Why was the term "cisgendered" even made in the first place? (racist, election)

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

Don't play dumb. The vast majority of people are talking about one's sex when they say "boy or girl, man or woman, male or female." So it is based on genitals, since sex is binary and the vast majority of people are simply male or female with no intersex condition. They are not talking about one's "gender identity, how they feel inside." That words have been redefined (sex and gender to mean the same thing) doesn't change that.

You obviously did not follow the conversation regarding the question I asked.

My question was in the vein of a conversation you obviously did not comprehend or even possibly read:

Poster 1 said: No, you are not assigned a sex…

I said: No, many people, parents, doctors, etc. assign sex based upon genital expression.

Poster 2 said: .......assign sex based on genital expression? Nope, the Dr just tells us if it is a boy or a girl.

I said: Based on what?

In other words, if it is not based upon genital expression what does the Dr., when he assigns sex, based on? Never got an answer!

Then you pipe in, ignorantly, and think you know what’s going on in the conversation and said:

The vast majority of people are talking about one's sex … So it is based on genitals.

So you actually just agreed with me. Thanks!

[Eumaois]

Originally Posted by Sheepie2000

Cisgendered does not mean straight. It means that you agree with the gender you were assigned at birth.

Exactly. You could have some that is that but is lesbian, bisexual, or gay. However, I think "cisgender" is usu. used in the context of a straight person though I could be wrong.

[Checkmarkblue]

Originally Posted by Msgenerse

We already had the term "straight" which means the same thing, so why make up another redundant term such as "cisgendered"? Anyone know?

Like wise with latinx.

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Based on what?

The point is the absurd use of the word "assign", like the Dr has a choice or an option.

When I leave my home if the sun is up it is daytime and if the sun is down it is night time. I don't assign it night or day.

The incorrect use of the word assign in this circumstance was devised for a specific purpose. A purpose we all understand, but some pretend not to.

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

The point is the absurd use of the word "assign", like the Dr has a choice or an option.

When I leave my home if the sun is up it is daytime and if the sun is down it is night time. I don't assign it night or day.

The incorrect use of the word assign in this circumstance was devised for a specific purpose. A purpose we all understand, but some pretend not to.

When a Dr. does this it is in accordance with rules and medical practices for the purpose of legality and thus 'assigning' a sex is a perfectly good way to describe what is going on here - Jeez!

Yeah, it's a conspiracy of definitions and bad language use.

Assign: "To set apart for a particular purpose or place in a particular category"

From Wiki:

In European societies, Roman law, post-classical Canon law, and later Common law, referred to a person's sex as male, female or hermaphrodite, with legal rights as male or female depending on the characteristics that appeared most dominant. Under Roman law, a hermaphrodite had to be classed as either male or female. The 12th-century Decretum Gratiani states that "Whether an hermaphrodite may witness a testament, depends on which sex prevails". The foundation of common law, the 16th Century Institutes of the Lawes of England described how a hermaphrodite could inherit "either as male or female, according to that kind of sexe which doth prevaile." Legal cases where sex assignment was placed in doubt have been described over the centuries.

Before the 1950s, assignment was based almost entirely on the appearance of the external genitalia. Although physicians recognized that there were conditions in which the apparent secondary sexual characteristics could develop contrary to the person's sex, and conditions in which the gonadal sex did not match that of the external genitalia, their ability to understand and diagnose such conditions in infancy was too poor to attempt to predict future development in most cases.

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

When a Dr. does this it is in accordance with rules and medical practices for the purpose of legality and thus 'assigning' a sex is a perfectly good way to describe what is going on here - Jeez!

Yeah, it's a conspiracy of definitions and bad language use.

