okay in my view. I’ve just lost the thread of what the goal of this section is, because it was opened to propose removing AFAB altogether. Politanvm ^talk 19:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried that, but none of my proposals were deemed acceptable. Personally, I thought that "Shrier, who refers to children and teenagers as 'boys' and 'girls' irrespective of their gender identity, states..." would be a reasonable compromise, but that word seems to be not part of the lexicon of the talk pages of these articles... Tewdar (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Got it. That version doesn’t work well because it doesn’t tell the reader who Shrier means by “girls”, just that she’s ignoring people’s gender identities. And please, we can discuss improvements to articles without accusing good faith editors of a refusal to compromise. Let’s discuss edits, not editors. Politanvm ^talk 20:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, if one side say AFAB must be included, and the other say AFAB must be excluded, compromise is, by definition, impossible. This happens rather a lot in these parts, I have noticed... Tewdar (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of a mischaracterisation of the concerns, at least the ones I've been raising. In this specific context the use of "biological male/female" is problematic, because of Shrier's misgendering in her book and use of "biological male" to attack trans women. In other contexts it is fine, where there aren't those concerns, then using that terminology would be appropriate and fine. The use of AFAB in the lead links in with one of the common criticisms of the book, that Shrier misgenders the people she is writing about.

I'd also like to point out that one of the possible re-drafts that had support was the one that mentioned trans boys and non-binary people. However it was pointed out that AFAB is a clearer term to use here, because it was shorter.

This is also why I and others objected to this edit, because it breaches WP:NPOV by putting Shrier's point uncritically in Wikivoice, by not making clear that when she is referring to "girls" she is also referring to trans boys and non-binary people.

In summary, it's not that AFAB must be included, it's just that contextually something like it needs to be included for WP:NPOV, and that that specific term is the must succinct way to address WP:NPOV concerns. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let's use the "trans boys" version above, then... I didn't see any real objections to it. Tewdar (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The major concerns of the "trans boys" variant is that when you also include the required "and non-binary youth" it is inherently wordier and not much clearer than using AFAB, with a link to the sex assignment article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, unless you think the note is worth expanding in the lead, this section's version, as the title says, isn't much of an improvement... Tewdar (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think expanding it in the lead is a slight improvement over the current wording, if only because it is very easy to miss or gloss over the inline note, especially on mobile. But I'd like to hear from other editors before saying it should or should not be done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: using "biological male" is usually fine, but it's not okay to use in this article because Shrier uses the phrase also? That argument makes no sense. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Being slightly wordier seems like a good compromise solution to reach a consensus over the contested AFAB phrasing. But as Tewdar suggests, there seems to be big drive among some editors that AFAB wording must remain. -Pengortm (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, that appears to be what some editors are arguing. Thanks to Tewdar for showing that even "biologically female" can be acceptable term; it is not only "AFAB" and such nowadays, though I don't think using it here would be workable. Perhaps a good compromise between those would to be to simply say "of the female sex"? Sex and gender distinction, after all. Or, "Shrier, who refers to children as "girls" based on sex rather than gender identity". Unless one wants to either deny that these kids are of this sex, or admit it but claim that stating such a fact is somehow impermissible, there remains no reason to prefer the unfamiliar-to-most WP:EUPHEMISM "assigned female at birth". Crossroads ^-talk- 03:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The term 'biological(ly) female' even shows up, in wikivoice, in several articles here. Is there some sort of policy that decides, or is it just down to whoever shows up at these wonderful talk page discussions? Tewdar (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, basically it's whoever shows up - though, if the discussion becomes intractable, you could always have an RFC. That said, I don't see any major resistance here to "biologically female". Politics aside, the big advantage of that term is its clarity: unlike phrases like "assigned female at birth" or "of the female sex", anyone reading it can be expected to know what it means. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I expect major resistance to any suggestion such as, "Shrier, who refers to biologically female children and teenagers as 'girls' irrespective of their gender identity, states..." Tewdar (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's see - does anyone object to this? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I object to this term, used in this context. In this context it is a transphobic dog whistle, used overwhelmingly by TERF and Gender critical people to attack and delegitimise transgender people both online and offline. Like the term "adult human female" or "adult human male", "biological female" or "biological male" in this context is a form of biological essentialism used to delegitimise trans people. As I linked earlier, Shrier has used this term, in the form of "biological male", in this manner, to delegitimise trans women in submissions to the US Senate in relation to the US Equality Act in March 2021. To use it in this context is a violation of MOS:GENDERID, specifically because it is a variant of WP:GENDERID#Really_a_man. This book is explicitly about transgender youth, and as such MOS:GENDERID and the explainer WP:GENDERID applies. It is also a violation of WP:NPOV because it gives WP:UNDUE weight that trans people are not legitimate. In other contexts this terminology is appropriate, however on transgender articles it is not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone else object to the phrase "biologically female" in this article, or is it just this one editor? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, consensus is not strictly a vote for/against a proposal. It would be more fruitful perhaps if the concerns I raised were addressed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I know it's not a vote, but it would still be good to know if anyone other than you disagrees with this phrasing. That said, I don't think your concerns are valid. You yourself agree that a phrase like "biologically male" is not in itself pejorative. Given that, avoiding its use here just because Shrier has used the term negatively seems petulant rather than encyclopedic. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear in my objection. It's not that the term is inherently pejorative or offensive, it's that it is contextually so, and that it is so in this context. It's not just because Shrier has used it negatively in the recent past, but that in this context, of articles about transgender issues and people that it is a pejorative. I would be making this same objection on any article categorised as transgender, referring to the same policy and explainer, if the term was used this way in Wikivoice. If the term appeared in a quote attributed to a person, per WP:NPOV I would advocate for an explainer as to why those comments are problematic, akin to how we need one in the article lead explaining how Shrier refers to everyone she is writing about as girls, regardless of their gender identity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the article content, and the intended audience, I don't really think "biologically female" is an option here. Tewdar (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like we’re still going in circles, but if it isn’t clear from my comments in this discussion section or archive 5, AFAB is still the less ambiguous and more accurate term for the group Shrier is referring to. Politanvm ^talk 17:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

