Sex Matters - Respond now to the consultation on digital ID - 5th May deadline

Same here! So my daughters as British born abroad must strip naked and spread their legs to prove to a GP they are female? Let’s not forget they are talking about issuing these to 13yr olds. Why not certify virginity while they’re at it?!

I'm sorry, but as a non-UK citizen, I find this chilling:

The option of including your sex should be there and it should be biological sex as recorded in UK birth registry. Foreign-born people, if all else fails, could arrange with a GP to certify their sex.

This last part in (my) bold is exactly why we shouldn't have digital id required to access female services.

Tell me, and thousands like me, that we are "other" and "people who don't really matter" without actually using the words!

Nevermind all the immigrants, the refugees who have no records. They can just have a doctor confirm their sex!

Does this not sound a little bit familiar?
I can't believe I am having to say this.

Yes, I hear what PPs are saying and agree with a lot of it, but I am thinking of this as future-proofing. Digital ID may become a big thing in the future and we need to be having a say in shaping that future now. The option of including your sex should be there and it should be biological sex as recorded in UK birth registry. Foreign-born people, if all else fails, could arrange with a GP to certify their sex.

If sex is not included, then I am very wary of gender being added at some point instead. Let's get sex in there now, from the start, and properly defined.

On the subject of elderly women, it is a nightmare when someone gets to the stage of having no current passport or driving licence or Blue Badge etc. Even producing recent bills with your address on is a problem if you are in care. I would hope that arranging for timely digitial ID might make life easier for the very elderly and their families.

Thanks, Knotty, for the podcast link. I'll have a listen, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the sex marker on the digital id thing! I worry that some women will fall through the cracks if they can't, for sone reason, get an accurate birth record to prove their sex for the digital id.

I think we are discussing at cross purposes here.

If you can't get a reliable birth record , you can't put a reliable, accurate sex marker on a digital id anyway.

If you can get a reliable birth record, certificate, then why wouldn't you just use that?

Yes, I think I agree with most of this.

Yes, digital id should be optional.
Yes, if you opt to have your sex on your optional digital id, it must be your actual, birth sex.
Yes, if digital id becomes required to prove that you are eligible for that particular single-sex service, anyone who chooses not to add their actual, birth sex should not therefore complain when they can't access that service.

However, given that it is likely to be difficult for some women to prove their actual, birth sex (see my long rambling previous posts):

No, digital id should not be required for female human beings to access female single-sex services. No woman should be forced to forgo access to female services (healthcare, rape crisis, intimate care ) because of national or international bureaucracies.

No, I do not believe that the default should be women having to prove they are women. We are in this mess because of a lot of (being polite) grabby men. Let them prove they are women, using their original birth records.

@BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth what about if digital ID becomes more widespread, it’s 20 years from now, you’re recruiting and you want to know birth sex? wouldn’t you want to have a reliable marker?

Since we have destroyed the reliability of passport sex, if we do bring in digital ID, shouldn’t we make it accurate from the beginning?

Im struggling here. I know these things can be complex but surely there should be a reliable sex indicator that is useful for many purposes (recruitment , law enforecemet , whatever) and if a new ID format comes along, why wouldn’t we want it to be right first time? We don’t know what the world will look like in 20-40 yrs and I don’t want men in women’s spaces because we can’t screen them out. No system is infallible but we could at least try to put back the certainty we used to have with passports.

I haven't filled this in yet (it's on my list for this weekend) and so am not fully familiar with the questions asked, but I'm of course on board with "if there is a sex marker it should be accurate". I think it's important that it should be opt-out - that is, if you get an ID card you get a correct sex marker on it unless you specifically ask not to. That is part of what it takes for it to be reasonable to use this for access to single-sex services. If a woman needs them but has deliberately opted out from having her sex recorded on her card, I am, tbh, relaxed about the fact that, as a consequence, she may not get the single-sex service she turns out to need. In all cases I can think of, there should also be a mixed-sex option she can use, even if, as it turns out, it makes her uncomfortable. You choose to deny your sex, someone else later doesn't recognise your sex as a consequence, karma, innit.

However, as I understand it, the idea is for the whole card to be opt-in - nobody is to be forced to have one. I'm much less comfortable with the idea that opting-in to having an ID card should be the only way to get access to single-sex services. People are unhappy with ID cards for all kinds of reasons.

Probably the best is the enemy of the good. Eventually, we really do need people to be able to prove their identity and any time someone does that, proving their sex should be a consequence. Let's not kid ourselves that rape crisis centres will immediately be able to demand an ID card showing F, though.

https://sex-matters.org/take-action/respond-to-the-consultation-on-digital-id/

Ps. Since my posts have pushed Knotty's original link to Sex Matters way up the line, just reposting it for anyone who does want to read what they have to say!

Sorry, Knotty!

The problem is that (as the government are proposing), you cannot have your sex on your new digital ID without the government having some way to confirm that this is your correct sex. They would need to see an unaltered birth certificate or record of some kind ( they mention marriage before a certain date, for example ) before they issue the digital ID.

If your country of origin cannot or will not produce a birth record to prove your sex, and you wanted to use your digital ID to prove your sex, you would not get your digital ID.

So by the time you got to the recruiter, who asks to see your digital ID, it's already too late. Either they accept your birth certificate (if you have one), or you can't have the job.

