Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Update on research into gender identity data in Census 2021 - ONS says no issues found

41 replies

IwantToRetire · 20/06/2023 02:02

We have now published our first research report, which examines whether the information that people provided on the Census was coded and processed accurately. The report of this investigation ‘Collecting and processing Census 2021 data on gender identity’ concludes that 94% of respondents to the Census answered the question and there is no evidence to suggest that the published results were not coded or processed accurately.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/updateonresearchintogenderidentitydataincensus2021

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
Boiledbeetle · 13/08/2023 13:00

There's no denying there are some anomalies in the data that don't make sense. It would be interesting to get to the bottom of them so the correct number could be calculated, otherwise what's the point of the census?

DudeItsPrawns · 13/08/2023 12:57

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

notsurewherenotsurewhy · 20/06/2023 18:42

IwantToRetire · 20/06/2023 16:48

I do hope this is taken up publicly, not just because of inaccurate census figures, but also how this report thinks it can claim because one part of the process way okay therefore the whole census was okay.

If these are the people in charge of collecting data on which Governments and local authorities are supposed to base decisions, how can anyone have any faith in them / the process?

Absolutely. And on top of that, because the census questions are widely recognised as the gold standard for collecting population data, they are used in a wide range of other research/survey activities, so the sphere of influence (and opportunity for shit data to be misused) is wider still.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 20/06/2023 16:48

I do hope this is taken up publicly, not just because of inaccurate census figures, but also how this report thinks it can claim because one part of the process way okay therefore the whole census was okay.

If these are the people in charge of collecting data on which Governments and local authorities are supposed to base decisions, how can anyone have any faith in them / the process?

OP posts:
Boiledbeetle · 20/06/2023 10:50

“There are two kinds of people in the world: those who believe that numbers never lie, and those who know better.” – Mark Twain

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 20/06/2023 10:33

Agree absolutely - this is weasel words. How well something is 'coded and processed' is very different from how it is 'aswered'.

dimorphism · 20/06/2023 07:13

Nellodee · 20/06/2023 06:42

So this is basically clearing the staff who processed the census and shifting blame into the people who wrote it?

Yes, though I think they're hoping that people will misinterpret this as there being 'nothing wrong with' the data but we all know that's rubbish and the questions were misleading and for many difficult to answer.

We all know there aren't more 'trans' people in Newham than Brighton.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 20/06/2023 07:08

Lol nice bit of strategic dimness ONS. They know full well the issue was not whether the data from the completed census was entered correctly but that the question was phrased so badly in the first place

LoobiJee · 20/06/2023 07:00

So they’ve quality assured the “coding and processing” element? Meaning that they’ve checked that all the back office workers were consistent in the way they handled the incoming data they were presented with?

But doesn’t say anything about whether there were issues with the incoming data?

ResisterRex · 20/06/2023 06:48

I'll be interested to see what Alice Sullivan and co make of it. To me it looks like they went through a process to check some processes, and not at the core issues that were raised. Hmmm

Nellodee · 20/06/2023 06:42

So this is basically clearing the staff who processed the census and shifting blame into the people who wrote it?

Hagosaurus · 20/06/2023 06:38

Checking the answers were coded and processed correctly (or ‘as intended’) isn’t really the same thing as saying the data is correct. I don’t think it accounts for badly worded or widely misunderstood questions?

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 20/06/2023 02:36

I must admit I haven't read their response in full, but even so I cant get my head round them thinking they could work out what people intended without talking to them.

I can only hope that if they go ahead and ask the question in the next census they ralise that the questions were so badly drafted that they could get answers based on multiple interpretations of the question?s.

OP posts:
zibzibara · 20/06/2023 02:27

The coding of write-in answers did not make use of information from the sex question. It was recognised that some trans people might record the same response for both sex and gender identity. Write-in responses of "man" or "woman" were therefore coded to "trans man" or "trans woman".

I bet they transed a load of people who didn't understand the question.

NotBadConsidering · 20/06/2023 02:09

So they’re saying it’s true, there ARE more trans people in Newham than Brighton?

Amazing..