To add to my thoughts here, I don’t think “biological sex” is much less jargon-ey or more accurate here, since the book is also talking about interventions that could be considered a “sex change” where the people she’s writing about would not meet some definitions of “biological female”. I’m still not following the objection to AFAB, since it is a term that is specifically meant to avoid this ambiguity. Politanvm ^talk 17:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Assigned female at birth" is a term that I think would be unclear to many readers. Who is doing the assigning? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above . Infact linking to these terms was my first contribution to this discussion. I'm not sure we need to repeat the full discussion again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think "assigned" implies a certain amount of possible error or arbitrarity, or at least, doesn't make clear that the assignment requires some sort of judgement, which is not what the term is supposed to mean. There are probably hundreds of better words but, unfortunately, we are probably stuck with "assigned". The WP article on sex assignment uses "discern[ed]" almost immediately, which would probably be a better choice. Almost any word unambiguously implying a decision based on some set of arbitrary criteria would be better, in my opinion. Tewdar (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if we have to resolve ourselves to being stuck with "assigned" - as you note, it's unclear, and it could probably be classified as WP:JARGON. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd refer back to the complete discussion in this full heading not just the latest subheading, as well as the discussion in archive 5 that I believe Newimpartial linked previously as to why assigned is not WP:JARGON, and is in fact the correct terminology to use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Biological sex is also unclear and jargon in the context of this article (chromosomes, hormones, genitalia?), so why not use the technical term that means what we need it to and link to the article that explains what sex assignment means? AFAB is the least unclear term here. It’s the only term that refers to exactly the group Shrier means and nobody else. At some point, refusing to click a link that explains a term that is a core part of this subject area is choosing to be uninformed and confused. Politanvm ^talk 19:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It is kinda arbitrary though. Sex is typically assigned at birth via genital inspection either at the time of birth or via ultrasound after the 12th week of pregnancy. For intersex people where genital inspection is unclear, genetic testing is done. In transgender people, because of the somewhat arbitrary use of external genitalia to assign sex in the lack of any definitive test that could determine whether or not that assignment will match their gender identity, this results in errors. Transgender people make up anywhere between 1 and 7% of the population, which can be a fairly high error rate. As for a potential confusion on behalf of a future reader of the article, an inline link to the terminology section of the sex assignment article solves that as it contains the definitions for both AFAB and AMAB. As several editors have pointed out here and in archive 5, in transgender discourse AFAB and AMAB are the correct and most common terms to use.

