Tuesday 9th March - could be a big day

[quote GAHgamel]@CardinalLolzy
Defendants contention that statutory interpretation of sex = sex written on any document is 'hopeless' /53
The judge said that?? shock
Genuinely mindblowing to see anyone say that out loud!

This was part of FPFW's barrister's response to the ONS' barrister, not the judge, sorry.[/quote]
Ah, thanks for clarifying.

Surely there must be some sort of audit trail at the ONS to explain the reversal from birth sex to self-ID sex between early February and the 22nd? Who pushed through the change? And why?

Q.27, the new gender identity question talks about identity in relation to 'your sex registered at birth' - not even what is on your birth certificate (now) - so they have the necessary vocabulary embedded in the form already.

It is actually a really good phrase - so it seems daft not to just have reused it in the guidance.

Here's my attempt

Sex:
Male
Female

Guidance
Record your sex registered at birth.

Your personal census data will only be made public in 2121. Accurate data on biological sex helps government to plan and resource health services, screening, education etc for the whole population.

Q.27 is an optional question to record your gender identity. Answering Q. 27 helps government to plan and resource health services etc specifically for people whose gender identity is different to their sex registered at birth.

You may request a paper copy of the census if you wish to record a gender identity or sexual orientation but do not wish it to be known by other household members on 21st March.

Sure it can be improved on but it is not impossible...

Judge: Is there a serious question to be tried and does the balance of convenience require interim relief? /58

Court rises. Gulp.

Woah, a livestream. God. All at once!!

Live tweeting of fair cop appeal.
mobile.twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1369287205546569731

Can someone also give brief details of how Harry's case goes? I can't watch but I can check in for updates.

It's now 2pm. Court rises /57

Harry's up. Watch it live:

[quote MsMarvellous]@SchadenfreudePersonified and so we come back to the fact that the "trans lobby" is not for transsexual people but a men's rights group. The trans people who the rights and protections are there to cover are being done as much of a disservice as women, and the majority in here and in other GC circles have said so for a long time.

Yes we are fighting for women's rights and spaces, but that goes hand in glove, in these instances, with supporting spaces and rights for trans people whose desire to be the opposite sex is serious and lifelong. [/quote]
Exactly!

Is it right that I am going to have to declare myself nonbinary according to this census? I don't have a 'gender identity'.

Right, that's my lunch over, time for #SuperTuesday to resume over in the Court of Appeal while keeping an eye on how the judge's bafflement gets translated into his decision for this case.

None of this practically benefits trans people in planning for their needs and all the other stuff the data is used for. All it does is validate - which is absolutely no use when it comes to assigning pots of cash to infrastructure.

I’m coming to the conclusion that if FPFW said the sky was blue, then certain people would be compelled on principle to argue it was green, just because ew, bigot!

You see it on here, transallies getting all tied up in knots explaining why things that actually look to be harmful to trans people (untested paediatric transition, compulsory pronouns, bad data, encouraging suicidality) are really actually good and necessary.

I can’t get my head round it (well, I can but it’s straying into unacceptable wrongthink, and will get me banned).

Indeed the 1911 census is interesting. The government was concerned about the fertility rate so required all married women to specify how many children had been born to the marriage. This included saying how many children were still alive and how many had died.

The 1911 census was the first one which was filled in by the householders themselves.

One of my ancestors appears to have misunderstood the guidance WRT the question about children who have died and listed all their children, including those who had died, which were then crossed out.

Valuable information for a family historian, and perhaps an indication that what one person deems clear and accurate guidance may not seem that way to someone else.

I pity future family historians!

Me too!

I have a TON of stuff to do and instead am sitting in the garden.

@SchadenfreudePersonified and so we come back to the fact that the "trans lobby" is not for transsexual people but a men's rights group. The trans people who the rights and protections are there to cover are being done as much of a disservice as women, and the majority in here and in other GC circles have said so for a long time.

Yes we are fighting for women's rights and spaces, but that goes hand in glove, in these instances, with supporting spaces and rights for trans people whose desire to be the opposite sex is serious and lifelong.

Delurking to say I'm watching with interest. Also enjoying the translations of Judge-ese.

I suspect that the ones who are crowing about "how they've answered "female" on the sex question and "there's nothing anyone can do about it".

I've seen at least one example of a mother saying it about their child (apparently children don't get the gender identity question). So this child will (presumably) have been entered as their birth sex ten years ago, and now as the opposite sex, and who knows what in town years time. I pity future family historians!

in the

They are shooting themselves in the foot. They're already crowing about how they've answered "female" on the sex question and "there's nothing anyone can do about it".

As someone who is trans, we are in desperate need of trans-specific services - just as women are in need of women-only services. It's wholly defeating the object of the exercise. I've already completed mine with my correct biological sex and corresponding gender identity.

Utterly sick of all the "warm fuzzy gender feelz" brigade constantly undermining the need for accurate data provision for services for both women and transsexuals. Sadly, based on what's going on in social media, FPFW's much needed win is not going to change anything practically. People are going to lie, and bar cross referencing birth certificates and each individual submission, the data is going to be skewed

@Gardenbird48 - I suspect that the ones who are crowing about "how they've answered "female" on the sex question and "there's nothing anyone can do about it". are not genuinely dysphoric TWs. They are men who play at being women, don't have surgery, don't take hormones, and can go back to being blokes for any medical services they may require.

This won't hurt them in the slightest. It will hurt the people who really, really can't cope with their birth sex, and who have been to hell and back to medically transition, and who as a result, will be at risk of an unknown number of health problems 10, 20, 30 years down the line. It means that there is no way of following the progress of any health difficulties - frequency or severity.

And there will be no provision (or very little) for them. And no way of getting accurate data so that future trans individuals can give informed consent to any gender-altering medical treatment they may want.

I can't believe that anyone who is prepared to take such body-affecting hormones and have such radical surgery, would have such a cavalier attitude to long-term health.

Of course, if FairPlay for Women don't get the guidance pulled, never again do we need to listen to a single argument about how many trans people there are in such and such a situation.

Because no-one knows and guess what, no one wanted to know.