Amendment to Data Bill to revert all gender markers and out all trans people

If you have a reform council, don't bet on your MP having a job for life...

I think the way it works is that the original birth register (which up until now has only been the actual paper register) stays the same and can’t be amended, but if someone is granted a GRC, a separate dept holding the ‘Gender Recognition Register’ (which is a private, secret register) issues a new birth certificate with the ‘acquired gender’ listed as the sex.

So as I understand it, a male with a GRC can present a short-form paper birth certificate that says he’s female, but there would ultimately still be a record of his original birth in a book somewhere in his hometown, accessible to anyone who goes to the trouble of looking for it. Obviously, people with GRCs aren’t going to volunteer that info to people, but if they were accused of a sex crime or something, the disclosure process might involve obtaining a copy of the original birth record (or the GR register to show they have been issued with a GRC). I don’t think there’s any mechanism in the GRA to amend the original record at all, as even clerical errors aren’t able to be changed, so that record remains accurate.

I haven’t seen anything in the data bill (that provides for the birth registers to also be stored online) that suggests the digital birth register would be able to be amended either, not any change to the GRA that would allow this (a few words of the GRA are modified by the data bill, but only to refer to a digital birth register as well as the paper one, IIRC).

That said, I may well have missed something key here, so hopefully someone will be along to confirm or correct as needed!

@PressedOnion, my Labour MP response was quite similar.

I emailed him back explaining exactly why false sex disaggregated data would disadvantage people - including trans people - when it came to healthcare. And how acting on the faulty trans data from the 2021 census would mean believing almost a third of trans people don’t speak English fluently and mostly live in a couple of immigrant-dominated areas of London.

Oh, god, this is going to require another vast, lengthy and expensive legal challenge, isn't it. I'm so angry and exhausted.

It isn't even possible to persuade myself any more that they "don't see" the effects on women's rights or that the Government isn't deliberately trying to corrupt the Equality Act's provisions. As a data addict, too, I'm infuriated at the disregard for useful information - or rather, again, the deliberate corruption of information in order to nullify women's rights.

Waiting (despondently) to see what happens next.

Good points you're making!

What I haven't gotten clear in my head though, after obtaining a GRC, is that person's original birth certificate accessible by others? If the GRC creates a new birth certificate*, does it become the sole birth certificate "in force"?

• Still baffled this is possible.... absolutely bonkers. I wish I'd been born a day later, can I change my birth certificate? No?

All joking apart, you really do have my sympathy. Your MP has not just failed to engage with your concerns but has virtual signalled all over them. They could have done the 'on the one hand but on the other' justification but they went all in and fucked you off.

On the bright side, you have a Reform CC. Now I wouldn't wish a Reform CC on anyone but it does mean that your MP doesn't have a job for life and may need to consider the views of their constituents if they want to retain their sinecure at the next GE.

Is the main and most important point of this data to validate and please trans people?

Since no other issues raised are even mentioned?

And can he stop using the LGB bit please to try and figleaf the reality, this has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality and will be used to harm it.

Yes I think I will be polite, I’m afraid. No doubt I’ve already got a black terf mark against my name should I ever need any assistance.

This MP basically has a job for life and barely needs to do anything to get re-elected every few years. As of last week we now have a Reform county council, so it’s not a great place to live, politically speaking.

Can't see sex.

Can't see sexism.

They understand alright.

They are designing the system to do this.

Wait until PM Farage gets in...

(Hell will freeze over before I vote for him, but I think we are on a one way track to him being PM if we have politicians willing to write this shite into law).

Also, "Please could you explain why people who are same sex attracted are specifically harmed by data collection definitions that comply with the Equality Act.?"

Perfect. 👍

This. But more politely.

"Please could you explain why you believe it is legal for any organisation to collect data on anyone's sex, given that from your reply you don't think it serves a purpose?"

Me too

It's exactly the tone I'm looking for.

I don't suppose that "Fuck off knobhead" is the tone you're looking for is it?

I’ve had an email back from my Labour MP - here is an excerpt:

”Thank you for your e-mail regarding your concerns for the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which is currently in its Report Stage in the House of Commons.

I understand that an amendment had been tabled to the Data Bill, which was voted on yesterday, which sought to mandate the collection of sex data strictly based on “biological sex” or “sex at birth”.