On a related point, we probably should advocate for some sort of clarity in this in WP:GENDERID or MOS:GENDERID because this sort of discussion will be happening on other articles. A huge amount of this discussion could have been avoided if we could point to the guidance which says what is or is not the correct terminology to use here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any WP:MEDRS which asserts that sex assignment in someone who later comes out as transgender is an "error". Sex and gender are distinct. As for MOS, instruction creep has historically been shot down there. Any such situation is unique and a universal rule creates more problems than it solves. Sources vary in each situation too. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's only an "error" if what they are trying to determine at birth is "gender identity", not if it is biological sex. Is there any reliable source that says it is the former rather than the latter? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Shrier, who conflates 'girls' with transgender and non-binary individuals irrespective of their gender identity, states..."? Tewdar (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That makes it sounds like she calls every transgender person a girl. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and we also have to be careful what is said because Shrier does refer to adult trans people with pronouns and words like 'man' or 'woman' based on their gender identity. It isn't across the board misgendering. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• I see no one has come up with a reason to be against the proposal I made before to simply say "of the female sex". Sex and gender distinction, after all. Or, "Shrier, who refers to children as "girls" based on sex rather than gender identity". Unless one wants to either deny that these kids are of this sex, or admit it but claim that stating such a fact is somehow impermissible, there remains no reason to prefer the unfamiliar-to-most WP:EUPHEMISM "assigned female at birth". Crossroads ^-talk- 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not the first time that AFAB/AMAB has been said to be an unfamiliar or unfamiliar-to-most WP:EUPHEMISM. I've provided links previously that show it's common terminology in use by the CDC and NHS, and others have made similar remarks. However no proof has been forthcoming so far that it is unfamiliar. So could that claim be cited please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That seems akin to proving a negative. Medical providers and agencies use all sorts of technical terms. And while they may use this term in articles focused on trans topics for a presumably largely-trans audience, we do have to write for everyone on Wikipedia. As I said above, its use of "assigned" there is very odd, and newborns are not being discussed. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Saying it’s odd doesn’t make it odd. It’s a standard term when talking about transgender people. This is an article focused on a trans topic, and hiding a standard term from Wikipedia readers does them no service, especially when we have an article about sex assignment for those who have not seen the term before. Sex assignment is a fundamental term to know to understand this book. To your question about the issue with using “female sex”, I explained my thoughts in my most recent reply. Politanvm ^talk 01:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• • So, Shrier, who refers to children and teenagers of female sex as 'girls' irrespective of their gender identity, states...? Tewdar (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes. Since a minor teenager is still a child, and that is who she discusses, we could even drop "and teenagers". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
      • This seems fine to me too, with or without "and teenagers". Korny O'Near (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Going out of our way to emphasize the female sex of young trans men and nonbinary people is not NPOV language and not compliant with MOS:GENDERID. None of you should really be proposing that dubious improvement. Newimpartial (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
          • The only "going out of [the] way" is using the euphemistic and ideologically-laden term "assigned at birth" and avoiding the perfectly workable and completely understandable and common term "female sex". The same language used in numerous sources on this very topic. GENDERID says nothing of the sort. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Where is your evidence that "assigned at birth" is ruphemistic and ideologically-laden? That sounds a lot like a personal POV. If you believe the wider speech community agrees with your view, I suggest that you put this to WP:NPOVN rather than continuing to wield your BLUDGEON without support from evidence or policy. WP:CONLEVEL, please.
            • And GENDERID demands that we respect the last known gender self-ID of all people, not just adults (or just BLPs). We don't refer to the male sex of Laverne Cox or The Wachowskis, as far as I know. Why would we be empowered to emphasize the female sex those of Shreier's subjects who have maintained trans identity? Newimpartial (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
              • Because those individuals' birth sex is not relevant to their articles other than that we mention they are transgender, which suffices. We do not use 'assigned at birth' at those either (except for in a quote by Laverne Cox - and that quote would probably be there regardless of what she called her past self). Here, it is the very point that one way or another the article must speak of groups based on sex. And we are speaking of groups, not specific individuals. That we have to reference these persons' sex is not in dispute; the only question is whether to do so with WP:PLAINENGLISH or a WP:EUPHEMISM. You do appear to concede their female sex, but are clearly arguing for the euphemism. Euphemisms are not NPOV. Perhaps WP:NOTCENSORED comes into play. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
                • "Assigned female at birth" is not any more challenging a concept than most other linked terms in the lead. I know some readers will be offended at the use of the term, but NOTCENSORED applies. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
                  • That isn't an argument for favoring it over the simpler "female sex". Your second sentence applies to that term too. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
                    • It's simpler in both the positive and negative senses, losing in nuance/specificity and gaining in understandability. I find the trade-off to be negative overall. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
                • Crossroads, have you shown recent, reliable sources referring to young trans people as belonging to the female sex, for a non-specialist audience? I would like to see them. Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
                • Crossroads, don't miss the point, please. Lots of our bio articles for trans people refer to sex assignment, as do essentially all our collective articles on trans people. If you think the term is a EUPHEMISM, I suggest you find either evidence or a higher level consensus for that rather than BLUDGEON over and over again. If female sex is the PLAINENGLISH term covering trans men and AFAB nonbinary people, then why isn't it the term the RS use? And NOTCENSORED is no excuse for an ILIKEIT argument about terminology. Sources are, in fact, required. Newimpartial (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources use the term "biologically female"; maybe we should just stick with that. It's certainly clearer to the average reader than "assigned female at birth". Korny O'Near (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I've already raised why this phrasing around "biological female" or "biological male" is problematic in this context. Do we really need to keep going in circles about this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You've already expressed your opinion on it, yes. No, I don't think you need to express it again. It just so happens that the term you consider bad because it's used by "gender critical" people is also, I believe, the phrase most commonly used by people in general. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Candidly, I don’t see “biological female” or AFAB in most of the sources about this book. There is this NBC News article that reads She writes in the book’s introduction that it is “not about transgender adults,” but about what she says is an increasing number of children assigned female at birth identifying as transgender. So maybe we need to talk through due-ness or weighting, but there is at least one RS for the way we have it in the article now. Politanvm ^talk 04:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Anybody who uses biased terms like "TERF" and "transphobic dog whistle" has absolutely no business judging what constitutes NPOV on this subject. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Says the editor who wrote The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it above, insisting without evidence that the terms are ideological and refusing to read the extensive RS literature defining and using the terms. Pot::Kettle.
  • Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with referring to a term as a transphobic dog whistle. If an editor can't tell the difference between a discussion of how terminology is used and casting ASPERSIONS on the motives of other editors, well, competence is required, especially in a discretionary sanctions area. Newimpartial (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• LARB uses the phrase, "transmasculine-identifying teens and young adults", perhaps we could all help to identify some objections to that today? 🤔

