Talk:male-assigned
See WT:TR#assigned_female_at_birth (permalink). - -sche (discuss) 21:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Complication/Clarification? edit
You don't necessarily have to be born with typical male genitals/"biologically male" to be male-assigned (and similarly for female-assigned). In the vast majority (if not all) of Western societies, we assign a gender to intersex children at birth, which like for dyadically sexed children, may or may not match their actual gender. (That is, it is possible to be cis and intersex, or trans and intersex; trans/cis status and intersex/dyadic status are orthogonal axes.) Also, in admittedly rare situations, we have assigned genders opposite to the assignment that would usually correspond to one's genitals (the David Reimer case comes to mind). Could we expound upon the given definition to include some of these nuances? As it stands, it errs pretty heavily on the side of essentialism. J0lt C0la (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing the error. - -sche (discuss) 00:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I created these nearly a decade ago (see talk page); at the time I felt the grammar if not also the semantics was unintuitive. But I've come to wonder if they are SOP. I think "X-assigned" would typically(?) mean "assigned by X", like "state-assigned minders", "school-assigned reading", but compare e.g. google books:"terrorist-designated groups", google books:"terrorist-designated charity", etc, which seem to be ones designated as terrorist. You can also switch the word order ("assigned male", and in that order you can use other words, like "designated male" or in certain crowds "observed male", though I haven't found cites of the form *"male-designated" or *"male-observed"), but I'm not sure whether that part is relevant to the un/idiomaticity of this or not. So I'm bringing here to see what anyone else thinks. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would keep all hyphenated terms. They look like words to me, and our aim is to include all of those. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- What about the predicative, non-hyphenated versions (usually occurring in the longer combination (fe)male assigned at birth)? --Lambiam 13:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that these two terms are often written without hyphens, but hyphenated usage is also found, so like Semper, I say keep and have no objection. But I would say that words prefixed much- are considered taboo here - I had one deleted and have left those alone since then. So not all hyphenated words are acceptable, seemingly. DonnanZ (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Inserting a hyphen after much is a much-decried practice. --Lambiam 10:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- WT:CFI#Idiomaticity says: “Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases.” --Lambiam 10:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- It depends how much is used. "He was much maligned", being predicative, no hyphen. "A much-travelled man", being attributive, can use a hyphen. DonnanZ (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- And “he was very angry” → “a very-angry man”? Or “a hopelessly-botched job”, “an often-overlooked aspect”, and “a rarely-seen disorder” ? --Lambiam 13:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- All of those except "very-angry" are quite common, although most style guides recommend against putting a hyphen after an adverb ending in -ly, so "hopelessly-botched" and "rarely-seen" are common enough in real life, but careful writers who follow such style guides will write "hopelessly botched" and "rarely seen". —Mahāgaja · talk 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree 100% with Mahagaja for those examples. I will add that the adverb well can be used attributively like much with a hyphen - e.g. well-used and well-upholstered. DonnanZ (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- And “he was very angry” → “a very-angry man”? Or “a hopelessly-botched job”, “an often-overlooked aspect”, and “a rarely-seen disorder” ? --Lambiam 13:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- It depends how much is used. "He was much maligned", being predicative, no hyphen. "A much-travelled man", being attributive, can use a hyphen. DonnanZ (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that these two terms are often written without hyphens, but hyphenated usage is also found, so like Semper, I say keep and have no objection. But I would say that words prefixed much- are considered taboo here - I had one deleted and have left those alone since then. So not all hyphenated words are acceptable, seemingly. DonnanZ (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Are we sure this means at birth? I would have assumed "female-assigned trans people" later assigned themselves to be female. This might be a good reason to keep. DAVilla 08:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept, then. (My own position is uncertainty—bringing it up because I was no longer sure it was idiomatic, but not sure it wasn't, either—and there are four "keeps" to one "delete".) - -sche (discuss) 09:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)