In which case, why would you need a digital ID? Just use a birth certificate.

Not to add to the confusion, but some countries systems for banking, finance and immigration are so outdated that lesbian couples have to choose one of them to be put in as a Mr.

So a digital ID that is then checked against other records in other countries could well result in the wrong sex.

One of the points I made (I hope not too confusingly) is that checking and proving a non-UK citizen's birth/actual sex (on or for one of these new digital IDs) could be nearly impossible, depending on what country they were born in, and how those records are held and released (or not). So you might not be able to get one of these new digital IDs with your sex on it anyway.

The government was until recently pushing these IDs as mandatory (this was dropped), for the right to work in the UK "for everyone."

Conveniently leaving out the fact, as the PP has said, most non-UK residents already have some form of digital id.

I think for a lot of countries, passport sex is reliable. It wouldn't be for countries that have self-id.

@SpiritAdder Ok, but Im just making an analogy. I’m not for or against Digital ID for immigration. My point is that if you are in a recruitment situation where you are screening applicants, there are scenarios where a reliable indicator of sex would be important and cannot necessarily be obtained elsewhere unless you ask for original birth certificate. So you can see why Sex Matters would push that as being important.

Right to work in the UK for immigrants is already digital.
https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work/get-a-share-code-online

those pushing for digital ID as a way to control immigration are Trojan horsing

I thought one of the reasons for bringing in digital ID was verification in recruitment scenarios and was aimed at immigration, so that employers could check someone is entitled to work in the U.K. Therefore, similar logic would apply here - imagine if you are recruiting for a position that has a single sex exemption (care home workers for intimate care, prison officers, nurses, counselling services, or a political shortlist) and you want to make sure you are only interviewing women - but you are only looking at applications, you don’t have the person in front of you. In such scenarios accurate sex on digital ID would be crucial, especially in a world where you can’t rely on passport or driving licence ID.

I think I'm mostly concerned with two things:

1. That we might be heading towards a situation whereby women (actual women) will have to prove they are women in order to access female single-sex facilities and care, simply because some men are not being required to follow the law: and
2. That having digital ID at all could eventually create "digital" women (and women who don't have access to the correct form of ID will not be able to "prove" they are female).

I suppose these are different arguments, and I can see what Sex Matters are trying to achieve, I think. I'm just wary of where this might lead.

And angry that we even have to be discussing this, when a simple "no, you are a man" would have sufficed 10 years ago, if the powers that be had cared enough about women's rights.

@BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth But, it's not as easy as saying "well, there will be a way of verifying the information, so what's the harm?"

I'm not sure that anyone is saying that exactly, and there are certainly good arguments for and against Digital ID in general. For me it is more a matter of, if digital ID is going to be available as an option, I don't see why it shouldn't have a sex marker in it. If proof of sex is going to be very difficult for some people born overseas then Sex Matters are suggesting ways that can be overcome, if the person involves wants their sex to be recorded on the ID.

If they don't want to record their sex then that won't matter, in the sense that the Digital ID is not going to be compulsory anyway.

At first glance, from Sex Matters'
Putting sex on digital-ID - a briefing:

Re verification (of sex, to confirm what is on the digital ID)

"For those born in other countries, other reliable administrative data sources would need to be found."

This will be a problem, for example, if a woman is from the US. Most states will not release personal birth, marriage, or death information about an individual to anyone (except the individual personally or that person's parents or legal representatives) until that person has been dead already for 20 or 30 years. Catholic records in Canada are normally not available online; one has to visit personally and convince the local parish priest to let you see them.

Believe me, I do a lot of family history, and these are stumbling blocks every time.

Many birth, marriage, and death records are therefore not available online, and simply would not be available to UK civil servant "checkers."

How will these women's sex markers be verified? How will mine be verified? How will a woman who has come from a war zone that no longer has verifiable records, be "verified " as a woman?

As I understand it, digital ID will be voluntary, so I don't feel the need to complete the consultation either way, and I'm not saying that the government has actually given any of this enough thought. But, it's not as easy as saying "well, there will be a way of verifying the information, so what's the harm?"

Thank you for the link. I will take a closer look.

Yes, I hear what you're saying about the poor frontline staff. I certainly wouldn't want to be one of them!

(my bolding)

Re

a) it can eventually be checked against the birth register which does keep the birth sex even after a GRC and

(b) there can be penalties

part of my concern is who is going to do the checking, who will impose penalties (will the penalties be punitive enough to deter the chancers?)

I am not confident that any government will be willing to put enough money into a process to cross check ID information and enforce penalties. The current government won't even enforce laws we already have.

Re

services can be "no sex marker no access".

I'm afraid I could never agree to this, especially if a woman would be required to have a digital ID in order to prove she is a woman. If another form of more common ID can be substituted, that might mitigate some of my objections, but some women will never have the "correct" form of ID.

But, I still would object to being forced, for example, to prove my "female status" at age 86, poorly, and in need of same-sex intimate care. It would be insulting to have to do this simply because some men won't obey the law and the government won't enforce it. It's not just about gym access and online dating.

I think we both want the same outcome here, but I think we disagree about how to get there!

The more interesting question is why do some people not want their true Sex to be recorded on a digital ID?

And thanks @KnottyAuty - mine is done.

Why do you need people to prove their sex? I thought you lot can always tell!