• • So something like, "Shrier, states that during the 2010s there began a social contagion, creating a supposed sudden increase in transmasculine-identifying teenagers and young adults who, the author argues, are usually high-anxiety, depressive, and mostly white, and who in previous decades would have fallen prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder"? Tewdar (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• • • So, "transmasculine-identifying" includes AFAB, (but avoids actually saying it) but sadly has no wikilink, and the sentence avoids using "girls" at all. We don't say "and non-binary", but neither does the current article, and it needs a bit of de-plagiarism, but... Tewdar (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC) withdrawn, unless anyone wants to resurrect... Tewdar (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC) withdrawl withdrawn... Tewdar (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Transmasculine is a usable wikilink, and is a redirect currently at RfD, but it looks fairly likely to end up as a redirect to transgender where we can move the paragraph defining it and add an anchor for the redirect. Aside from that, above someone alluded to looking at how the sources on the topic of this book refer to the demographic Shrier writes about, and I will look into that later. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
        • "sources on the topic of this book" - yeah, that's what the link I gave you and the phrase "transmasculine-identifying teens and young adults" is... Tewdar (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
          • There's also at least one reliable media source that uses AFAB in its body. WP:NOR doesn't apply to talk pages, so doing a brief literature review may be in order here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
            • I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of media sources will use AFAB or similar. Tewdar (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
              • If that is true, would that not settle this that AFAB is the correct terminology to use here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
                • Depends. If you think we should base such decisions on how individual events are reported by a majority of news outlets for the unwashed masses on a per-article basis, then the answer is probably yes. Personally, I think there should be an encyclopedia-wide policy, and just always use AFAB, transmasculine, biological female, or whatever in every article, if possible. Tewdar (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, though, sometimes we really *are* only talking about 'biological females'. Sometimes we really *are* only talking about those who were 'assigned female'. Tewdar (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think too many of the sources actually do use AFAB, based on my admittedly very vague memory of when I read many of them, though we'll see. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty. I'm a little busy this afternoon with other work stuff, but when I get some free time tonight or tomorrow I'll start by checking through the citations in the article, then looking further afield at other reliable source reviews of the book, and try and build up a picture. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Working on this now. One good thing to come of this regardless of the discussion, I've identified a couple of duplicated citations in the article, which I'll tidy up shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've completed doing a count of the various terms that were cited in this revision of the article. For each term I searched both for the usages proposed here, and logical word ordering changes in the context of the sentences in which they are used. Non-exhaustively the following terms were searched for in the text; assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, AMAB, AFAB, assigned sex at birth, biological male, biological female, biological sex, biological boy, biological girl, natal male, natal female, natal sex, natal boy, and natal girl. I've included the reference numbers if you wish to verify my work. Some citations appear in multiple categories because they use multiple terms.

For the variants of AFAB/AMAB there were 127 instances, across 13 citations. Reference numbers; 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42

For variants of biological female/male there were 56 instances, across 15 citations. 12, 14, 17, 18, 24, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42

For variants of natal female/male there were 41 instances, across 11 citations. 4, 7, 27, 29, 33, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 49

Notes from this search. There was one duplicate entry in the references list, which I will be correcting shortly. If you want to replicate my work, please use the revision I linked above as the reference number ordering may change as I remove the duplicate entry. There were also three sources I did not evaluate, one was the book by Shrier, one was a podcast with no transcript, and one was a YouTube video with no transcript. There's also one source I'm going to open a separate discussion section on, as it might need to be removed from the article.

