877
edits
Talk:Sexes: Difference between revisions
→Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not?
imported>Sekhet (Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not?) |
Amazingakita (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not?== | ==Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not?== | ||
When I was building this article, I noticed that people generally mean assigned gender at birth when they talk about sex. I also noticed that the entries about the sexes would largely be redundant with the ones about assigned genders at birth. Because of this, I chose to move the assigned gender at birth article into a section in the sexes article. At first, this seemed most efficient. However, as I'm going through and updating all the articles linking to it, I'm feeling uncomfortable with this decision, despite my reasoning. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it doesn't feel quite right to have the entry about AFAB be in the article about sexes. Seems like there are important nuances of difference between saying "AFAB" versus "female sex." Maybe so significant that it shouldn't be treated as synonymous, especially where trans folk are concerned, even though it's similar enough to be accepted as synonymous by many people. What do you think? Do you think I should split "assigned gender at birth" and "sexes" into two separate articles again, even if the content tends to be pretty similar between them? Or is it more efficient, acceptable, and informative to have "assigned gender at birth" in the "sexes" article? -[[User:Sekhet|Sekhet]] ([[User talk:Sekhet|talk]]) 04:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC) | When I was building this article, I noticed that people generally mean assigned gender at birth when they talk about sex. I also noticed that the entries about the sexes would largely be redundant with the ones about assigned genders at birth. Because of this, I chose to move the assigned gender at birth article into a section in the sexes article. At first, this seemed most efficient. However, as I'm going through and updating all the articles linking to it, I'm feeling uncomfortable with this decision, despite my reasoning. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it doesn't feel quite right to have the entry about AFAB be in the article about sexes. Seems like there are important nuances of difference between saying "AFAB" versus "female sex." Maybe so significant that it shouldn't be treated as synonymous, especially where trans folk are concerned, even though it's similar enough to be accepted as synonymous by many people. What do you think? Do you think I should split "assigned gender at birth" and "sexes" into two separate articles again, even if the content tends to be pretty similar between them? Or is it more efficient, acceptable, and informative to have "assigned gender at birth" in the "sexes" article? -[[User:Sekhet|Sekhet]] ([[User talk:Sekhet|talk]]) 04:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC) | ||
I think, so long as they've got their own category within the article and it's mentioned that there's a nuance for some people, it's better to keep them in here. The [[Nblm]], [[nblw]] and [[nblnb]] articles are fairly short and can be argued to merge with another page, but don't quite fit on the romantic orientation pages because they're just descriptions of acronyms. I think the opposite is true about AGAB. That's heavily influenced by sex. | |||