Assign: "To set apart for a particular purpose or place in a particular category"

From Wiki:

In European societies, Roman law, post-classical Canon law, and later Common law, referred to a person's sex as male, female or hermaphrodite, with legal rights as male or female depending on the characteristics that appeared most dominant. Under Roman law, a hermaphrodite had to be classed as either male or female. The 12th-century Decretum Gratiani states that "Whether an hermaphrodite may witness a testament, depends on which sex prevails". The foundation of common law, the 16th Century Institutes of the Lawes of England described how a hermaphrodite could inherit "either as male or female, according to that kind of sexe which doth prevaile." Legal cases where sex assignment was placed in doubt have been described over the centuries.

Before the 1950s, assignment was based almost entirely on the appearance of the external genitalia. Although physicians recognized that there were conditions in which the apparent secondary sexual characteristics could develop contrary to the person's sex, and conditions in which the gonadal sex did not match that of the external genitalia, their ability to understand and diagnose such conditions in infancy was too poor to attempt to predict future development in most cases.

A wikipedia article......here is a facepalm for you You know how Wikipedia is written right?

This bit really just confirms the absurdity of your position: "Sex assignment is the determination of an infant's sex at birth.[citation needed]" . Whichever LGBTQIA+ activist who wrote the piece can't even find a single credible source to support the central premise.

At least your article does also reveal the truth of the reason for the incorrect use of the word assign. "The view of gender as a purely social construction, and gender identity as a result of nurture rather than nature reached widespread acceptance, at least in liberal, progressive, and academic portions of Western society. The primary goal of assignment was to choose the sex that would lead to the least inconsistency between external anatomy and assigned psyche (gender identity)".

These powerful Dr's even now assign psyche!

As I said before, nope, the Dr just tells us if it is a boy or a girl. Just like I can tell you if it is night or day, I don't assign it.

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

A wikipedia article......here is a facepalm for you You know how Wikipedia is written right?

This bit really just confirms the absurdity of your position: "Sex assignment is the determination of an infant's sex at birth.[citation needed]" . Whichever LGBTQIA+ activist who wrote the piece can't even find a single credible source to support the central premise.

So Doctors never have nor do assign [set apart for a particular purpose or place in a particular category] sex at birth by checking the genitalia? Yeah Right! I gave you the historical background to such practices - what sources where you expecting - it was probably your ilk that thinks that such usages of the word 'assign' are absurd that edited the wiki page to ask for something so obvious. It's been taking place for hundreds of years.

My position is that Dr, and other's throughout history, assign (as seen in the definition cited) sex based on genital presentation - that is just a historical fact.

At least your article does also reveal the truth of the reason for the incorrect use of the word assign. "The view of gender as a purely social construction, and gender identity as a result of nurture rather than nature reached widespread acceptance, at least in liberal, progressive, and academic portions of Western society. The primary goal of assignment was to choose the sex that would lead to the least inconsistency between external anatomy and assigned psyche (gender identity)".

It only reveals your lack of understanding the word 'assign' and your ill conceived preoccupation with definitions as some sort of argument against the facts of history and sex assignment.

These powerful Dr's even now assign psyche!

It does not say the Doctors assigned psyche. I like how you ripped it out of context and came up with Doctors assigning psyche.

Here is the full context. Duh!

Sex assignment became more than choosing a sex of rearing, but also began to include surgical treatment. Undescended testes could be retrieved. A greatly enlarged clitoris could be amputated to the usual size, but attempts to create a penis were unsuccessful. John Money and others controversially believed that children were more likely to develop a gender identity that matched sex of rearing than might be determined by chromosomes, gonads, or hormones. The resulting medical model was termed the "Optimal gender model."

The view of gender as a purely social construction, and gender identity as a result of nurture rather than nature reached widespread acceptance, at least in liberal, progressive, and academic portions of Western society. The primary goal of assignment was to choose the sex that would lead to the least inconsistency between external anatomy and assigned psyche (gender identity). This led to the recommendation that any child without a penis or with a penis too small to penetrate a vagina could be raised as a girl, taught to be a girl, and would develop a female gender identity, and that this would be the best way to minimize future discrepancy between psyche and external anatomy in those infants determined to be genetically male (i.e. XY genotype) but without a penis that meets medical norms (e.g., cloacal exstrophy), and also in those like in the John/Joan case who lost it to accidental trauma in early infancy.