I also did a brief evaluation of each citation just out of curiosity for bias, rating if it was trans positive, trans negative, or neutral. In my opinion there are 16 trans negative citations, 18 trans positive citations, and 11 neutral citations. So the good news is the citation list is pretty evenly balanced at the moment.

This has taken me a couple of hours to do. Is there much benefit in proceeding with a more exhaustive search of all RS media pieces about the book, or are we happy with just the analysis of the citations already in the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, a lot of those sources simply use the term "girl" to refer to Shrier's subjects. I took a very quick count and got up to 115-ish instances across 17 citations (discounting quotations, headlines, things written by Shrier, etc). Should we bowdlerise when quoting from those reviews? Cheers, gnu57 21:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No? That's not what the discussion has been about. When quoting from a source you use the language of the source. That is not being disputed in any way. It would be inappropriate to bowdlerise a properly attributed quote.

The thrust of the discussion, at least at this stage has been over the language to use in the lead, which is in WP:WIKIVOICE. As such it is subject to WP:NPOV requirements. Shrier's use of "girls" in her work is problematic, as discussed at great length above, as well as being one of the more common criticisms of the book. To use her choice of language uncritically would be to give WP:UNDUE weight to her body of work. The disagreement has been over what is the appropriate terminology to use in Wikivoice. A few editors and myself are in favour of "assigned female at birth", with a link to the terminology section of Sex assignment as an explainer for people who are unfamiliar with the term, as it is commonly used within works related to transgender people. Other editors believe that AFAB is an unfamiliar WP:EUPHEMISM and that the terminology "biological female" or "natal female" would be more appropriate. A portion of the discussion has been on why "biological female" in particular is also problematic due to its use as a dog whistle by TERF and Gender critical people to attack and delegitimise transgender people. I would suggest that any editor contributing now familiarise themselves with what has already been discussed over the last few days, so that we don't need to recover old arguments.

In an attempt to show that "assigned female at birth" was not an unfamiliar euphemism, I have counted the instances of the three terms proposed for rewording the lead, plus some logical variations of word order when used in context, as they are used in the current citation list of the article. I did not count the individual instances of "girl" as that was not relevant. I would also like to point out that a lot of the works cited make little to no mention of the subjects Shrier is writing about. Many contain no references at all to gender or sex. By doing this analysis, it should hopefully be clear that "assigned female at birth" or a related variation like "assigned male at birth" or "assigned sex at birth" is the most commonly used term in materials related to this book. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that this analysis took a lot of time, but it is fatally flawed. I checked a few sources the other day, and noticed that a great many of them refer to the subjects simply as "teenage girls" or "girls", as Genericusername57 noted. This was not included in the analysis. This even includes some heavily anti-Shrier sources like PinkNews and Jack Turban, who simply quote Shrier, which I also advocated we do as one option.

Even with this massive limitation, if read carefully, there are more sources using "biological female" than "assigned female at birth". (And did this count "biologically female"?) 15 vs. 13. Not to mention the 4 that use "natal female" and not the others. Clearly, "AFAB" is in the minority. We should be counting by number of sources, not number of total usages - especially since some sources just, say, happen to be longer and so use their term more, while others may use a variety of terminology and/or use more quotes of Shrier.

Lastly, it is not my position that we should use "biological female". Instead, I proposed "of the female sex". I do not recall seeing any reasons not to use this clear and accurate term. It is a good middle ground, and it is clear by now that AFAB is far outnumbered by other terms. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t looked through all the sources as closely, but there’s a few things I’m not totally following. If none of the sources say something like “of the female sex”, what would be the reason to use it in this article? Also, 13 vs 15 isn’t much of a meaningful difference. For example, I don’t think the article I linked to earlier in this thread that uses AFAB is a source in this Wikipedia article. If anything this analysis suggests that “AFAB” and “biologically female” are roughly similarly used, not that one is the clear minority. But it does make it clear that AFAB isn’t esoteric jargon that wouldn’t be used in a general-audience publication. Is there a point we should start an RfC or get feedback from some noticeboard or dispute resolution? Politanvm ^talk 04:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"Biologically female" and "natal female" mean essentially the same thing, so it's actually 19 vs. 13. And how many of those 13 are multiple articles from the same outlet (e.g., SBM)? Plus, sources that just use or quote "teenage girls"/"girls" also have to be counted, and per gnu57 this could be about 17 sources. Article text has to match the ideas found in sources, not their exact wording (in fact, the latter is discouraged for longer text). It is too soon for an RfC since this preliminary analysis has just been posted; the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is a pain to use. Also, WP:Consensus is not unanimity, if it comes to that. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

