NHS update on recording patient sex and gender identity

The point is simply that trans people can have a legitimate privacy interest in information that identifies them as trans, and that interest doesn’t disappear because you personally can’t imagine wanting that privacy.

True. But in the absence of any better argument than, "They don't wanna," it does mean that their objection is noted, and can be safely discarded when creating policy.

This is the issue I have with the gender critical movement. It is incredibly paternalistic. Trans people are painted as incredibly vulnerable and unable to make sensible decisions, so you need to step in to guide us.

If the only objection is that people don’t want their sensitive data recorded, that objection can be ignored when making policy?
Is this a principle you apply generally? For example, would you also say that objections to mandatory recording of someone’s religion, HIV status, sexual orientation or mental health history can be ‘safely discarded’ if the only objection is that the individual doesn’t want that information recorded? Or is this reasoning specific to trans people’s privacy?

Well let's face it trans people do make some bloody silly decisions.Whoever thought getting their healthy boobs or willies cut off, or cutting flesh from their thigh rolling it into a tube and attaching it to their groin, was a sensible thing to do?

Even the transwomen I knew back in the day admitted surgery made no sense. They just wanted it anyway.

And how paternalistic would you have to be to agree to do that to someone else? Leaving aside any financial motivations, you're either playing God and doing something you wouldn't ever want done to yourself, or using someone else's body to validate your own irrational decision. Very paternalistic either way.

Well let's face it trans people do make some bloody silly decisions

I suppose that answers my question then? In your view, yes it applies specifically only to trans people's privacy because, in your view, "trans people do make some bloody silly decisions".

If the only objection is that people don’t want their sensitive data recorded, that objection can be ignored when making policy?
Is this a principle you apply generally? For example, would you also say that objections to mandatory recording of someone’s religion, HIV status, sexual orientation or mental health history can be ‘safely discarded’ if the only objection is that the individual doesn’t want that information recorded? Or is this reasoning specific to trans people’s privacy?

Well let's face it trans people do make some bloody silly decisions.Whoever thought getting their healthy boobs or willies cut off, or cutting flesh from their thigh rolling it into a tube and attaching it to their groin, was a sensible thing to do?

Even the transwomen I knew back in the day admitted surgery made no sense. They just wanted it anyway.

And how paternalistic would you have to be to agree to do that to someone else? Leaving aside any financial motivations, you're either playing God and doing something you wouldn't ever want done to yourself, or using someone else's body to validate your own irrational decision. Very paternalistic either way.

Why are they using the word observed for sex at birth? Sex at birth is your sex and determined by chromosomes and genitalia?

Maybe I'm being thick here but surely it's obvious what a babies sex is?

Sex is not sensitive data. So your comparisons don't stand.

Also: it's not about trans people. It's about everyone and anyone needing to have their sex recorded in their medical files. If trans people choose to make this a problem for themselves, well, it's on them, isn't it?

HIV status and mental health history would be relevant and included on a medical record, regardless of the wishes of the patient. Religion and sexual orientation may be if it was relevant. Again, why do you think sex should be unique in not being recorded on a health record?

I’m guessing you’re not very bright and don’t understand what paternalism means.

If the only objection is that people don’t want their sensitive data recorded, that objection can be ignored when making policy?
Is this a principle you apply generally? For example, would you also say that objections to mandatory recording of someone’s religion, HIV status, sexual orientation or mental health history can be ‘safely discarded’ if the only objection is that the individual doesn’t want that information recorded? Or is this reasoning specific to trans people’s privacy?

You’re conflating “sex is not inherently sensitive data for everyone” with “information about a person’s sex at birth can never be sensitive personal information for anyone”. Those are not the same proposition.

For a trans person, disclosure of their sex at birth can disclose their trans status, which they may reasonably have a legitimate interest in keeping private and choose to disclose only when clinically necessary. The fact that the same information may not carry the same sensitivity for another person doesn’t change that.

Sensitivity depends on context. A person’s address isn’t necessarily secret, but they may reasonably choose who they disclose it to. A medical condition — such as HIV status — may be relevant to treatment, but that doesn’t mean someone has no legitimate interest in limiting who can access that information. A previous name isn’t inherently sensitive, but for someone who has changed their name, disclosing it may reveal personal information about their history that they reasonably wish to keep private.

The same applies to sex at birth: it isn’t necessarily sensitive information for everyone, but for a trans person it can reveal their trans status. The important point is that sensitivity isn’t an intrinsic property of a piece of data; it can arise from what that information reveals about the individual and the context in which it is disclosed.

As for this being about “everyone needing their sex recorded”, that already happens. The issue is the requirement to record a person’s sex specifically as their sex at birth. For most people, the new requirement will make no practical difference because their sex at birth and their recorded sex are the same. For trans people, however, mandatory recording of birth sex creates an additional piece of information that identifies them as trans and may be accessible to people who would not otherwise know this about them.

HIV status isn’t a mandatory demographic field that every NHS patient has to have recorded in their record in the way sex at birth is being proposed. Where HIV is clinically relevant, it can of course be recorded, but NHS guidance specifically gives HIV information additional confidentiality protections and says it should not ordinarily be included in shared care records without explicit consent.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that sex should be uniquely excluded from health records. Sex is already recorded. The question is why it needs to be recorded specifically as sex at birth, and whether that additional information needs to be mandatory. For most people there is no distinction between their currently recorded sex and their sex at birth, so the proposed change will have no practical consequence. For trans people, however, there is a difference: mandatory recording of sex at birth creates an additional disclosure of information that can reveal their trans status, with implications for their privacy.

For example, would you also say that objections to mandatory recording of someone’s religion, HIV status, sexual orientation or mental health history can be ‘safely discarded’ if the only objection is that the individual doesn’t want that information recorded?

All of this information already forms part of your NHS records along with your sex at birth so even if you object to this information being recorded I'm afraid that train departed long ago.

You’re conflating “sex is not inherently sensitive data for everyone” with “information about a person’s sex at birth can never be sensitive personal information for anyone”. Those are not the same proposition.

For a trans person, disclosure of their sex at birth can disclose their trans status, which they may reasonably have a legitimate interest in keeping private and choose to disclose only when clinically necessary. The fact that the same information may not carry the same sensitivity for another person doesn’t change that.

Sensitivity depends on context. A person’s address isn’t necessarily secret, but they may reasonably choose who they disclose it to. A medical condition — such as HIV status — may be relevant to treatment, but that doesn’t mean someone has no legitimate interest in limiting who can access that information. A previous name isn’t inherently sensitive, but for someone who has changed their name, disclosing it may reveal personal information about their history that they reasonably wish to keep private.

The same applies to sex at birth: it isn’t necessarily sensitive information for everyone, but for a trans person it can reveal their trans status. The important point is that sensitivity isn’t an intrinsic property of a piece of data; it can arise from what that information reveals about the individual and the context in which it is disclosed.

As for this being about “everyone needing their sex recorded”, that already happens. The issue is the requirement to record a person’s sex specifically as their sex at birth. For most people, the new requirement will make no practical difference because their sex at birth and their recorded sex are the same. For trans people, however, mandatory recording of birth sex creates an additional piece of information that identifies them as trans and may be accessible to people who would not otherwise know this about them.