Defining sex in the Scottish Census

thanks BetsyMOO. good reminder and links. will get onto my MSPs. Taking nothing for granted in terms of MSPs agreeing with Committee recommendations. No doubt they are getting lobbied.

UPDATE I received this info which other may find useful:

CENSUS (AMENDMENT ) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Background

The Stage 1 debate on the bill is scheduled for 2.30pm on Thursday 28 February.

This will be the first time the issues around sex and gender ID have come up for formal debate in the Scottish Parliament.

The decision the Parliament has to vote on is uncontroversial – just to agree that the bill should proceed to detailed scrutiny, in order to put in place a legal framework for asking additional voluntary questions about
sexuality and about being transgender.

But what’s said in speeches may set the tone for further debates on the broader issues. MSPs may be underpressure to say things which will pre-empt their position in later debates. It is also technically possible that one or more MSPs may try to get the parliament to have an additional (non-binding) vote on whether the committee’s recommendation to retain a binary M/F sex question is right.

Resources/arguments

These links give some material and arguments about retaining a binary question on sex, and challenging some of the arguments being put about why it should be changed to one with more than two options.

www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/17422905.agenda-why-gender-identity-should-be-kept-distinct/
sceptical.scot/2019/02/sex-and-gender-identity-in-the-2021-census/

Another point to make - when the 2011 census offered people the chance to self-identify as M or F, there was no separate transgender question, which is planned for 2021.

Things people can do

Let your MSPs (8 of them!) know that you think the Committee has got this right – the census should continue to be used to gather data on sex as it’s defined in law with 2 categories M/F, and separately on gender identity. MSP contact details can be found here. www.parliament.scot/mspfinder/index.html

You could link to one of the pieces above – but writing even just a few sentences in your own words is always most powerful.

If you want to attend the debate, you could probably just turn up (allow time to get through security and get a ticket) – but you can reserve a ticket here: best to reserve for both sessions, as the debate may go
past 4pm. www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/23823.aspx

If you are planning to attend, it’s worth letting your MSPs know and, if you feel confident, even seeing if anyone of them will see you briefly, alone or with anyone else local going with you.

The message MSPs need to hear is that this is about doing the right thing for everyone and not being against anyone – and that their constituents are taking an interest.

A letter to a local paper hoping local MSPs will support the committee’s recommendation is another option, but obviously more public.

Ah yes, wasn't that when PH described a GC constituent as equivalent to an anti abortionist or islamophobe and then was shocked his comments ended up in the press?

Thanks for the update. Some very encouraging comments on the twitter feeds,

I should add from about 10.10 in the video

Here's the broadcast, it's good stuff

www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/culture-tourism-europe-and-external-affairs-committee-december-20-2018

Yes, Pain, they seem to get it, with the honourable exception of Harvie (anyone else reckon he'd locked Ross Greer up in a cupboard so he could sit in?). I loved Annabelle Ewing & Kenneth Gibson's comments!

The Equality Network has had a hissy fit on Twitter over Joan MacAlpine's comments about groups being constrained from speaking out by funding restrictions which is also very satisfying!

They really seem to get it. It’s bloody wonderful

It looks like there was another session today

Twitter thread here:

mobile.twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1075697321399201792

Interestingly, the NRS have said that they didn't consult with women's groups (surprise!) but this is now underway.

Apparently this "underway" process doesn't include FWS (who gave evidence) or WPUK who were the only other women's group to do a submission.

Thread with link to letter from NRS:
twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1074310629396283392

And confirmation from WPUK:
twitter.com/Womans_Place_UK/status/1074341711168618496

And some good stuff from Kathleen Stock:
twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1074337436979859458

pencils from the equality assessment: " NRS are actively engaging with stakeholders with expertise in LGBTI
issues, including SG Equalities and Family Law teams, Scottish Trans
Alliance, Equality Network, Stonewall and Public Assurance Panels.
NRS staff have undergone transgender awareness training, and
participated in Office for National Statistics (ONS) gender identity data
requirements workshops. "...... And yet still they thought it made some kind of sense to include" non binary" in the sex question!

So glad Rosa & Susan and the stats people gave evidence and the MSPs seemed to get it.... Maybe they will reflect on whether the groups they've been engaging with know what they are talking about.

Same set of groups for the sexual orientation Q. I don't think it's come up but there is also a question about how they ask it I. E. :

Are you attracted to people of the same sex as you? The opposite sex? Either?

Would give different answer to are you gay, lesbian or bi with some people answering on a sex and some on a gender ID basis....

It's worse. They don't consider sex separately from gender reassignment at all. The title of the section is - Sex and gender reassignment: and they say This section considers these characteristics together.

That is not fulfilling PSED. There are areas where the two characteristics conflict. This has been recognised by the government. They have to be considered separately.

Yes Knicknackpaddyflak I was quite encouraged watching the evidence session. I hope they follow up properly.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine - That sounds very much like the Equality Impact for the recent GRA consultation " these changes won't affect women so we won't do an impact assessment"

It's worse. They don't consider sex separately from gender reassignment at all. The title of the section is - Sex and gender reassignment: and they say This section considers these characteristics together.

They do not mention women at all. The whole of this section is about the potential impact on trans and nb people. They only mention sex in relation to the question on the survey and how it relates to trans and nb people.

JackyHolyoake the GRA makes specific provision for prohibiting disclosure of information about the trans status of people who have a GRC or are in the process of applying for one.