All of these terms (AFAB, biological female, natal female, and how Shrier uses “girls”) mean the essentially the same thing in this context. I think we all understand the general concept of who Shrier is referring to, but there are many terms that people use to refer to that group. This discussion is about choosing a term, not figuring out the underlying concept, so it doesn’t make sense to group terms. Any of these terms could meet WP:V, so which one should we use, and why? Is it a simple number of sources game? That wouldn’t work too well because we can keep finding more sources that support whichever term. Are there any other guidelines or policies we’re missing that can help get us out of an “I don’t like it” circle? Politanvm ^talk 05:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"Biological female" and "natal female" both refer to the trait of sex. "Assigned female at birth" implicitly denies the existence of sex. "Girls" recognizes sex but then conflates it with gender. They all ultimately mean the same group, but two of them have unwanted baggage. "AFAB" is WP:UNDUE, majorly, being in only a minority of sources. Plus WP:EUPH as mentioned. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

But AFAB doesn’t deny the existence of sex, as is obvious from the article about sex assignment. It’s just a clearer term that encompasses the multiple different ways sex is discerned. As for undue, all of the terms are a minority, right? Do any appear in more than half of the sources? We’re looking at pluralities, and none of these seem substantially more prevalent than the other. And in what way is AFAB a euphemism? It’s a common, standard, specific, and well-defined term when discussing transgender topics. Politanvm ^talk 05:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Not for general audiences it isn't. And while the technical usage may not mean to do so, that is the effect the term has and how many people understand it. As for "clearer", I'd just be repeating myself. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Addressing the various points raised in order.

• "teenage girls" or "girls". It is correct to say that my analysis didn't look into the usage of those terms. As raised previously, because of Shrier's misuse of "girls" to refer to all the subjects she is writing about regardless of how they identify, it would be inappropriate for us to use that wording.
• This even includes some heavily anti-Shrier sources like PinkNews and Jack Turban PinkNews is cited once in the article in two places (1 & 47 are duplicates which I'll correct now). It does not use any of the three terms searched for. Jack Turban is cited once in the article (8), in four places. It also does not use any of the three terms.
• Was "biologically female" included in "biological female" count? Yes. That was was one of the logical variations in the "biological sex". I also included "biologically male".
• Source count for "biological female". Of the 15 that use the term "biological female", three were written entirely by Shrier (14, 17, 18), and seven only use the term when directly quoting from Shrier or stating her position in her chosen terminology (12, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42). If you were to discard the three sources written directly by Shrier, the comparison becomes AFAB/AMAB 13, biological 12, natal 11. If you are to also discard the sources that use the term "biological female" because it is a direct quotation of Shrier or is restating her position in her choice of language, it becomes AFAB/AMAB 13, biological 5, natal 11.
• Having only rechecked the sources listed in the previous paragraph, none use "of the female sex" or slight variations thereof.
• "Biologically female" and "natal female" are the same thing. No. As I and other editors have repeatedly pointed out, "biologically female" is a problematic term in this context, due to its use by TERF and Gender critical people to attack and delegitimise trans people. Shrier uses the term to do just that both in the book, and in three of the opinion pieces she has written which are cited in the article. It is inappropriate to combine those two terms together as the same category. And that's before you start getting into WP:SYNTH territory.
• Any guidelines or policies we're missing to break the circular argument? None that I'm aware of. It's why I proposed earlier making a RFC on WP:GENDERID or MOS:GENDERID because we don't have a clear guideline upon which to follow, and this discussion may well be happening on other article talk pages due to the contentiousness of the various terms amongst editors.
• "Assigned female at birth" implicitly denies the existence of sex. No. See the terminology section on the Sex assignment article.
• "Girls" recognizes sex but then conflates it with gender. Yes, but also irrelevant in this context, because of Shrier's misuse of the term "girls" in her book to refer to transgender and non-binary youth and teens who are explicitly not girls.
• "AFAB" is WP:UNDUE, majorly, being in only a minority of sources. Only if the uses of "biological" and "natal" are combined. Setting aside the problems with using "biological female" in this context, to combine the two terms at the very least one should discount the three sources written directly by Shrier, as well as adjusting for duplicates that use multiple terms. Doing so results in 13 for AFAB, and 16 for the synthesised biological/natal usage. If one also discards sources where the only use of "biological" is because of direct quotes from Shrier's book, then the comparison becomes 13 for AFAB, and 13 for the synthesised biological/natal usage. When either reduction is made, there is either a very slight difference and not a definitive minority, or equal usage.
• And in what way is AFAB a euphemism? This has repeatedly been asserted by a single editor, however when asked to prove it the response was "That seems akin to proving a negative."
• the effect the term [AFAB] has and how many people understand it. This is easily addressable by linking assigned female at birth to the terminology section of the sex assignment article, which defines the terms and synonyms of it.

