'Nonsense' of gender data collected by public bodies set for review

Victoria Smith has done a short article on this

https://unherd.com/thepost/will-the-government-finally-collect-data-about-women/

That’s reassuring.

Alice Sullivan is a good choice - evidence she gave to Scottish Gmt around the GRA https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=700178944482172&locale=ms_MY

Starmer does look faintly alarmed even leaning at a slight angle, it's true. That's probably where he gets his bewildered, slightly pained expresssion from. He has brushed his hair slightly too much to the left.

I now have the words "Genderwoo Hill" going through my head to the tune of Bluberry Hill by Fats Domino. Someone cleverer than me needs to adapt the lyrics.

Starmer's stance thus far seems to be that he isn't prepared to die on even the gentlest of gradients. So I expect more fudge from Labour.

I think it depends whether Labour are really determined to die on genderwoo hill, so to speak.

I absolutely love this sentence, @ArabellaScott.

Michelle Donelan is saying all the right things here but why the hell aren’t they taking action now? Why allow the police to continue to record male rapists as female? Why not clarify the meaning of the word sex in the EA? By the time this report comes out we’ll be in election campaign territory and then if Labour gain power the report will just get buried and nothing done at all.

Perhaps. I think it depends whether Labour are really determined to die on genderwoo hill, so to speak. Given public opinion, I highly doubt it.

I think they will be happy to allow the Tories to fix all the obvious 'nonsense', avert as much potential damage as possible, and then I would expect a faint pretence at outrage followed by a swift shuffling of the work done into the long grass.

Both parties will have their public face to present, the Tories may choose to do this 'outrageous anti British' sentiment, and Labour will probably opt for 'we care about progressive genderfeels' as a public line.

Behind the scenes, there is no way that science and data can support 'gender identity' as a thing. It's not defined, definable, or measurable, and there are very real impacts on people as individuals and society as a whole.

So I suspect everyone is well aware we can't treat NHS patients on the basis of 'gender identity' or base any substantive decisions on it.

I wonder what Labour's reaction to this will be?

Rest assured, @Hoardasurass , that Dr Alice Sullivan has most definitely not drunk the Koolaid.

Alice Sullivan is the perfect choice - she is a social scientist who really understands data. She was part of the campaign to make sure the Census recorded sex accurately, did an excellent article on the failings of the Census to collect accurate data on trans identity:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-census-reveals-about-trans-people-in-britain/

It is very good news that Alice Sullivan is in charge of this.

Good!
It's important both are recorded though for proper insight and data collection . I would add especially with regard crime, but it's especially everywhere.

The problem is it’s going to be seen as a hatchet job on GI, biased from the get go. It would be more helpful to frame it as an analysis of how the inaccuracies and confusion can be addressed in future so we get fantastic data. Going in to address ‘the gender nonsense’ will undermine acceptance of the results.

Well that's a great start to the morning!

It’s such a shame they haven’t already clamped down on this dangerous nonsense and it’s taken a looming general election for them to act, but very good news.

Brilliant news and doubly good that it is Alice Sullivan who knows what a woman is. She did sterling work trying to prevent the census being a train wreck

Alice Roberts is the useful idiot who refers people to clownfish when they suggest humans cannot change sex.

Hinesian levels of clarity and intellectual honesty, which is worrying in someone who holds a post dedicated to furthering the public engagement with science.

I think it's blown the bloody doors off.

@OlizraWiteomQua I think you may be thinking of Alice Roberts.

"Utter nonsense".

Where does that fit into the degrees of the Overton window?? 😁

• Unthinkable
• Radical
• Acceptable
• Sensible
• Popular
• Policy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

There's definitely a public figure in science with the forename Alice who has drunk the koolaid but I think it's a different Alice. I think it's important that this review is done by someone who isn't firmly in the GC camp though. If the review is dismissed as terfy propaganda then there's no benefit to it.

I hope the report is able to make recommendations which find a reasonable balance that data collectors can use which respectfully asks for and reports on the protected characteristic of biological sex as distict from gender, respectfully asks for and reports on the protected characteristic of trans status with a wording which doesn't require people to necessarily share the faith position in the concepts of gender ideology to answer the question, and gives people the freedom to make a separate statement of their gender if it's important for them to do so, in a way that is fine to leave blank for those who don't consider themselves to have a gender identity.

It will be a difficult balance to find because it is an article of faith on one side that everyone has a gender identity and good data collection needs to be worded in a way which simultaneously respects that "some* people believe this whilst also respecting that other people consider that belief to be fundamentally sexist and offensive, but that nost people are far too busy just getting on with their lives to have time for the amount of navel-gaxing required to work out which side they are on and just need the questions to be in plain English.