ONS reversed decision to record census by sex

The ONS has been thinking about this for a couple of years at least. They are aware of the fact there is an issue. There was a thread on here ages ago pointing to a survey about sex and gender categories and how they should structure the question.

They obviously want high compliance so don't want to piss people off. Gender idealogues have shown themselves to have quite a lot of weight behind them when they get pissed off. But, unfortunately for the ONS, more and more people are starting to see what feminists' concerns are all about.

I bet whoever has made the final decision thinks that it's about feelings on both sides. They think feminists will feel happy because there is a question on sex, and trans people will feel happy because they can answer the question on sex however they fancy. I'm really concerned that an organisation whose sole existence is to gather accurate data hasn't the thinking capacity to work out the problems with the solution they have come up with. I'm also frustrated that they haven't actually been listening when feminists point out inaccurate data harms everyone, trans people included. Possibly especially trans people.

Perhaps if the ONS balls this up it will be used as an excuse to stop funding them as a government department and use private firms for statistics instead.

Birth certificate or passport is not as bad as I expected. Yes it will allow some people to put down something that isn't biological sex, but relatively small numbers. And children's sex should be accurately recorded. Some may still lie. It is a question I can honestly answer, even if I'm pissed off they're not collecting what they really need from a monitoring medical needs and social consequences of biological sex perspective. I might get a paper copy and write in "biological" by sex.

The wording of the gender identity question sounds problematical. If "the gender you identify with ..." - I don't identify with a gender. Options: fill in with gender - gender critical. Or don't fill in.

I prefer the former but only if a significant number of people are doing the same. Then they have to recognise us separately to not corrupt gender data, otherwise I think it's just +1 in the gender "other" category. We'd need to be more common than nonbinary basically. I don't think that would be hard to achieve, most nonbinaries are 12 or something.

I'm equally keen to put gender critical under religion if that's a mass move, I don't have any religious belief system and can just as happily put down my non belief in gendered souls as my non belief in deities.

I'm listening to what others are planning. Moving in synch is going to be key to getting our dissatisfaction registered.

I really feel like stating I am a demiqueer man or some such nonsense.

On the other hand, they might take a shitload of extra men as a way to take more funding away from womens issues. So I am a bit..torn.

Somehow my quote broke- the first part was me replying to daisys

^I will be answering my census questions accurately as possible.

It seems to me that to do otherwise plays into the hands of queer theorists. They seek to discredit and destabilise data, science, truth and objective reality. I won’t join them in that goal. Their aim is to obscure facts with fantasy and to promote the ever changing feelings of individuals over concrete facts.

They would love nothing more than proof that data collection is pointless.^

@DaisiesandButtercups I agree. We need to make sure that the data is as meaningful as possible. The Judith Butler et al brigade would like nothing better than to render the data meaningless.

*I did wonder though if those who cared about more accurate data could retrospectively find who had put inaccurate sex data by using the "sex" and "gender" questions in combination... So if you say you are "female" due to having a GRC, but then answer "trans woman" for gender, then the data scientists could account for this being an originally male person?

I am bothered about how the ons have been captured by pseudoscience, but wondered if there was a way to protest this which didn't break the data- eg. If we lose data on the numbers of women in their 40s and 50s then they may allocate less healthcare provision eg. For menopause.

I’ve not RTFT, but just checking people have seen the following...Boycott the Census is trending on Twitter... mobile.twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1360276445856153600

Trustworthiness comes from the organisation that produces statistics and data being well led, well managed and open, and the people who work there being impartial and skilled in what they do.

Yes, that sums up nicely why I am no longer prepared to hand over highly confidential data and all the time and effort required in entering it.

Or to enable something that is of massive cost to the tax payer when the results will be pointless and actively misleading. Get JK Rowling or David Walliams to write the results for a fraction of the cost, it'll be better written and as much use.

@MoleSmokes

It is! For me sex is something I haven’t done for 20 years and gender is what my chromosomes state.

Suspect I will do what I’ve done in the past and not bother with this census either. I’m obviously too old and of zero importance to deal with this total utter farcical state we have arrived at.

It’s been ages since I did the census. Remind me - do we have to do it, can we write comments and can we miss out questions of they are of ‘questionable’ use?

@cormorantstrike

I really feel for the people that will need this data to do their jobs but no, if they want lies they can have them on the whole document.

Thankyou Femaleandlearning, I'd missed the posts where it was suggested entering gender critical as a religion

===========

Another screenshot - of the ONS Page about the "Sex Question" showing the "breadcrumb trail" to where the page is located on the ONS website.

Home > Census > Census transformation > Question development > Gender identity > Census 2021: Final guidance for the question “What is your sex?”

