Scottish census sex question

I don’t understand the perceived problem. If you want the number of birth biological males you take the male ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate ‘no change’ and add the female ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate a change. Simple in the extreme, as it would have been if the E&W census hadn’t been muddled by a change halfway through.

I recently read a tweet by a transwoman which said "I'll be putting female on the census and also filling in the bit that says 'are you trans?' I'm 100% confident this will give accurate data."

Anyone looking at the resultant data will see someone who is trans, but not be able to tell if the sex question has been answered as "sex" or "self-identified sex". If it's the former then the respondent is a transman - the opposite of what is actually the case. This is the problem with the guidance produced by the NRS.

Throw in the fact that the trans question is entirely voluntary and you can see that there is no way we can ever work backwards from the data to establish accurate figures on either sex or trans status.

Not to mention as with the religion question and multiple people identifying as Jedis. People get fed up and if some people are going to put down the data they would like to have instead of which they actually have, then relying on me to stay in my box and be sensible to minimise the consequences? No.

If some of us get to make it up then we all do. Or taxpayer money and the intense amount of time stops being spent gathering fictional data that now has no real purpose because it's pandering to immediate feelings and preferences and has lost all sight of it's actual purpose or a sense of social responsibility.

Thankfully the rest of the UK are standing against the woke shite.

Actually, maybe you can explain this question I have about the strategy pursued here by trans rights campaigners, RobinMoiraWhite.

When I attended the parliamentary debate about the census question, it was clear that one, possibly the main, reason for the underprovision of the trans community was the lack of accurate data about their size. What we have is not up to date. We know we have around 400 GRC-holders and an estimate from Scottish trans organisations in 2003 that 40% of the trans community would not seek medical support and so not qualify under the original GRA. At a bare minimum then we know we have just under 700 members of the trans community living in Scotland. Many in Edinburgh and Glasgow, as this is a pattern repeated elsewhere (small numbers rurally, more in big cities where there is then also more support).

Of course, waiting lists for a first appointment of between 7 and 33 months for an adult referral tell us that we have a much bigger trans community in Scotland than just 700.

Just for Glasgow, in the 27 months to March 2021 there were adult 1068 referrals to the Sandyford clinic. Edinburgh will be the same. Numbers have been steadily rising since 2013.

For 2015, 16 and 17, we have 966 referrals to the children's and youth service. For 18, 19, 20 and 21 we have at least another 800.

If you add them all up, that's more than 5000 referrals across child and adult services over the last 8 years.

We're probably looking at 5000 to 10,000 medical referrals altogether, which is 0.1 to 0.2% of the total population. Add at least another 2000 to 4000 (that minimum of 40% who won't ask for a referral).

Yes, that's a tiny percentage and its far below even the more conservative estimates from Scottish trans organisations. But the prevalence of gender dysphoria in children which is used for planning purposes is much lower than that still. Around 6 in 100000 for children (0.006%) and for adults the prevalence rate of transsexualism is estimated (lots of different ones) variously as 1 in 10,000 for males and less than half that for females.

It's almost impossible for anyone to estimate, and the estimates we have are often based on referrals to a clinic, so they're not going to include those who are not going to or have not yet sought medical support.

Planners may well be underestimating need by a factor of 100. But in a stretched NHS, stressed economy and the fraught budgeting circumstances of the Scottish government mean that no planner can justify allocating the necessary ressources, whether that's the NHS or any other public service. Not without evidence of need and not when trans healthcare is just one of many struggling NHS services in Scotland.

And the census gave us a chance to rectify that. If I was running a trans rights organisation, I would have asked everyone to fill in the sex question as per birth sex or legal sex. Then encouraged everyone in my community to fill in the gender question accurately.

When the data is analysed, for the first time you'd get accurate numbers to argue with. Numbers that will impact provisions for the trans community for decades.

But no. Instead there's this insurmountable short-termism in play. An affront to self-identification. So the census won't capture even a fraction of the trans community. And for what? So you can win a debate in 2021 but ensure underprovision until 2051?

That's true. As with the E+W census it also relies upon people giving honest answers. Something the sex question has never been subject to before.

We know that, in defiance of the guidelines and calls for common sense, many TRAs and maybe some trans people, filled in that sex question falsely. They crowed about it all over social media for days.

And all you have outlined is a semantically different version of what many here have said would be logical.

The error in perception appears to be yours!

There's nothing simple or logical about a 'sex' question which might accurately record sex or might not - trans people can do either according to the guidance - followed by an optional question on trans status. Useless.

The ONS, after the legal challenge, managed to come up with much more coherent questions.

[quote TarasCrazyTiara]@334bu

Yeah but it won’t be will it? But you already know that so I have no idea why you or anyone would pretend you honestly believe 3% of women are trans. That is absurd.[/quote]
That's not really the argument.