I hope this covers all of the major points raised. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This mixes up arguments against using a particular term and analysis of the commonness of a term. Whatever supposed dogwhistle usage "biological female" has is irrelevant to the fact that its meaning is the same as "natal female". Just because we wouldn't say "teenage girls" in wikivoice does not mean we can disregard those sources, especially since some of them are just quoting Shrier, which would be permissible for Wikipedia to do. Of course once you've split up and disregarded the competition, AFAB looks like the winner. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, you are literally arguing that we should sum together dog whistles of two different pitches before comparing them to the sourced term. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a "dog whistle" if it's used by RS. These are all "sourced terms". AFAB is at least as much an ideological signal. Even calling disfavored but sourced terms a "dog whistle" is a clearly POV argument. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"Biological female" and "natal female", the terms under discussion, are not always dog whistles, but they most certainly are used as dog whistles in certain publications on culture war and "gender critical" issues, and some of these publications are cited in the article (which makes sense, since the article's subject is a culture war, gender critical intervention). Before we go further is this understood by everybody? Is the sky blue? Don't tell me the sky is POV-coloured. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no it does not mix up arguments. I was responding to multiple points, raised by multiple editors. Each point is relatively stand alone, hence why each one is a separate bullet point in a list.

It is wholly and completely inappropriate to combine "biological" and "natal" into one category. I have already stated why in the sixth bullet point. In summary, it is inappropriate because of Shrier's misuse of the term, and WP:SYNTH. We cannot combine the terms in this way.

The only reason I preformed the synthesised comparison as suggested was to show that, after removing the three opinion pieces directly written by Shrier, and filtering for duplicate entries, which are the bare minimum you would need to do in this combination, there is only a slight majority in favour. If you then were remove any citations that only use the "biological" or "natal" term, because it was a direct quotation from Shrier's work, it becomes equal. Note that I have said direct quotation. If the author of the citation uses the term, but not as part of a quotation from Shrier and her work, then it is still included. However this is immaterial because it is still an inappropriate combination to make.

I do not appreciate the insinuation that I am analysing the data to predetermine an outcome. In the previous discussions each of the three terms; AFAB, biological female, and natal female, were proposed as separate options for wording in the lead. There was no strong consensus for any of the three choices. The primary objection to the term AFAB was that it was an unfamiliar euphemism. To address that concern, and to check that the term was in use in discussions surrounding this book, I preformed this analysis. In doing so, I discovered that 13 of the citations used AFAB or a variant, 15 used biological female or a variant, and 11 used natal female or a variant. This is a stalemate as there is no definitive strong consensus as to which term should be used. At the very least, this disproves that the term is an unfamiliar euphemism as it appears in roughly the same number of citations as the other two terms.

Of the 15 citations that use biological female, three are written directly by Shrier. Because of her misuse of terminology, those must be discounted. In doing so that brings the counts to AFAB 13, biological 12, natal 11. This is still a stalemate.

It is becoming clear at this stage that a consensus may not be reachable amongst the editors involved. If that is the case and the other editors who have contributed do not do so, then it behoves us to to bring this to WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Otherwise we will likely continue to argue in circular perpetuity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I still think WP:NPOVN might be best, although I am not active there. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we don't seem to be reaching a consensus here despite a lot of work to hash things out. Calling for input from other editors seems like a good idea.-Pengortm (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial you may be right. I've not had to raise anything to any of the noticeboards before, so I'm not entirely sure which is the right one for this circumstance. Take those I listed as more of an example than prescriptive. I just think that, in lieu of other editors wading in and breaking this stalemate, involvement with one of the dispute resolution noticeboards is starting to look necessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOVN discussions aren't generally given an enforceable closure and aren't binding such that anyone committing WP:IDHT can be brought to ANI; they draw in more editors, but number of editors isn't the issue here. RfCs are best, but they can be majorly skewed by how they are framed, and any more than 2 choices often results in a no consensus status quo closure. Honestly I'm feeling inclined to give up on this massive time sink. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested that behaviour here is ANI worthy. And at the moment there is not enough editor input to say whether or not WP:IDHT is happening. Though if you believe that IDHT is applicable to yourself, I won't stop you from saying so. Just that, outside of a consensus becoming clear based on the points raised, some form of third party dispute resolution is warranted to break the deadlock. Editors can disagree without it being disruptive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is that regardless of which way NPOVN would go, editors can simply revert away from other editors' interpretation of the consensus there and say that understanding is not accurate; there is nothing that can be done about that. So NPOVN means more time wasting and nothing definitive. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