I share concerns that this amendment would have had significant consequences for the LGBTQ+ community, including enforcing public bodies to store data regardless of legal transitions; increase isolation for members of the trans-community and erode trust in data privacy. I understand that given the amount of systemic marginalisation that the LGBTQ+ community already faces, the impact of this amendment would have been detrimental to those who identify as transgender.

I voted against this amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill and am pleased to report that this amendment was voted down.

Thank you for raising this important issue with me.”

Anyone fancy helping me with a reply?

Makes sense to me - as long as (as you say) orgs are not required to use the govt verification service or forbidden from using the digitised birth registry records.

Glad to be reminded it will go through the Lords. They generally have their heads screwed on when it comes to this topic.

Wonder whether there are any members of the upper house that are worth writing to. The Baroness and Lord Moonie will already be all over it.

Long dashes, such as 'equality—it is about' don't appear on keyboards. They indicate text written using Generative AI.

I’m disappointed the amendment didn’t pass, but since the birth register is going to be digitised, won’t we just be in a situation where any organisation who needs to check someone’s biological sex can just look them up on the public birth registry anyway?

Unless reliance on the new digital identity scheme is going to be compulsory for all organisations, surely any service provider that operates a single-sex service and is presented with a birth certificate or driving licence that says female when its owner looks like they might be male can just check on their phone what their original birth certificate said?

Single-sex service providers will likely know which documents are reliable for sex (currently just the birth register) so won’t they just use that? Presumably it will only take a second to check once it’s online.

Currently, single-sex services that want to comply with the law wouldn’t rely on a driving licence for biological sex verification as they know anyone can change that. Given the SC judgment, they can’t use the excuse that they weren’t sure whether to use self-ID or sex at birth, so they will know they need to refer to the original birth register to comply with the EA 2010.

Have I misunderstood this?

The problem here is that significant records have been allowed to be falsified for men without GRCs, let alone those with. That needs to stop.

Here's the complete thread Maya posted. Sorry didn't have time to add above.

Bryant says “the government is already developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex, via the Data Standards Authority.”

This is distraction.

Monitoring diversity information (which is about populations) is not the only reason why you want sex data.
Some times people want to make sure their sex is accurately recorded:

• For their own healthcare

^“the @StatsRegulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity last year, and all Govt Departments are now considering how best to address the recommendations of the Sullivan review, which we published.”

“That is the first reason why we will not be supporting this new clause or the amendment today.” ^

OK so

1. Which govt departments can accurately verify sex?
2. How are you going to differentiate this accurate data from inaccurate data sources?

This needs an answer!

“By contrast, the new clause and the amendment would undermine the work the Govt are already doing. Giving the SoSa new regulatory rule would undermine the existing processes that ensure compliance with the UK’s data protection.”
What process ensure compliances?
❌Passports - inaccurate
❌Drivers licenses - inaccurate
❌NHS records - inaccurate

“Secondly, the new clause is misplaced because the Bill does not alter the evidence which can be relied upon to prove sex or gender. Indeed, it does not seek to alter any of the content of data used by digital verification services.”

So it accepts in accurate, unreliable data.

“Thirdly, the new clause is unnecessary, because it is very unlikely that digital verification services would be used in many, if not all, of the cases specifically raised …. such as within the NHS to gain access to single-sex wards or for screening or to enter other female-only spaces. “

🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

They are developing a system which will claim to accurately verify people's sex for the purpose of accessing services (but will verify unreliable and false information).

But they claim its ok, because the system won't be used by anyone to verify sex.

🙄🙄🙄

"Fourthly, the new clause goes significantly further than the findings of the Supreme Court. Finally, the proposals have the potential to interfere with the right to respect for private and family life under the Human Rights Act by requiring public authorities to record sex as biological sex in all cases regardless of whether it is justified or proportionate in that given circumstance."

The circumstances we are talking about is where an org needs accurate information on a person's sex, and the person has consented to share that information.

If you don't require public authorities to record accurate information then you destroy the integrity of the whole dataset.

Thank you for speaking so eloquently and (apart from your personal details which I'm truly sorry that you have suffered) explaining so well what I would like to have been able to express .
I thank you..

Surely this is all a sop anyway, as long as GRCs/the ability to change sex on passports and licences are around? Even though the SC have confirmed that ‘certificated’ sex does not override biological sex for the purposes of the equality act, in practical terms, the government is issuing ID (digital or not) that states that people are officially the opposite sex.