The EA says: A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

This is much broader than the GRA. To be protected under the EA all a person has to do is declare their intention to reassign their gender and what this means exactly has been left very vague. Neither a GRC nor any sort of medical intervention is necessary. The EA doesn't mention privacy and disclosure of data specifically, although this could fall under harassment.

Human rights law overrides domestic legislation because it's international. If there was anything that breached the human rights act in the EA, GRA or whatever law comes out of this census bill it could be challenged, if necessary in the european court of human rights.

This is how we got the GRA in 2004 - ECHR decided that UK law was in breach of article 8 and 12 of the human rights act because it prevented trans people from marrying as their preferred sex and required the disclosure of their birth sex on lots of documents.

We all have article 8 rights though, not just trans people. Human rights apply to completely everybody, that's the point of them. If asking trans people their birth sex breaches their right to private life then the rest of the census breaches the right to private life for us all. There are some very nosey questions in there.

That sexist man Hopkins needs to get a new job elsewhere and stop ramming his handsomely, pensionably remunerated rubbish onto everyone.

I was glad to see in the discussions that attention has been drawn to what's been quietly slipped into documentation under the radar, and awareness shown by MPs themselves that it needs to be investigated as to who did this, under whose advice, and why it wasn't properly scrutinised or impact assessed for any other group. As we know, they'll discover it's a bit of a national scandal.

After a LOT of trawling I found the Equality Impact Assessment for this bill here. I would be extremely surprised if this was lawful. They have lumped 'sex' and 'gender reassignment' in together and then failed to say anything at all about the impact of these changes on women and girls - it's all about trans.

The bill basically removes any meaning from the category 'sex' and they did not see fit to assess the impact of this on women and girls.

PencilsInSpace Given that response from STA one could almost suspect that they do not want any reliable data collected about the transgender community. I wonder why that might be. [And, by the way, law says only those with a GRC should be afforded privacy and that it applies only to transsexuals.

Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 is very specific about this reference only to transsexuals.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

The issue of "transgender" and "non-binary" is a red herring.

t is simply not possible to use the census data to accurately predict the diverse healthcare needs of trans people, regardless of how they are asked to complete the sex question.

Ok. So do we accept that a proportion of 1-2% of responses won't be accurate and do the best we can (possibly forecasting potential numbers by the responses of biological sex AND gender identity/transition), or do we bugger up the accuracy of responses for the other 98+% of the population too?

So because they will lie or refuse to do it they should get their own way?

Scottish Trans Alliance have submitted supplementary evidence (PDF).

They cite Goodwin and claim that asking trans people their birth sex on the census would be a breach of article 8 of the human rights act (right to private life). They say trans people will just put their gender identity anyway, not answer the question or not complete the census in protest.

I can't see how article 8 applies. It's not their employment or HMRC records. It's not their driving licence or insurance policy. It's not their 'records' it's anonymised data. The census asks all of us all sorts of nosy questions. Do we all have an article 8 case?

They say - We appreciate that for the vast majority of people the sex they state on their census form will be very useful in predicting their likely use of health services. It is understandable that people may therefore think that asking a trans person their “biological sex at birth” would also be very useful in predicting their use of health services. However, many trans people undergo various hormonal and surgical interventions that can significantly change their healthcare needs and health risks. For example, trans women who undergo hormone treatment will need breast cancer screening, despite the fact that their biological sex characteristics at birth would have been described as male. It is simply not possible to use the census data to accurately predict the diverse healthcare needs of trans people, regardless of how they are asked to complete the sex question.

Having just read the devastating thread on the effects of T on the female body I think it might be quite useful to know how many men's gynae surgical wards we're going to need over the next decade. In the first evidence session Vic Valentine said transmen might not need cervical screening anyway because lots have hysterectomies.

Yes Vic, we have a sudden, unprecedented and vertiginous rise in the number of young female people who are likely to require hysterectomies over the next few years because testosterone has damaged their organs.

Should we collect useful data so we can plan for that or shall we just pretend it's not happening?

I've been reading the documents that come with this bill.

This is from the Policy Memorandum (PDF):

Sex
15. There has always been a question on sex with a binary response option (male/female) included in the census. The 2011 Census recognised that society‘s understanding of sex has changed and guidance provided explained that the question was being asked in terms of self-identified sex. Looking forward to 2021, consultation has identified the need for a more inclusive approach to measuring sex. The sex question being proposed for the 2021 Census will continue to be one of self-identification and will provide non-binary response options. Importantly, the sex question proposed will not seek a declaration of biological or legal sex.

It was clear watching the evidence sessions that the guidance in 2011 was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard. (h/t Douglas Adams)

Yet another thing that's been pushed through quietly, under the radar

I want to see the people who designed the 2011 census giving evidence to this committee. I want to know who advised them, who and how they consulted. I want accountability.

Meanwhile, in 2011 a question on sexual orientation was not included (despite being a protected characteristic in the shiny new EA) because, the level of public acceptance of the question was not considered sufficient to merit its inclusion in that census.

This is how they define 'sexual orientation' in the policy memorandum:

Sexual orientation is a combination of emotional, romantic, sexual or affectionate attraction or feelings towards another person. How a person determines their sexual orientation can be based on any combination of the above attractions, feelings or behaviours. It can change over time and a person may not know what their sexual orientation is.

I can't quite describe how cross I feel right now.