We're specifically talking about female children and young women, aged 16 to 24. In that age group estimates are that between 5 and 10% identify as trans in some way. Locally it can be even more than that.

And that is precisely how the data is then disaggregated and used.

Split by age
Split by locality
Split by sex

So if in one council your young residents in that age group are split 50/50 into male and female, but according to the census you have 10% of females identifying otherwise, your estimates are wrong by 10 points. You'll end up planning for 45% female and 55% male.

Take Glasgow Council. Age 16 to 24 estimated for 2020 was about 78,900.

Of which 39200 were male and 39700 female. That's 49.7% male and 50.3% female. If just 3% of females identified as male, you're underestimating provision by almost 1200. Even in a city the size of Glasgow, especially with services already overstretched, you cannot correct for that planning issue on the fly.

There's a reason that lying on the census is a criminal offence. We're not collecting this data out of idle curiosity, we're collecting it because we need it.

I don’t understand the perceived problem. If you want the number of birth biological males you take the male ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate ‘no change’ and add the female ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate a change. Simple in the extreme, as it would have been if the E&W census hadn’t been muddled by a change halfway through.

Why not just say what your biological sex is and then if you want state a gender identity change? No need for any further calculations, simple.

I don’t fall for anything and I don’t read enough about this stuff to even know much about what is written about gender critical feminists. But I don’t think any of this is particularly logical all around and you really don’t come off as logical as you all seem to think. But then again, I’m not any kind of feminist so whatevs I don’t really know why I’m wasting my time with this.

What is logical about asking a question about gender identity to get information to enable the government to set up services to meet the needs of the two different sexes?

I don’t understand the perceived problem. If you want the number of birth biological males you take the male ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate ‘no change’ and add the female ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate a change. Simple in the extreme, as it would have been if the E&W census hadn’t been muddled by a change halfway through.

If we're just estimating data now, then why fuck around having an expensive census, just give a guess, itll be ok.

It's a bizarre thing to do because if the numbers of trans people are included in their 'chosen gender' without a accompanying sex question, then the numbers of trans people will be hidden and trans specific services and support will be reduced as the numbers wouldn't support them while female services will be increased unnecessarily (maternity services or cervical screening projections which will include a population of 'women' who given their male bodies, will never need these services). It's just a strange own goal.

And regarding the scepticism in the increase in numbers, a family member lives in a tiny village in Scotland and there are no less than 3 teenage girls now identifying as boys in the two surrounding streets.

Whatevs?!?!

OK. If advocating for precise language and precise data collection is illogical, I'll take it. Might even make me a badge.

But, given that you haven't read much about the subject could I ask you stick around. Read a few more threads and maybe work out why this thread exists?

I know it sound ludicrous. I thought exactly that until I read a thread here that made me think twice. My turning point was sport - I am a sports scientist. Maybe something here will seem as obvious to you as men not performing in women's sports was to me.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

I don’t fall for anything and I don’t read enough about this stuff to even know much about what is written about gender critical feminists. But I don’t think any of this is particularly logical all around and you really don’t come off as logical as you all seem to think. But then again, I’m not any kind of feminist so whatevs I don’t really know why I’m wasting my time with this.

[quote TarasCrazyTiara]@334bu

Yeah but it won’t be will it? But you already know that so I have no idea why you or anyone would pretend you honestly believe 3% of women are trans. That is absurd.[/quote]
That's the point, isn't it?

Confounding the sex questions will only make it worse.

Asking specific additional questions about identity, trans status will allow those who need to be able to fund and provide appropriate services.

So 'being nice' and freely inclusive, as you seem to favour, won't benefit anyone.

Don't fall for the twaddle peddled about gender critical Feminists. We are not hate filled and we can logic out way through many a conundrum!

5000% increase of just girls who are presenting to one clinic in so short of time represents a large rate of growth. The compound interest so to speak could be huge between one census and the next.

And if sex isn’t even put down on the census, no one will ever quite know the full extent to which the trans gender population has increased.

Yeah but it won’t be will it? But you already know that so I have no idea why you or anyone would pretend you honestly believe 3% of women are trans. That is absurd.

So if nobody knows, how do they know it will not skew the data? If two separate questions are asked about these two very different things, then the picture will be much more accurate and services can be allocated accordingly.

@334bu

Yeah but it won’t be will it? But you already know that so I have no idea why you or anyone would pretend you honestly believe 3% of women are trans. That is absurd.

That’s next to nothing tho.

Well as I have already said , if the numbers are anything like the number of males who identify as women in female prisons, then the percentage could be up to 3 %

@ScrollingLeaves

That’s next to nothing tho.

That was referrals of young people to the Tavistock.
Those figures will not even include the numbers of people of all ages who might identify as transgender without any referrals for the purposes of the census.