Tuesday 9th March - could be a big day

"Well, we’re well & truly beyond salvaging reputations & well into public inquiry territory & misconduct in public office"

Isn't that the truth.

I did, on the webchat with the minister for safeguarding, ask how depts own safeguarding practice protected them against capture by lobby groups. I was deleted.

Not mentioning it really doesn't make it go away, or stop it being a massive failure across government that will eventually have to be faced upto?

"The people opposing this are bigots. You're not a bigot are you?"

It's true that is an extremely effective manipulation strategy but it didn't work on the judge, did it? It doesn't work on us. Why did it work on the statisticians? You'd expect people heading up the ONS to have a capacity for clearheaded reasoning and a commitment to data integrity that could withstand blunt-instrument manipulation of that sort. They're behaving irrationally on a level that requires further explanation, IMO.

There must be other avenues of influence.

"The people opposing this are bigots. You're not a bigot are you?"

I think it's not much more complicated than that. It's a social dynamic.

I think the underlying motivation is clear: to introduce self-ID by the back door. I think that’s the only explanation of why this is so important to some people that this is being fought so hard, even to the point of pulling dodgy stunts like changing the dates of the online census. And why they’re continuing to throw money at this in defiance of all reason instead of just taking the L.

What I would like to know is how the influence is being wielded. I understand that some people are deeply invested in abolishing women’s rights. I don’t get how they’re getting the ONS and the Cabinet Office to do their bidding. Even after the actual head of the ONS had previously announced a different and more logical policy! Who leant on them and how? I don’t believe that being a Stonewall Diversity Champion can possibly be more important to the decision makers of the ONS than the actual mission of the organisation. There must be other avenues of influence.

I just don't understand why. Why does a government department want information on 'something that says it is sex but isn't'? They have a question on gender identity. Why do they not want to know sex? It is just baffling.

The only possible answer I can come up with is 'We think this will not change the data to a meaningful extent and it will make some people happy'. But facts should be neutral. There will be lots of aspects of filling in the census that will not make people happy.

The guidance boiled down to:
If you don't know how to answer, a sex you have on an official document is fine.

But there are only two documents that show your legal sex (birth cert/GRC). So the ONLY people this guidance could apply to are those that have a birth certificate in one sex and another legal document in another.

In law you have only one legal sex. So what the guidance boils down to is:
If you are unhappy with your legal sex, and you have managed to obtain a passport in the other sex, you may use that if you wish.

Why would anyone want to argue that that is a good basis for collecting data??

Upon hearing that the government was in court backing the ONS etc, Alison Bailey says: "Well, we’re well & truly beyond salvaging reputations & well into public inquiry territory & misconduct in public office"

I couldn't agree more and I hope she's right.

I can understand a government representative attending as an observer but to actually take part in the proceedings and oppose the ruling? To my legally untrained mind that sounds dodgy as fuck.

As it was asked earlier in the thread, I set up a small monthly standing order to FPFW through their website last year to help fund their work. Having regular money is always useful as well as the specific crowdfunders. I have channelled money that I have always given to charity into women's rights charities now, as most of the previous charities I had regularly donated to over the years (Amnesty, Oxfam, FoE amongst others) have shown what they really think of women...

And the EHRC was an official stakeholder on the sex question and RECOMMENDED they ask for lived sex. Literally everyone has abandoned sex as a material reality.

Our institutions have jumped the shark. Making changes that will skew the allocation of services paid for the tax payer without widespread agreement?! Really is time for a pause - if only the Women & Equalities Committee could hold the decision makers to account for this absurd behaviour 🤔

FPFW:
'The government was in court backing@aons. The@cabinetofficeukminister was an interested party and submitted papers saying they opposed granting the JR and interim order. Their barrister was in court on their behalf'

A generous interpretation would be that the cabinet office were just concerned this might delay the census and create additional cost.

However the cabinet office are also part of the stonewall champions scheme, so I'm less inclined to be generous.

Floisme, interesting that the state was not neutral but I suppose it would stand by what it had drafted. Does anyone agree with me that this was the initial hearing for the interim injunction which was granted and that it moves to a fuller hearing with more time for both sides' arguments hereafter (although the state may choose just to give in I suppose which is common once an emergency injunction is granted - except here as we tax payers are footing the state's legal bill I suppose it can fight on and on).

Sorry this link probably grabs the discussion better:
twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1369561813214523399

Just seen an interesting Twitter exchange between Fair Play for Women and Allison Bailey:

FPFW:
'The government was in court backing @aons. The @cabinetofficeuk minister was an interested party and submitted papers saying they opposed granting the JR and interim order. Their barrister was in court on their behalf'

And further downthread:
'And the EHRC was an official stakeholder on the sex question and RECOMMENDED they ask for lived sex.'

Worth reading in full:
twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1369560032585605123

That's why it's been necessary to involve the courts to try to get things back on track.

The response as always proves how big the problem is. If the institutions were just getting it wrong, or being badly advised, they wouldn't be fighting.

The fact they're fighting shows they're institutionally captured and the problem is deep-rooted.

It's because so many organisations, and the Civil Service, have picked up the idea from somewhere that parts of UK laws that relate to sex and gender are optional or can be rewritten to suit themselves

Somewhere = Stonewall. The ONS, and others, have been paying them thousands each year for bad advice.

f the judge said why have people filled it out already he is right to be concerned. It is to be a snapshot of the UK on the one census day and unless you read minds you won't know who might come over to stay on that night.

Between now and census day, people will die, others will be born,, and a lot of stuff in between these two extremes - THAT is why it is supposed to be completed on the day.

Yes, that's the thing I don't get. Did they even attempt to justify their actions in court?

It's because so many organisations, and the Civil Service, have picked up the idea from somewhere that parts of UK laws that relate to sex and gender are optional or can be rewritten to suit themselves. That's why it's been necessary to involve the courts to try to get things back on track.

Why a statistics body seem to be in thrall to defend this ideological approach is anyone's guess.

I wonder this about many politicians as well.

I'd imagine it is because the ONS won't be footing the bill out of their own individual pockets. It is costing them nothing personally (however, their reputation and credibility is probably destroyed in reasonable people's eyes) Most people don't want to end up in court because they have to fund it.

Public money being wasted, eh.

Census, oh yes you're right, better remove that. Sorted.

Yes, that's the thing I don't get. Did they even attempt to justify their actions in court? They seemed to be arguing more why they could do this, rather than why they should.

Not the point really, but I don't understand why people have been permitted to fill out the census early. It's not rocket science to only open it up on the day, is it?

I also don't understand how the Census organisers can justify taking this to court anyway. Surely it should have gone:

• OK we'll put sex as in birth certificate, passport, GRC
• FPFW point out that passport can be changed to be not in line
• Census, oh yes you're right, better remove that. Sorted.

All the little dears on Twitter with their lovely anti-Glinner hashtag only proves their desperation as reality and actual science (not bollocks dressed as science) starts to assert itself.
This is getting coverage in mainstream media. And not even the Guardian could put a "there is another equally valid point of view let's ask Stonewall" spin on it.

Eg if it is ongoing if the guidance has only removed one word - passport - may be it needs to have added to it in addition - "this must be your legal sex, not what you choose . There is question below about gender choice".

If the judge said why have people filled it out already he is right to be concerned. It is to be a snapshot of the UK on the one census day and unless you read minds you won't know who might come over to stay on that night.