10 Problems With the ‘Sex Assigned at Birth’ Essay

They’re in what’s said — and not said

Last week, the New York Times published a 1300-word opinion by Alex Byrne and Carole K. Hooven.

Just say “sex,” they encourage us, not “sex assigned at birth.”

In the same number of words, I’ll show what went wrong.

Their Position

Their claim is simple: “A baby abandoned at birth may not have been assigned male or female by anyone, yet the baby still has a sex.” Physical differences between males and females are “real” and predate the human species itself, since “sexed organisms were present on Earth at least a billion years ago.” Sex is not a “cultural production.” Therefore, if a writer seeks to “omit needless words,” they might omit “assigned at birth.”

The longer, “euphemis[tic]” wording is “indirect,” intending to be “inclusive” and express “sensitivity.” While Byrne and Hooven say they are “not against politeness or expressions of solidarity,” they do reject this phrase. This phrase— as they allege — inaccurately suggests that sex identification is guesswork. Also, it’s “patronizing” because it doesn’t speak “plainly.” It enables people to “be shamed for using words like ‘sex,’ ‘male’ and ‘female,’” thereby “repressing” their vocabulary.