Talk:Gender identity

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gender identity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Gender studies High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention LGBTQ+ studies LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion. Sexology and sexuality High‑importance Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Use of "assigned" throughout

The consensus is against the proposal.

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except that even anatomical sex can be altered through hormones and surgery. Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The determination of sex at birth, as described in the article on Sex assignment, makes no argument about the ability to change sex, and is relevant to the article throughout. Replacing the term with simply "sex" reduces accuracy. For example, the article discusses the gender identities of individuals assigned female at birth, with XY chromosomes, and lacking typical male anatomy. That is to say, their assigned sex, their chromosomal sex, and their anatomical sex are not all the same, and the sex as assigned at birth was relevant to the study. Removing mentions to it would be, frankly, egregiously non-neutral. --Equivamp - talk 01:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. WP articles need to reflect the reliable sources on their respective subject matter. In this case, the term used is "assigned sex" - there are reasons for this that so agree, including sex determination in intersex cases (roughly 1% of births) and "errors" - but even if I didn't agree with the usage, it would still be correct because it is used by essentially all recent, reliable sources on gender identity, or is also worth noting that the article on sex and gender outlines the terms of a debate; it does not outline pat definitions to be employed mechanically elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think the correct solution here would be to replace "sex assigned at birth" with "gender assigned at birth". Changing it to just "sex" would probably be confusing, since people can change their sex (at least anatomically), thus a person's current sex may not be the same as their sex at birth (depending on which definition of "sex" you use). Kaldari (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't WP's job to replace the terminology used in Reliable Sources with something editors feel might be better. Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...a person's current sex may not be the same as their sex at birth": which is one reason that the clarificatory "sex assigned at birth" is used... -sche (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per sources which demonstrate the "assigned (fe)male at birth" and "assigned sex at birth" is common: American Psychological Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Academy of Pediatrics NBC News, Washington Post, Cosmopolitan, WBUR, Entertainment Tonight, NYTimes, and Newsweek. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: People who are assigned a sex are also assigned a gender. A person assigned male is usually assigned as a boy. A person assigned female is usually assigned as a girl. It's why "gender assignment" is the WP:Alternative title for "sex assignment." Well, other than the fact that the sex and gender distinction is commonly disregarded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. SAAB is a set phrase. ARR8 (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC) (summoned by bot)[reply]
• Oppose; use the language used in the most (and MED-) reliable sources, as others have said. Individual instances might need to be changed to "assigned gender" or the like. -sche (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The assignment of sex at birth (and the idea that it is not always clear-cut) is well-established in medical literature, and the arguments posed here against that terminology are WP:OR at best, even if we accept their underlying logic (which I do not thing is at all well-cited or established.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as an example, intersex people are "assigned" a gender - whether or not it is the one they later identify with - so trying to claim that there cannot "be a different sex from the one a person is born with." as per the proposal, is clearly unsupportable - Arjayay (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Follow-up

WP:NOTAFORUM. WP:CITE or WP:DROPSTICK. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 02:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions above seem to overlook a key aspect: the phrase "sex assigned at birth" sounds bureaucratic (which it is) and incidental (which it is most likely not). The identity dissonance is between one's gender and their actual genitalia, in contrast to one's gender vs. the ink stains (i.e. male/female) on their birth certificate. For this reason I think it should be "sex assigned at birth". 166.48.82.76 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] But the reliable sources on the topic don't agree with you. Hmmm. What should we do? Newimpartial (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] With all due respect, you have proven to be nothing but biased in your redaction of this topic. It is amusing to me that it is allowed for activists (LGBT) to edit and dictate what is written or not on this page. The criticism wikipedia has received regarding this matter has not been unfounded and is clearly visible here. The fact that there is no criticisms page regarding this issue when public debate is at an all time high and there is clear division regarding this matter (both by the general public and professionals in the medical field) is both amusing and sad. I have read the talk page regarding this topic and the way editors are handling this issue gives clear indication of the leftist bias that has been reported throughput the media. I know this will be erased as will other matters regarding criticism of how this has been handled. For such reason I will be leaving Wikipedia behind and moving to Britannica which multiple studies have found is a more objective and neutral source of information. I hope all the people here the best and may all of you learn that having a chokehold on how information is portrayed won’t change actual-factual truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.147.136 (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gender identity as a concept is contested

