ONS reversed decision to record census by sex

Flattered. The gender question is voluntary and I believe you only answer it (if you want to) if you considered yourself trans so we can't even put none, or gender free, gender critical, gender aethiest etc.
I still think putting Gender Critical under religion might have an impact if enough if us do it.
BUT taking in all Michelle said I still feel it needs to be challenged. Most people will not need to look at the guidance to answer the sex question so for lost people it will be a none issue. I just worry this will become another Stonewall Law that gets referred to so males can access female spaces.

I feel a meltdown coming on as I've never really considered what gender I am and now I'm going to have to put something on the census. Ffs. Obviously I identify as rhubarb but is that my gender?? I'm so confused

I've just done my letters to my MP / MSPs for the WPUK action about this.

womansplaceuk.org/2021/02/10/sex-and-the-census-call-to-action/

"Are there self-appointed leaders?"

Who is having this 'meeting'? Who is deciding what collective course of action should happen? Do you have an invite to the discussion? I don't.

Maybe others can say if they've had the round-robin invite.

I've already seen a few comments that frame any suggestions made so far are 'anti-trans'.

The census is a hugely important part of the whole picture. Once it happens, we'll never get it back. If the various suggestions made on disrupting the census or boycotting it are not going to achieve anything then JR is the only logical step.

This is the Overton shift that cements the rest.

That seems like a bad move lonely. If we tick yes to the gender identity question, we have to put a response that identifies us as ticking yes from the 'don't have one' perspective not the 'have a gender id different from sex' perspective. Otherwise it's just an ah yes, middle aged trans-men, just as common as trans-women, and look most of them haven't changed their documentation how can we make it easier for them to do so, better ask stonewall...

And finds get earmarked for trans things - and away womans things?

So don't we record our natal sex as women and all of us en masse say our gender is male?

I would.

Suddenly a fuck tonne of people are actually blokes that didn't used to be

So gang, what do we do?

Excellent post @MichelleofzeResistance

I think it will have to be faced up to by the powers that be that to redefine a fundamental concept such as sex in law, and to the significant impact and detriment of one sex compared to the other by removing sex based rights, must involve a fully informed mandate from the electorate. This should be the stuff of referendum, and it's never even made it into something as basic as a party manifesto.

Much as has been stated in Lionel Shriver's article today among others: it is one thing to add additional provisions for equality and need. It is another thing to fundamentally and forcibly change the lives of 99% of the electorate without even bothering to consult them.

• Compelled speech - is there a mandate for this? With all its implications?

• Enforced participation and enaction of a belief the individual does not hold, with criminal punishment involved - is there a mandate for this? What are the implications and what precedent does this set that looks beyond this one current issue?

• The compelled redefinition of everyone's reality that something so fundamental and reality based as sex is a mere concept, and 99% of people's identities must be renamed, redefined and labelled (against their will in many cases) for the benefit of less than 1% - is there a mandate for this? Is this justifiable or necessary? What agendas are potentially driving this and what questions should be asked regarding this? Where might those agendas go long term and what doors do they open?

• Does this create a group of humans that you might define as VIPs who get to define and name themselves and to have their language and identities and feelings valued and heard and made central to all matters involving them - and another group of service humans who are actively told they cannot have these things, should not want these things and will be punished for asking for equality in them? Is there a mandate for this? What are the implications? What usually happens in a society when resentment at inequality and lesser treatment boils up in a majority? Is this increasing positive diversity in the UK or setting up potential much bigger problems?

• Is there a justifiable reason to devote an enormous sum of tax payer money and enforce the populace to devote time and share highly sensitive data when some of that data must be factual but other parts of it may be a person's alternative and subjectively preferred facts as opposed to objective ones? Is there a mandate for this? What happens long term to this once this door is opened? What happens when a large amount of the populace answers with their personally preferred facts and there is no way of verifying what is reality on which ten year national planning of services should be based, and what is an annoyed and fed up populace creating information that there need to be cathedrals and training programmes for the 80% of the populace who are Jedi Knights?