How then do we break this deadlock if NPOVN is not the appropriate forum? ANI seems like overkill. DRN might work, or it might direct us to NPOVN or another noticeboard. And you've already expressed concerns over RFC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC would be best if done right, but as I implied, I'm giving up on this. I'm done. Sunk cost and all that. If Pengortm, Genericusername57, or anyone else wants to pursue this, I'll weigh in, but that's it. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

A return to the proposed version

Now that the point on AFAB seems to be settled, that it is not an unfamiliar euphamism, I'd like to return to the proposal. Taking into account the discussions in the last subsection, the proposal that had the most support minus the question about it being a euphamism was AFAB. As such I'd like to re-propose the wording by Tewdar at the start of the last subsection.

Shrier, who refers to children and teenagers assigned female at birth as 'girls' irrespective of their gender identity, states that during the 2010s there began a social contagion, creating a sudden increase in transgender identification among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder".

Are there any thoughts, disagreements, or suggestions on this proposed version, taking into account the sum of the past discussions? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It's better than getting stung by a bunch of wasps when you accidentally step on their stupid nest on the ground, I suppose. Which just happened to me. 😡 Tewdar (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, perhaps an attributed quote for the "social contagion" might be nice. Tewdar (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Alternatively, we could use a slightly different approach: Shrier states that during the 2010s there began a social contagion, creating a sudden increase in transgender identification among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls [i.e. transmaculine children and teenagers who were assigned female at birth] who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder".
  • Actually, probably not. The article quotes her saying" girls" a few times, so the other way means we only have to explain this once. Think I'll go and lie down now... Tewdar (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we ever reached a consensus on the use of the term AFAB. Some editors felt it was necessary to use and some felt it was a bad idea to use and other terms should be used instead. In any case, please let us know where you are proposing to add this language in the article or what passage you want to replace. -Pengortm (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pengortm: - the disputed section is this part of the lede: Shrier states that there was a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among teenagers assigned female at birth[note 1] during the 2010s.[6] She attributes this to a social contagion among "high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder".[6][7] Tewdar (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Point of order, I for one never "settled" that AFAB "is not an unfamiliar euphamism". I gave up wasting time trying to overturn the status quo at present, but I never agreed to that. There's a difference between "no contest" or "present" and "I agree". Crossroads ^-talk- 04:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: - would you be happy with a change to "assigned female sex at birth"? Tewdar (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

And the rest of ye, obviously. This phrase is very common in the relevant publications, BTW. So this is hardly "going out of our way to emphasize the female sex", as @Newimpartial: might put it. Tewdar (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

To try to be agreeable, I would be fine with "whose assigned sex is female", if that helps deal with some perceived problem with "assigned female at birth". Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: While you're feeling "agreeable" (what have you done with the real Newimpartial?), what's wrong with "Shrier, who refers to children and teenagers assigned female sex at birth as 'girls'..."? Tewdar (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Unlike "assigned female at birth" or "whose sex assignment is female", "assigned female sex at birth" doesn't sound like anything a fluent English-speaker would write voluntarily. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Google scholar seems to disagree - perhaps the variety of English spoken in your area is not the same as mine... Tewdar (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Roughly 1/10 of the number of results for "assigned female at birth" on both JSTOR and Proquest. So, not as common, but hardly unacceptable syntax... Tewdar (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I could maybe agree with "whose assigned sex is female" except that it isn't representative of what the sources in the article say. AFAB is. If consensus leans towards that, I'll support it at that time but for the moment I'd object. That said, aside from Crossroads for whom I'll pass no comment, I'm still not sure what the other objections to AFAB are given that it is a commonly and widely used phrase in this content area and is representative of the sources used in the article at present. It might help if the other editors objecting state their reasons for why. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to AFAB. It is essentially the same as saying, "somebody wrote the word 'female' in the 'sex' box on the birth certificate", which probably describes the group we are talking about better than any other alternative. Tewdar (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't "agree" either, more of not being sure this is a hill to die on, given how my previous comments got me scolded twice on my talk page, so continuing was likely to eventually get me blocked or banned rather than accomplishing anything useful, so perhaps this is like the ending of WarGames in which I've stumbled into a game where the only winning move is not to play. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, the comment that received a warning was a targeted attack against me. As others have said, when I said those terms I was referring to proposed content, not about the editor making the proposal. There is a huge and very important distinction in that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar, "assigned female sex at birth" is even worse because that now explicitly says that sex is a socially assigned label. Newimpartial's suggestion of "whose assigned sex is female" seems a little better than the status quo. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

References