As I said before, nope, the Dr just tells us if it is a boy or a girl. Just like I can tell you if it is night or day, I don't assign it.

No one is arguing that Doctors don't tell us if it is a boy or a girl. But when they do they are assigning them to a category, for multiple reason both social and legal, based upon expression of genitalia. FACT!

I'm sorry history offends you and you are triggered by such an 'absurd' use of the word assign. Please don't send the Definition Police on me!

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

So Doctors never have nor do assign [set apart for a particular purpose or place in a particular category] sex at birth by checking the genitalia? Yeah Right! I gave you the historical background to such practices - what sources where you expecting - it was probably your ilk that thinks that such usages of the word 'assign' are absurd that edited the wiki page to ask for something so obvious. It's been taking place for hundreds of years.

My position is that Dr, and other's throughout history, assign (as seen in the definition cited) sex based on genital presentation - that is just a historical fact.

It only reveals your lack of understanding the word 'assign' and your ill conceived preoccupation with definitions as some sort of argument against the facts of history and sex assignment.

It does not say the Doctors assigned psyche. I like how you ripped it out of context and came up with Doctors assigning psyche.

Here is the full context. Duh!

No one is arguing that Doctors don't tell us if it is a boy or a girl. But when they do they are assigning them to a category, for multiple reason both social and legal, based upon expression of genitalia. FACT!

I'm sorry history offends you and you are triggered by such an 'absurd' use of the word assign. Please don't send the Definition Police on me!

Haha I'm not offended nor triggered (though seems you may be), your tap dancing is enjoyable. I know why you don't want to face the definition police too.

The sex of a baby is determined by its chromosome make-up at conception. It is not "assigned" at birth. It is observed and reported at birth. If you want to use the word assigned, then maybe sex is assigned by nature at conception.

We all know the reason this terminology has relatively recently come into use and it is to support the notion that Gender is different to sex and is a social construct. Some choose to pretend otherwise.

[Aussiehoff]

Planned Parenthood are partly honest when they discuss it on their website: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/le...ender-identity

Instead of saying “biological sex,” some people use the phrase “assigned male at birth” or “assigned female at birth.” This acknowledges that someone (often a doctor) is making a decision for someone else. The assignment of a biological sex may or may not align with what’s going on with a person’s body, how they feel, or how they identify.

Its obviously incorrect that a Dr is making a decision for someone else, but rather an observation, but at least PP acknowledge this absurd use of the word is all about the feelings of some people.

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

Haha I'm not offended nor triggered (though seems you may be), your tap dancing is enjoyable. I know why you don't want to face the definition police too.

I have been clear and consistent. I gave you a definition. Not my fault if you are narrow minded and don't understand that words have ranges of meaning and usage.

The sex of a baby is determined by its chromosome make-up at conception. It is not "assigned" at birth. It is observed and reported at birth. If you want to use the word assigned, then maybe sex is assigned by nature at conception.

That is one way in which the word can be used more narrowly it's not the only way. If you want to use observed it does not bother me for it would not change one thing that I posted on here - not one. Why you are so anal about this particular word and how it is being used is odd to say the least.

We all know the reason this terminology has relatively recently come into use and it is to support the notion that Gender is different to sex and is a social construct. Some choose to pretend otherwise.

You are missing the point! Forget the terms and stick to concepts.

What would you call a person who is biologically male but mentally feels female? Does that person have a right to feel this way and be identified as such? It does not really matter what the terminology is as much as understanding these phenomena. Definitions are always being modified given new knowledge and understanding of certain phenomena. Why you are so anal about it? You have a very limited understanding of such phenomena and relish binary, black and white thinking, acting as if definitions fall out the sky from the definition god and match reality perfectly. They don't and never have!

This is the mire in which people like you wallow and miss the whole point of what is going on. It is quit sad!