This might seem a little nerdy but "website structure" and navigation is meant to help users to find their way around. However, it is often a reflection of how an organisation categorises information, rather like a filing system based on subjects/topics and sub-categories.

(Some of you might recall that before we filed documents in "Folders" on PCs the terminology was "Directories" and "Subdirectories", which is much the same idea.)

In this case, ONS seems to think that site visitors looking for information on the "Sex Question" would expect to find it by navigating to "Gender Identity" as the over-arching concept.

How did they get that idea?

The idea that biological sex (the most basic, verifiable, binary distinction between all human beings, recognised from childhood and essential to continuation of the species) is commonly understood to be an aspect of "Gender Identity" (a hypothetical, non-verifiable, psychological state which a tiny proportion of the population contend that they, and only they, are aware of possessing)?

This is another indication that the ONS has been persuaded that "Gender Identity" has, or should have primacy, over sex.

True that the ONS refers to "legal sex" - but for the vast majority of people legal sex = biological sex.

That ONS has been well and truly "Stonewalled" shows in its reference to the "concept of sex" when it should be referring to the fact of legal sex and the concept of "Gender Identity".

This issue is not the degree to which Census results will be skewed by the ONS backtracking on its previous commitment but the fact that it is exceeding its remit by propagandising a fringe political, unscientific ideology, leading to a lack of trust in the impartiality and integrity of the ONS and the validity of the Census.

What can we do? Complain to the Office of Statistics Regulation that they need to conduct an urgent Compliance Check?

osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/our-regulatory-work/compliance-checks/

On the basis that the ONS is in breach of the Code of Practice for Statistics?

Trustworthiness

Confidence in the people and organisations that produce statistics and data

Trustworthiness is a product of the people, systems and processes within organisations that enable and support the production of statistics and data.

Trustworthiness comes from the organisation that produces statistics and data being well led, well managed and open, and the people who work there being impartial and skilled in what they do.

code.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/the-code/trustworthiness/

What do you think, @MurrayBlackburnMackenzie ?

right not tight

thingybob
Yes you are tight in order to put gender critical under other you first have to identify as trans. So only trans people get yo choose a gender the rest of us can't. But I'm perigender on Wednesdays and on Thursdays I am a perigirl why aren't they interested in that 😉
This means we have to put Gender Critical under religion as other posters suggested.

And the enjoying thing is.

And the annoying thing! Not enjoying.

I will tell the truth.

For gender. I do not have any internal feeling of gender. According to the 'rules' this means I am

'Agender people ('a-' meaning "without"), also called genderless, gender-free, non-gendered, or ungendered, are those who identify as having no gender or being without a gender identity.'

Non gendered works for me. If I must, as I'm told, accept that the majority of people feel a strong internal sense of gender ID.

So I'm trans.

And the enjoying thing is. That if I put that, if people read this, they will say she's dicking with the survey to make a point.

I'm not. That is the truth of how I feel. And no one gets to tell me that I don't know my own mind- women have heard that too much and for too long.

I know this sounds silly but the things we are faced with are silly.

All these orgs are making things unclear for no apparent reason. And they're relying on.

A. People getting the subtext/ assuming what it means
B. Not very many people putting a trans identity

This is a really cop out, pathetic way to behave.

They can't say what they mean so they are banking on people assuming the right thing.

So. Legal sex.

The vast vast majority of people know if they're a boy or a girl from very early in their lives.

I have never actually checked my birth certificate. I go on the assumption that what I've been since forever is. Girl, woman, female. This has served me well so far in terms of expecting periods, being pregnant, approaching menopause.

But they're not interested in that. They want my legal sex. So I need to go and check it? I mean I've never actually looked. I tick female for things but who knows? Me and everyone I've met has assumed my sex if they've seen me with no clothes on. Or during or after puberty.

So if they want legal sex I have to get a copy of my birth certificate for £££?

What about people who arrived here as refugees and have lost everything?

They don't mean legal sex.

They mean biological sex for everyone except people who have actively changed their sex marker by GRC or got their passport changed etc.

They are relying on people who know they are male just ticking male. Unless they are trans. And not thinking hold on I'm not sure I've ever checked my birth certificate and I don't know where it is and I haven't got a passport etc.

This sort of thing, as a sciencey mathsy person really gets on my tits. It's not clear. It's not logical. It doesn't make sense. From the ONS as well!

what's to stop a similar result if a whole lot more women appear?

What's the point of additional recognition / funding for women if women includes anyone who says they are.

I think the bigger issue is that this is being incorrectly counted.

I don't want any part of that.

If there is a gender identity question I am absolutely going to be putting "Gender free" - I take it this will be a pretty free form box given how many genders exist these days.

‘Potato’

If filling in the paper version of the form, what about putting something like "I do not consent to having data about my biological sex aggregated with members of the opposite sex" ?