User talk:Bobcat82

"Sex Assigned at birth"
This common phrase, "sex assigned at birth" is patently false. Sex is not "assigned" at birth. Sex is DETERMINED at conception and RECOGNIZED at birth, if not before, just like the rest of our chromosomes. This is an important distinction because without it, some arguments try to imply that sex-identification is a variable thing and mistakes can be made in that "assignment" at birth. Being male or female is a DEVELOPMENTAL process which cannot be transitioned nor changed. DNA chromosome science is quite clear on what constitutes a male or female and presence of one set of organs verses the other set is not debatable. Presence of XX or XY chromosomes is not an "assignment" made by any person, doctor, or midwife. This logic applies equally to every characteristic of the human species whether it be skin color, eye color, hair color, or inherited diseases. Gender is not the same a sex and insisting otherwise flies in the face of well studied, well proven, and well established human genome. Source? Wikipedia DNA page. Bobcat82 (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Funcrunch (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Your copied and pasted response does not speak at all to the content or context of the edit I wrote. It's just a disclaimer that this a contentious topic, and is watched closer than others.
 * So what?
 * My edit eliminates some of that contention.
 * Sex is in fact not "assigned" at birth by anyone. Sex is DETERMINED upon conception and cannot be changed, altered, or transitioned by human means. Only the random chaotic mechanisms of natural DNA can determine anyone's sex and "assignment" at birth is irrelevant because those chromosomes can be examined, they can be classified either male, female, or intersex. There is no "transition" of that.
 * Ergo, this one sentence, and the entire article it links to "gender assignment" is inherently based on misconception and incomplete information.
 * Ask any geneticist.
 * Read any Wikipedia article on DNA.
 * Anyone's sex is not "assigned" at birth, because birth is not the first moment of life, conception is, and from day 1, the sex of all of us is determined at that moment of fertilization by a distinctive, sexed sperm. XX and XY is all we get. Anything else is false or a mutation, and cannot be transitioned by current scientific means.
 * We do not have the ability nor the technology to "assign" anyone's sex. Only nature can do that. Sex is DETERMINED at conception according to the distinct chromosome within the sperm, fertilizing an egg we know are all only XX chromosome.
 * Saying "sex assigned at birth" flies in the face of basic genetic science.
 * This topic would be less contentious if people used proven science instead of their feelings to make statements and come to conclusion.
 * Are we wrong about DNA?
 * Is DNA something we can or should be altering?
 * How does delusion of the mind constitute a DNA change in anyone, and what surgery or "affirming care" do we have which can change one's DNA?
 * Bobcat82 (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

January 2024
Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Cisgender, you may be blocked from editing. Funcrunch (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What's "inappropriate" about my discussion content?
 * Is there something scientifically or factually false about my suggestion that the term "assigned" at birth be changed to "observed" or "recognized" at birth? What's the point of a talk page if we don't talk about the accuracy, voracity, or falsehood in any topic?
 * Observation is the core of any science.
 * Observing a child born with one set of sex organs and not the other, or vice versa, does not constitute an "assignment" of sex. Scientists that we call medical doctors, or biologists, or geneticists, are trained in the identification of characteristics which differentiate A from B - all of which is based on repeated observation and literally thousands of years of study.  A penis is not a vagina, and a vagina is not a penis.  The observation of and then recording of the value onto a birth certificate does not constitute an "assignment."
 * Meanwhile, I'm getting blocked for making this point. Why? What's the point of a talk page if my valid, respectful, and science-based conclusions are censored merely because someone thinks/feels it's inappropriate?
 * Then where is the appropriate time and place to discuss this fallacy?
 * What EXACTLY is "inappropriate" about my discussion content and WHERE exactly is the appropriate place to discuss the scientific, biological, medical fallacy that is the phrase, "assigned sex at birth" ?? Bobcat82 (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I absolutely AM here to "build an encyclopedia"
 * What reason other than some unqualified opinion of appropriateness do you have to accuse me of being inappropriate such that I must be blocked?
 * If this isn't the appropriate place to talk about the accuracy of a very specific term used to define cis-gender, then WHERE is the appropriate place? And where is the scientific rationale to support the statement that any sex is "assigned" at birth, when it so very scientifically is NOT assigned at birth?
 * One does not need to be a doctor to know that sex is not assigned at birth, but I have heard several doctors confirm to me that indeed, sex is DETERMINED upon conception and merely recognized or observed upon birth, if not before given modern tech. Please, tell me oh great arbiter of what and where it's appropriate to discuss the indoctrination of myth with the imprecise use of the word "assigned" at birth and not "observed" at birth and "determined" upon conception.  Where? Bobcat82 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The appropriate place is on social media or in letters to your newspaper's editor. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to rant against a perceived Great Wrong. The encyclopedia doesn't care about your opinion on sex assignment at birth. It cares about what reliable sources say.
 * If you want to "fix" this "error", go write to ACOG, AMA, NIH, CDC, etc.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for the reliable source that has concluded that sex is "assigned" at birth and  NOT  "determined" upon conception. I'm using this talk page to get to the bottom of that, for the sake of settling this point of contention.  If we're not allowed to talk about contentions topics in the talk part of this editable encyclopedia, then what is this here for? Call it a rant if you want, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
 * Seriously, in what book of science does it say that sex is "assigned" at birth, and NOT "determined" upon conception? What consensus of biology has concluded that mere observation by a physician of physical genitals long after conception constitutes the "assignment" of sex?