WP:NOTAFORUM. Cite a single reliable source to base potential changes on next time, or it will be hatted immediately. Remsense 🌈 论 16:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction makes clear gender identity is a relatively new idea. The measurement section makes clear there is no way gender identity can be objectively measured (or identified). The introduction should therefore make clear that gender identity is a concept many people do not accept. The article could then be read with a more open mind. 2A00:23C6:CBB3:2E00:259B:DC27:DDFE:3FB0 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Pain cannot be objectively measured either, but we don't say in the lead that people don't accept its existence. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Agreed but we all experience pain and lack of belief in pain would be, I should think, very rare indeed. Only some people report experiencing a gender identity and it’s fair to say others do not feel it or believe in it. 2A04:4A43:521F:C8AA:C040:B37B:5205:8B8E (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Do you have any sources that support the claim that "only some people report experiencing a gender identity"? JasonMacker (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] More than 99.9% of people have a gender identity. Those who don't typically describe themselves as agender. They are a real but very small minority even with the trans community which is itself a small minority of the overall population. The idea that cis people don't have a gender identity is one that I have heard from nutcases on Twitter but it is not something that we need to take seriously here (or indeed anywhere else). Anybody who describes themselves as a man, woman, boy or girl is reporting experiencing a gender identity. Most non-binary people also experience a gender identity, just not exclusively one of the two binary ones. DanielRigal (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] I see do you have a source that confirms more than 99.9% of people believe in gender identity and report having one? 2A04:4A43:521F:C8AA:C040:B37B:5205:8B8E (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] The onus is on you to show WP:Reliable Sources that claim that the majority of the population is agender if that is what you want to claim. You can't because they are not. Please drop the stick. DanielRigal (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oh sorry no no I’m not claiming the majority of the population are agender, I didn’t mean that at all. 2A04:4A43:521F:C8AA:C040:B37B:5205:8B8E (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] The department for education (UK) published draft guidance which refers to gender identity as a “contested belief”. That is one source I found. 2A04:4A43:521F:C8AA:C040:B37B:5205:8B8E (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Nobody cares. The idea that men and women exist is not contested and those are gender identities covering the vast majority of the population. What is actually being sneakily alleged is that some people's gender identities are contested. That is a form of abuse targeted at those people and Wikipedia will not be used as a vector for the abuse for minorities. Please drop the stick. DanielRigal (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sorry I’m not sure what you mean by “nobody cares”. I can see evidence that people exist who do not believe in it. The original point was there are people who do not accept such a concept and should the article acknowledge that, or should we ignore such people? 2A04:4A43:521F:C8AA:C040:B37B:5205:8B8E (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] I thought that this article already covered that topic but, after looking at the article a little more closely, I see that we don't cover anti-gender rhetoric as much as I thought we did. So, yeah. I'll agree with you on that specific point. The article could do more to cover this. The main article about that topic is Anti-gender movement but this article should mention and link to that. DanielRigal (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes that sounds like a good idea as the page is already there. 2A04:4A43:521F:C8AA:C040:B37B:5205:8B8E (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Not believing in gender identity is not the same as being anti-trans or part of that movement. People can simply disbelieve the concept without being hostile, just like someone can not believe in God without being anti-religious. 86.18.15.167 (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] I already added Postgenderism to the See Also section. That's about the closest thing to what you describe that I am aware of that exists in sincere good faith. I wondered whether it should be worked into the body of the article but I wasn't sure that it fitted and I couldn't see a good way to do it. That's not to say that it shouldn't be. Most rhetoric claiming disbelief in gender identity is made in bad faith by people who want respect for their own gender identity while denying that same respect to other people. It is nearly always anti-trans even when this is not immediately obvious on casual inspection. That said, if there are any other notable movements or schools of thought with a similar degree of relevance as Postgenderism then maybe they can also be added to the See Also section, or even covered in the body. The anti-trans stuff is loud and well funded. It is not impossible that they are drowning out other voices worthy of inclusion here. DanielRigal (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] This is false equivalence. Pain has a clear biological/physiological basis. Gender identity does not have consistent observable markers. The argument fails because it wrongly assumes all subjective experiences should be accepted. 2600:100F:B112:8104:E1D8:BAB9:B622:5FA0 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] pain can be measured and observed with several medical instruments 2600:8805:430D:C000:11A0:30ED:1613:1A3C (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Circular definition in the first paragraph

"Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender." - this definition is useless as it's a circular definition. Can someone please replace this with a proper definition? MisterZed (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is most certainly not circular, and there is no need to replace it. Mathglot (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you agree that it would be much better if it was defined without the word GENDER in the definition?? MisterZed (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So "identity is the persona lsense of one's own" ? That doesn't have gender. How do you get rid of gender in defining gender identity. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

There is a page for gender critical feminism, why isn't there a topic on this page about the criticisms of self ID as being all that is needed to be a man or woman? Polkol777 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" is covered in the Opposing views section. I suspect the reason it doesn't link directly to the article about the Gender-Critical movement is because that is a small subset of the overall Anti-gender movement, mostly focused in the UK. We want to cover the topic broadly with an international perspective. Anybody following the link to Anti-gender movement will get a good general overview, which includes coverage of the GC movement and a link to the article about it for anybody who wants more detail. It's an extra step from here to there but the context it provides is worthwhile. DanielRigal (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah gotcha I was expecting a whole section about criticisms, thanks for pointing out the section about opposing views. Do you think it would be at all worth it to mention the gender criticals directly, despite it being a more local belief system? Polkol777 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I think it is OK as it is but I wouldn't completely rule out maybe adding a brief mention to the opposing views section. Does anybody else have a view on this? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]