Striking a balance in a local authority

But why are those questions there at all? Especially since a man could write that he is a woman when it is perfectly clear that he isn’t ..

It's nonsense and will have to be changed soon. It's only reasonable to ask what your sex is if it is relevant to the job and if it is relevant to the job then they need to know your real sex, not your fantasy sex.

That is not fit for purpose.

What are "data purposes"?

Those questions are all completely trans agenda led. Organisations are being told to hassle people for this information but it has no real or explained purpose, just the vague word "monitoring".

I don't go to work to be "monitored" for anything other than my work.

What ‘data purposes’ could it possibly be useful for if the data collected isn’t accurate??

This is the sort of nonsensical crap I cannot stand.

It’s really very easy to cut through the bullshit: Male or female.

That is not a balance. That is stupid.

Here's how I would write the questions:

1. What is your sex? Female/male/prefer not to answer
2. Do you identify as transgender? Y/N

As they stand, the questions are anti-science, illogical garbage bullshit.

They need to be provided with a copy of the EA2010 they are in violation of, and advised they may have been the victim of a fraud.
Gender identity is not a protected characteristic in the EA. Sex and gender reassignment are.
I do not think they are allowed to ask about gender reassignment though they are allowed to ask about sex, but not the way they did.

Why does anyone need to gather data on 'genderqueer' representation? It's a meaningless buzzword label. It makes about as much sense as asking if someone's sex is arglebargle.

What material problem is there that identifying the number of arglebargles applying for a job helps address?

If they ask about sex then they can't put gender fluid as an answer! It would be male / female / intersex / prefer not to say

Then a do your gender identity match the sex given above?

However, it still won't help because of all the male transgender people who would tick female and yes as they insist on complete capitulation at all times

The more I think about this, the more furious I get. There are REAL material problems in terms of hiring practices to be addressed.

It is useful to gather data on how a LA is managing to attract female candidates, as well as male, BAME candidates as well as Caucasian, working class candidates as well as middle and upper class candidates. This is because these groups are under-represented in some workplaces (over-represented, of course, in the lower paid workplaces).

But there is no historical effort to keep genderqueers or non-binaries from employment. I mean, sure, there's a dress code, but that's not genderqueer specific. Where is the structural inequity preventing genderqueers from doing anything? Non-existent, because they only invented themselves five minutes ago,.

This nonsense detracts from real issues of import.

If they need to know your sex, they should specify "biological sex" and offer the choice of male or female. They are mixing up sex and gender. If they need to know your chosen gender, they should give a choice of the most popular ones, plus "other".

If they ask about sex then they can't put gender fluid as an answer! It would be male / female / intersex / prefer not to say

People who have intersex conditions are all male or female. They may like anyone else 'prefer not to say'.
There is no basis to include this as an option.

But, I guess overall the use of the term 'sex' is what surprised and pleased me, to an extent

I would have felt the same, if they hadn't demonstrated the fact that they don't actually know what a sex is, gender fluid and non binary are definitely not sexes, they're identities.

twitter.com/zeno001/status/1274758091284910086

You're not the only one pointing this out, and it's not just your LA.

But Melia and others make a very good point - why do they need to collect data on gender identity at all?

It's not to have a coherent dataset. It is virtue signalling and designed to normalise - 'if the library suggests it's ok to tick a genderqueer box, maybe we should have one on our forms...'

What is the purpose of collecting this data in the first place? That's the main consideration. It isn't a validation or virtue signalling exercise.

Is there an actual need to know factual, biological sex? This includes data such as medical or a census that will be used to plan sex class based resources. Someone's need for prostate screening for example doesn't change with their preferred identity descriptor.

Is there an actual need to know variety of labels/number of service users who identify as trans/NB/GF? Usually to assess reach of service, inclusion targets for hard to reach population and to plan provision that is not very large scale and based on sex class.

Obvious solution:

Biological sex as recorded at birth if needed for that specific data:
and
Gender identity in addition if needed for that specific data: all options or open text box


Job done.

There are only two sexes - male and female.

I increasingly think this is the best way to get this nonsense stopped - by pointing out the data protection violations. Compliance with public sector equality duties means that you may need to monitor sex, so the question becomes “what is your sex”. There’s no reason at all to be collecting gender identity/stereotypes bullshit.

It's like they know about the EA, so they have to ask about/collect data on sex, but they know just asking about sex will upset the TRAs so they add a few different genders in the sex category, and then they also want to be totally cool innit and so add the second data collection point.

Thus resulting in a dump of data that isn't really worth collecting because you can't really do anything with it.

You can’t collect personal data just because - you’ve got to have a need for that data.

Diversity monitoring questions are completely optional. That is why there is a prefer not to say option for each question. It would be preferable to be able to leave the whole thing blank.

The info on gender queer is no more relevant to your employment than emo or goth would have been in the past.