 * Are you not aware of what this very encyclopedia says about the 23rd chromosome?
 * Sex chromosomes are determined upon conception, not "Assigned" at birth. That's a fact I know from many sources, and Wikipedia's own article on the matter is an absolutely a reliable source to prove that.
 * Or is Wikipedia article on human sex chromosomes not a reliable source ? Bobcat82 (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are more than capable of clicking on the sources in the article. It is not anyone's job to do that for you. There's plenty of explanation on the difference between biological/anatomical indicators of sex and the medicolegal label of sex. Please enjoy your time browsing them.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me quote the text first:
 * "Cisgender" is a term used to describe a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex  assigned  at birth.[1]
 * Clicking on that superscript [1] leads to the original source of: Miriam Webster's dictionary entry for "cisgender" - where the entry does NOT use the term "assigned" anywhere in the definition. It conspicuously says something quite different.  It says, and I quote, ": of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person was identified as having at birth"
 * Now, tell me oh great arbiter of who get's blocked and who doesn't for good or bad encyclopedia building, would you say that the article text and the source text have the same meaning? My whole contention is that they do not.  The article claims that sex is assigned at birth, but that's not what the source says happens at birth.
 * There is a BIIIIG difference between assigning something at birth, like a child's name, and observing/identifying something upon birth, like how many fingers and toes they have, whether they exhibit any syndrome of characteristics, or sex organs.
 * They are not "assigned" at birth.
 * Wikipedia's own reliable source does not say it is assigned at birth and whomever wrote the article is falsely attributing "assigned at birth" to the definition in the cited source.
 * Still think I'm not here for encyclopedia building? Still think it's ok to let this highly contentious article take classical liberal-only lexicon and call it "assignment" at birth, when the source cited doesn't say that, doesn't imply that, and actually says something different? Bobcat82 (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How about the Supreme Court? Is sworn testimony given therein by expert physicians considered a reliable source?
 * Dr. Miriam Grossman can be quoted, in her expert opinion, in No. 18-658
 * In the Supreme Court of the United States
 * JOEL DOE ET AL., Petitioners,
 * BOYERTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL.,
 * v.
 * Respondents, PENNSYLVANIA YOUTH CONGRESS FOUNDATION, Respondent-Intervenor.
 * ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
 * BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE
 * DRS. MIRIAM GROSSMAN,
 * PAUL HRUZ, MICHAEL LAIDLAW, QUENTIN VAN METER, ANDRE VAN MOL IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
 * (beginning of page 9)
 * ...ultimately influences postnatal behaviors. (listed sources) It is therefore not the reproductive system alone that carries one’s sexual identity. Every cell in the body containing a nucleus is marked with a sexual identity by its chromosomal constitution XX or XY.  Thus, sex is not “assigned” at birth; rather, it “declares itself anatomically in utero and is acknowledged at birth.”  Michelle A. Cretella, Gender Dysphoria in Children and Suppression of Debate, 21 J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 50, 51 (2016).
 * Furthermore, Dr. Grossman gave sworn testimony again to US Congressional House Oversight Cmte, where she is quoted, "I am a board-certified child, adolescent, and adult psychologist, author and senior fellow at Do No Harm. I have been taking care of patients for 45 years. I'm going to use my time to respond to Dr. McNamara.  First I am struck by her use of the phrase, "sex assigned at birth." Sex is not assigned at birth; sex is established at conception and it is recognized at birth, if not earlier.  Dr. mcnamamara claims that her views are science based and to claim that sex is assigned at birth is without any scientific basis whatsoever.  Its language misleads people, especially children, into thinking that male and female are arbitrary designations and can change.  that is simply not true."
 * So, dear arbiter of feelings and not facts, is that sufficient enough to make amendment to the Wiki article Cisgender and others that state the myth that sex is "assigned" at birth? It isn't just this article.
 * The only source Wiki cites to that claim is a definition in a dictionary that does NOT say that it is "assigned at birth." Here we've got reliable, official, sworn testimony of a licensed physician rebuking the claim that sex is assigned at birth and declaring how un-scientific and false it is to say that.
 * Since this is a talk page, and my whole point was to refute the use of one single word, "assignment" - what conclusion can be made of the evidence, arguments, and sources I provided? You still think I'm not here to build an encyclopedia?  Are you just here to block all opinions you don' like and call them inappropriate?
 * Are you going to concede that it is indeed a fallacy to let the article remain as it is written? Or can we please change the word "assigned" (at birth) to what source dictionary reads? Or as the expert witness put it, "it is established upon conception and recognized at birth."
 * P.S.
 * If I did't care about building an accurate encyclopedia, I wouldn't care about making this correction. Your assumption that I'm "not here to build an encyclopedia" is demonstrably false, and instead of censoring me because of your feelings about me, like Wikipedia-help tells us NOT to do in the content of our edits; let's look at the content of the correction I suggest and you give me any good reason why the article should stand the way it is written, the myth that it is.  Go ahead and continue the blockade of my editing ability like you weren't totally wrong about my intentions, or my suggested correction.
 * Sex isn't "assigned" at birth.
 * That's just what liberals tell people they think and hope are stupid enough to not ask any further questions or test the logic and literal meaning of the words used. Bobcat82 (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's just what liberals tell people they think and hope are stupid enough to not ask any further questions or test the logic and literal meaning of the words used. Bobcat82 (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)