• What are the long term implications of permitting one objective, scientific, replicatable fact of a citizen in legal terms to be selected rather than factual information? If sex is a choice, then how in court will age, race, disability etc be prevented from becoming a choice? What are the possible implications of this? Is there a mandate for this?

Let's be honest about this: the GRA and Brexit are both brilliant examples of the total mess that happen with generations of impact when nice ideas are pursued without anyone bothering to stop and think. Safeguarding basic questions:

• Think the unthinkable
• Ask the difficult questions
• Look at all interests equally, and do not become distracted and focused upon the needs of the most demanding and high need adults in the situation.
• The need for professionality, impartiality, accountability and the full sharing of information.

Are there self-appointed leaders? There seem to be a large number of people who've stood up and formed groups and done stuff, I'm very grateful to them. I'm hoping there will be a gathering consensus on what to do and I'll follow it. I certainly wouldn't judge anyone who chooses to take action in a different way.

If the gathering consensus is that judicial review is needed, and the legal minds think there's a case, I'm sure there will be loads of support for anyone who's willing to put the huge amount of legwork in. None of us have a right to expect it of anyone, particularly not those who have already stood up and done lots of work and taken lots of flak.

WPUK paid for legal opinion on the EHRC view given to the Scottish Data collection working group. They've also applied for funding & supported the work done by Jane Clare Jones & Lisa Mackenzie on the Political Erasure of Sex. I've seen a comment or 2 on twitter about this. WPUK themselves have also tweeted their correspondence with the EHRC on this too.

If the meeting of all the orgs in this fight determines that there's no action, protest, boycott etc that's feasible then surely they'll be going for the judicial review option? WPUK have done some groundwork on that already by the work I've highlighted above. They've also been (unnecessarily) critical of other legal cases that they have given opinions on, particularly where they have criticised the legal choices made in cases that have successfully challenged other aspects in this debate.

What I don't want to hear is any mealy mouthed 'there's nothing we can do, but anyone who makes a stand is a bigot' rhetoric from the self appointed 'leaders'.

If there's nothing that those supposedly in charge think women collectively can do without damaging their [GC orgs] reputations, then the only answer is judicial review.

From the ONS website:

“the value of your information in producing reliable statistics for decision-making...” well!

“For us to paint an accurate picture of our society, it is vital that we hear from as many people as possible, from all walks of life.” Accurate 🙄

Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud

Yes my fears too. I will be answering the census correctly but I shall be interested in co ordinated campaigns or actions that relate to the sex question being as recorded at birth

[quote Fallingirl]This whole debacle should surely have been expected to arise sooner or later, once the very concept of “legal gender”, as different to sex, was introduced.

I honestly think the women behind the argument for repeal of the GRA are onto something.
www.repealthegra.org/the-argument-for-repeal[/quote]
Yes I agree Fallingirl!

This in spades.

Please find a way to protest whilst still registering your demographics- just look at who's gleeful at the thought of their being less services available for women:

I'm with you all and not willing to participate in a dishonest game.

That Twitter hashtag boycottthecensus is amazing in so many bad ways.People saying women are mad because there is a gender question. Also missing the full story that the guidance on sex is not based on your birth sex so does matter. If this is allowed in National Statistics that should be accurate and truthful it will happen everywhere. I think another poster said it could become the gold standard. Give an inch and all that.
Looking forward to mass action on this.

On one of the Twitter threads it said the decision was in part because they were worried that there would be an organised disruption of the census completion in protest if they went with sex at birth.

They assume of course that docile women would never do something like that...

I would be tempted to say I identify as a French person or as a Vulcan or perhaps as a cat to make a point.

This whole debacle should surely have been expected to arise sooner or later, once the very concept of “legal gender”, as different to sex, was introduced.

I honestly think the women behind the argument for repeal of the GRA are onto something.
www.repealthegra.org/the-argument-for-repeal

Added to all the issues about commissioning public services based on misleading data collection, there is the problem that if the ONS do this is it then appears to be the default official UK position. Making it much harder to row back from.

Thank you for the link to the FPFW Twitter thread. I agree with one of the posters on that thread: I will be waiting for FPFW and the other excellent grassroots women's rights organisations to get together and follow their lead. There needs to be one, united and uniform approach of a statistically significant number.